Comments: Cut 30% of Jobs Without Impact? The Bold Claim About Corporate Bureaucracy

Thierry Kneissler argues that large organizations could reduce their workforce by 30% without any noticeable impact on performance, pointing to inefficiencies, bureaucratic excess, and decision-making inertia as key reasons—yet he doubts such cuts will ever happen due to self-preservation dynamics.

Here's the link to his original post: https://www.dhirubhai.net/posts/thierrykneissler_ich-behaupte-grosse-organisationen-k%C3%B6nnten-activity-7294973232632254465-eEel/

Summary of the Comments on Thierry Kneissler's Post

Agreement with Nuances

Many commenters agreed with the claim that large organizations could cut 30% of their workforce without harming market performance. However, they pointed out that identifying which positions are truly redundant is much harder than stating the problem. They emphasized that ineffective job cuts can be just as costly as maintaining unnecessary roles, as wrong decisions could disrupt internal processes and damage long-term performance.

Inefficiency as a Symptom of Overabundance

Some compared corporate inefficiencies to obesity, arguing that organizations accumulate "fat" in times of prosperity. Without external pressure or financial constraints, bureaucracy expands. However, they also cautioned that cutting too deeply could lead to a loss of essential capabilities, much like excessive weight loss reducing physical performance.

Bureaucracy as a Self-Preserving System

A recurring theme was that bureaucracy perpetuates itself. Employees whose jobs exist primarily to maintain internal processes will resist change, leading to endless meetings, redundant reporting, and slow decision-making. Some cited Parkinson’s Law, which suggests that bureaucracies tend to grow regardless of actual workload.

Historical Evidence and Case Studies

Commenters referenced historical examples, such as Robert C. Townsend, who successfully restructured a failing company by aggressively eliminating bureaucracy. Others pointed to past corporate failures where excessive layers of management stifled innovation and responsiveness.

Alternative Approaches: Efficiency Over Layoffs

Several contributors suggested that rather than mass layoffs, companies should focus on better role allocation and streamlining processes. Many inefficiencies stem from poorly utilized employees rather than an actual surplus of staff. Effective workforce optimization could unlock more value than simply downsizing.

The Role of AI and Automation

Some argued that AI and automation could allow for even greater than 30% workforce reductions, as many repetitive tasks currently performed by humans could be automated. However, they noted that resistance to change and self-preservation among employees and managers often prevent these advancements from being implemented.

Public Sector vs. Private Sector

A few comments suggested that governments could reduce their workforce by an even higher percentage than private companies. Bureaucracy in the public sector was described as even more entrenched and resistant to efficiency improvements, primarily because there is no market-driven pressure to optimize operations.

Skepticism and Contrarian Views

Not everyone agreed with the premise. Some pointed out that large corporations often succeed because of their complexity, not despite it. They argued that reducing headcount by 30% could disrupt critical internal networks and knowledge-sharing, leading to unforeseen consequences.

Final Thought: Change Requires Courage

Overall, commenters agreed that inefficiency and bureaucracy are widespread problems but noted that eliminating them requires strong leadership, risk-taking, and accountability—qualities often in short supply at the top levels of large organizations.

The Leadership Deficit

There has been one criticism, that Kneissler’s analysis overlooks the role of leadership in large organizations. The inefficiencies he describes—layers of bureaucracy, endless meetings, and a lack of customer connection—are often symptoms of poor leadership rather than just structural bloat. A military analogy, the "Tooth-to-Tail Ratio," illustrates that support functions are essential for frontline effectiveness. The real problem arises when these support roles lack a clear understanding of their purpose, which is ultimately a failure of leadership, not just excess headcount.

Advanced Analytics

Photos / Images ??evAI Intelligence GmbH