I think this is key. When you hire people to do work, they'll find stuff to do even if it isn't really necessary or a long term good for the company.

My favorite other example of this is when I see a UI redesign that didn't actually benefit anyone and was more a style change than anything, and sometimes actively makes usability worse (cough Liquid Glass cough) In those situations I always think "well, some designers on staff needed to justify their paychecks".

These are all the result of the principal agent problem

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/principal-agent-problem...

I think this is actually a bit different than the principal agent problem, at least how the principal agent problem is normally described and envisioned.

E.g. you often imagine cases like a manager making a decision that causes a short term pop in stock price (and bonuses to the manager) to the detriment of the long term health of the company when thinking about the principal agent problem. In the cases I'm thinking about, though, it's more that people rarely can do nothing, even if that's sometimes the best thing to do. E.g. large companies need to have lawyers and designers on staff for lots of reasons. But sometimes there just isn't enough work for these folks to do (even if they need to be "warm" and ready when important work comes along). And if there isn't enough work to do, these people will find work to do.

This is another reason why I think that, even though layoffs are painful, having people "milling about" without clear direction and purpose is the worst for everyone involved. These people will just schedule meetings, insert themselves where it isn't helpful, etc., just to make it seem like they have a purpose.

This could be thought of as a "variant" of the principal agent problem I guess, but this instance of "idle hands are the devil's playthings" is different enough from the "standard" principal agent problem that I don't think it's helpful to conflate these two things.

> But sometimes there just isn't enough work for these folks to do (even if they need to be "warm" and ready when important work comes along). And if there isn't enough work to do, these people will find work to do.

It is possible to find work in a different area at the company for such in-between times.

For example at the company where I work, a (very capable) secretary whose original role was not needed anymore, but for who there existed a very role in the future was for the in-between time assigned to assist some other department in their reporting duties to regulating authorities.

Not all employees are willing to rock the boat, ask around and risk exposing themselves as superfluous. It's less risky to always act like - or tell yourself - that every task that ends up on your desk require throughout diligence.

I think this is especially true at big corps with little actually meaningful work and where most people who actually care about doing meaningful work has left a long time ago.

Goodwill isn't "nothing", but good luck explaining that to a lawyer.

It's not even justify their salary. A lawyer's sole job is to advocate for the legal position of their client as zealously as possible. A really good chief counsel would go to the CEO and weigh up the merits of the marketing win of "losing" this case. A drone lawyer just files whatever is necessary (or even unnecessary) to fight the case even when it makes zero god damn sense. e.g. giving a person a 25 year prison sentence for stealing a slice of pizza.

> Also why would they give up something for nothing.

Because it provides zero value and costs something to keep.

They hired outside counsel to represent them in this matter.