[evancoop]

This is how companies plateau and become stagnant. The issues described do not spur action (e.g. "these two just need to collaborate better"), they fester, and eventually, a non-trivial number of internal teams are "captured." They won't burn the company down, the under-performing individual is not likely to do anything to warrant actually being moved/fired, and so, the status quo remains...and spreads.

And then we wonder why large companies simply cannot innovate or execute on broader change initiatives?

[Zeebrommer]

Makes me think of the Peter principle. Pretty depressing conclusion though: a large company is bound to be an environment with many distractions by underperformers. Any way out?

[bar_de]

Found your own company, be successful and start experiencing the same growth decline pattern.

Maybe it's a cycle to stop expanding human groups in excess?

[rewgs]

It's just entropy, honestly. Growth = complexity/debt/escalating coordination cost. Success = complacency/greed. Like a cancer, the fruits of growth and success eventually burn the house down.

It's just the way of things, apparently. I try hard to not worry about it too much and instead side-step it as best I can.