Parasite Load Flagging

I'm not normally wont to focus on a negative. Barely any a solution seller is. Yet on occasion a truly knotty issue can vex.

Hence the ol' Sales antennae locked on with alarm to the construct of 'parasite load'.'

To précis as I understand it for our realm, the success of an enterprise attracts parasites. The greater that success, the more sophistication such parasites deploy.

A trickle of resources originally diverted to combat such drags inevitably cannot cope, and eventually the entire initial purpose fatally shifts.

Sabotage, looting, political activism can all take hold. The operation is cooked.

I'm reminded of Thomas Sowell's classic rails against bureaucrats. They can sit, undisturbed in plain site. Then decision asphyxiation strikes. Smooth progress stalls. Delay begets delay.

As the great thinker sets out, focus moves from what is best, to who decides what is best, and that becomes centred on what is so for those doing the deciding.

They then switch their efforts towards their own survival, which always seems diametrically opposed to what would help the organisation. Where procedure (revolving around them) is everything and outcomes are nothing.

This also brings to mind the scourge of today's Lanyard Class and Tantric Sector.

When confronted with this internally as a cubrep, I learned of the Sales Prevention Department. Its pernicious claws stifling deals to such an extent I saw superstar sellers jump ship. Absolute madness.

The idea is to gauge present parasite load levels. Head it off before the hydra explodes.

The state of semi-dormancy can be spotted. And we must.

I'm thinking of both within a prospect, but also a sanity check closer to home.

As our aim must not merely be to notice the parasites, but refusal to let the purpose of the endeavour be rewritten.

How long does someone typically take for email response?
What's their track record on voting for new initiatives?
Or bringing in ideas themselves, and if so of what type?
Where have they acted on bottlenecking?

One alarm I note as readily applicable to us;

"The more money [a council] gives to organisations claiming to treat drug addiction, the more addicts die of overdoses".

Where exists a place showing that the more pumped into fixing an issue, the more that issue stubbornly seems to occur?

Think too of Brooks’ Law; ‘adding manpower to a late software project makes it later’. We must spot similar. With pouring more into handling an internal problem simply entrenching the very people who benefit from it continuing.

You'll then know where checks and balances are not kicking in as planned, and someone is working to the detriment of the business.

You can further ask, 'what's been done on this before?', 'what resulted?' and, 'who did what?'.

Each providing precious insight into our political mapping.