It is externally observed about Britain "The large number of unskilled 'managers'" That someone outside seeing a second-by-second reality here. Inured by years and decades of it, a friend still chortled when I portrayed an annoyance she related as being "a nothing" because it was "a laryngial reflex action". As in - there you are making the Company function, hooked into the vertical revenue-earning structure of the business
(there are "high-flyers" who strike the deals but rely on a raft of support making everything easy and pre-organised for them so they can walk in and concentrate solely on the arrangement which brings money into the Company and there are those who are not controlling the top end but are diligently "taking on-board" the needs of the topmost making everything happen as if it just does in return for a modest pouring of money to them)
with these horizontal stratems of "managers" whose job should be keeping the stationery cupboard stocked, booking-in the central-heating service company, etc. - who have transmuted into "managers" who pick into the revenue-generating activity.
But the big picture is - the economy is supporting some double-figure percent of people who seem to do nothing but these reflex actions without comprehension. Do these things and you are "managerial material" in Britain and you will be recognised, recruited and given jobs where you force people doing any actual doing to justify every little day-to-day thing - "taken on board" by those who self-validate as being a crucial.
Variants of the "How many managers does it take to change a lightbulb?" joke has got to extreme levels of sarcasm in response to the situation.
As I see it...
I am skeptical a successful enduring economy can come from this.
Those who have benefitted from talented success do identify similar. That the path they followed is not open now, and it would not be possible to replace a significant person in a Company because "the managers" would control it - with significant backing og the Law - "equal opportunities legislation and practice" - hence being able to insert one of their own.
Etc.
Rich S
----------------------------------- I attribute the rise of human drones to taxing the production of machines to artificially employ unproductive people. For government there is a direct advantage to the economy, for politicians a larger voting base, in private enterprise it's less clear. Perhaps if a manager's value and salary is tied to the number of people they manage the incentive is to add more up to a barely justifiable limit. They also serve as targets for blame, like the Specialist (Corporal) who took the fall for the Abu Ghraib scandal.
formatting link
There was a running joke in the Army that the Specialist who typed orders in the Pentagon actually ran everything because the officers never checked what he wrote.
Another is about what a Lieutenant should do when ordered to put up a flagpole. The correct answer is to say "Sergeant, erect a flagpole here" and then stay out of his way. I read the officer's instructions on setting up a Bailey bridge which support that. There's nothing on how to actually perform the work. In my case the orders were "It's broke, go fix it".
My Army position of being highly skilled but commanding no one didn't fit well into their structure and the rank and pay grade later reverted to Sergeant. It's difficult to weigh the value of engineers and scientists who work alone against that of a manager of many who gives direction and resolves conflicts but personally produces nothing. Ben Rich's memoir of directing the Lockheed Skunk Works mentions that dilemma.
In R&D an effective strategy is to partition the work into one-man units if possible, Mitre and Segway did that. That way they can cooperate between their fields without stepping on each other's toes within their own. I've read that British wartime research was handled that way, by very small groups. I expanded my role to packaging and programming only if no one else was available for them.