Efficiency is the enemy? (2021)
The article's central illustration actually contradicts the claimed point. In the illustration, the secretary, Gloria, has slack, but the purpose her slack serves is not to enable change, which is basically what the article claims slack is for. Gloria's slack is just to make sure that Tony, the CEO, <i>doesn't</i> have any slack: he's working all the time on whatever he thinks is highest priority, and never takes a break. And Gloria is not using her slack to think about ways to reinvent the organization to make it better. In other words, this central example is actually <i>not</i> an example of the benefits of slack: it's an example of <i>efficiency</i>--Tony works at peak efficiency and has no slack. So if Tony is doing good things as a CEO, the conclusion should be that efficiency is good, not that slack is good. Paying a secretary to have plenty of slack to support Tony is just part of the most efficient way for Tony to operate.<p>A much better example of the benefits of slack would be a CEO who <i>delegates</i> the day to day work to subordinates (which <i>includes</i> "making decisions", the thing the article says Tony's main job is), to give <i>himself</i> slack--more time to think about big picture things and consider ways to change the organization to make it better.