Management styles and methods are all over the map in big businesses. Some places are a bitch to work for, some aren't. But it's certainly NOT unusual for management in an organization to not understand who is providing the value added in their org. At one point UM spent a 7 figure consulting contract with the firm that used to be Arthur Anderson. They came around and did survey and time studies. A lot of people got their task time audited. The conclusion they came up with was to centralize purchasing across the all the research departments (with lower cost clerks of course). A couple of hundred people were given notice they would be let go. Of course the faculty was asleep at the wheel all the time this was going on or they probably could have saved a lot of trauma. In any case, once the plan was announced, all the people that knew better informed TPTB that commissioned the study that department purchasers were basically all specialists in various arcane technologies and supply chains and if you tried to centralize purchasing, what you would end up with would be faculty members (the most expensive employees in the org) spending all their time hand-holding purchasers who had no clue what they were trying to buy. Plan was called off, money was wasted, but it did grease the skids for at least one high ranking administrator's exit. Stupid episode but indicative of the fact that you even if you pay a lot of money supposedly to analyze what your org is doing, it's no substitute for management that understands its org in the first place.