Aside from the existing system having inertia, there may be regulatory or legal requirements protecting certain teams and processes that make automation trickier. Even if this isn't the case, the current system works, and so improvements need to be weighed against that; most likely, it's a long-term, strategic shift to a new process, because large organizations rely on processes to shield themselves from the legal system. Finally, any individual coming in and waging civil war on other departments within the organization is always bad, even if they're right in the long run.
> Finally, any individual coming in and waging civil war on other departments within the organization is always bad, even if they're right in the long run.
Yes, an individual going alone against entrenched powers will feel an unpleasant burning sensation.
Still, at times an entire department is already looked at as a black sheep. A key hire can just provide “cover” for what most people in the organization already know. The new blood might not tread lightly. It can work, if the attack dog has cover and support. This has the added benefit of providing a ready to burn scapegoat if the “excision” / reorg doesn’t go well.
Out of curiosity, given that you appear to have more experience in this domain:
1) if there is a regulatory reason behind "protectionism" of some employees/departments, why not outright announce it to the rest of the company?
2) if you're saying that someone that wages "civil war" against other employees is bad regardless of their motivations, what would be your alternative for someone genuinely knowing the best long-term outcome for the company but otherwise lacking the necessary connections to play "puppet master" behind the scenes or pass money under the table to influence the right people?
