there is this idea floating about inverting business, to wit:
* There are people in your org who materially participate in delivery of goods/services/etc
* Then there are supportive functions provided as a service to material participants
* Then there is dead wood
* There are people in your org who materially participate in delivery of goods/services/etc
* Then there are supportive functions provided as a service to material participants
* Then there is dead wood
It's interesting. It suggests that the people building, designing, and selling your cars are "the real business," managers and purchasing and HR and finance are supporting the primary functions, and anyone not supporting design/build/deliver are basically waste.
Likewise you would have software development, testing, delivery, operation, sales, and service in a software house as primary functions. Those who "give them the environment and support they need" are supportive, anything else may be waste.
It's utilitarian, and rather communist/socialist in nature. But it's also somewhat compelling -- if the business function is really the function of the business.
If the goal is to turn over stock shares quickly at a profit, then probably the primary function is making the books look good quarter over quarter, and actually selling and making stuff is supportive of that.
So I wonder if it's an axiom rather than a theory. It maybe describes what the real function of an organization is and who it serves. Those primary in delivery are key, everyone else is support or dead wood.
And that suggests that if you don't know which one you are, it's because you don't understand what business you are really in. If you find yourself dead wood, you might want to find a way to materially participate or support those who do.
Something to chew on.
But one has to get past judging the rule as good or bad, communist or capitalist, fair or unfair in order to look and see if rather than being moral/ethical/etc, maybe it's simply *descriptive* and possibly true.
