In one of those sprawling, ever-buzzing corporations where PowerPoints sparkle brighter than the morning sun, there lived an ant — yes, a humble, diligent ant — who showed up every day at 9 a.m. sharp. No fuss, no drama, no ritualistic chai breaks. The ant simply walked in, settled at its tiny desk, and began to work with the devotion of a monk polishing temple bells.
It didn’t chase targets; it completed them.
It didn’t talk about productivity; it embodied it.
And perhaps most importantly, it worked with joy — a rare, glowing joy that had become almost extinct in the modern workplace.
The CEO, a lion whose presence could quiet a room faster than an audit notice, watched this silent marvel with growing interest. Here was an ant exceeding expectations daily. But the lion, struck by a vision of even greater efficiency, thought, What if the ant had a supervisor? Imagine the output!
And thus began the slow, steady unraveling.
Enter the Cockroach: The First Layer of Management
The lion hired a cockroach — seasoned, street-smart, and capable of producing detailed reports filled with bar graphs that looked impressive even when nobody understood them.
Within hours, the cockroach unleashed its managerial playbook.
First came the attendance register.
Then a documentation system.
Then a requirement for daily status updates.
And since this mountain of paperwork couldn’t write itself, the cockroach hired a secretary — a spider — meticulous, multi-limbed, and a natural archivist.
What was once a desk for one soon became a department.
The lion, meanwhile, was delighted. Reports began arriving with the regularity of sunrise. They were colourful, numeric, and business-like. They appeared to capture reality, even when they didn’t. At board meetings, the lion showed them off like prized trophies.
But the cockroach wasn’t done. It wanted tech.
And so an IT department materialized. A fly was appointed the specialist — always buzzing, always busy, and always resetting the system for problems it often caused.
The Ant Begins to Sink
Amid this administrative explosion, the ant — who once sang at work — now found itself attending meetings that could have been emails, filling forms nobody read, and participating in status reviews whose only output was more reviews.
Its job was no longer to work, but to report that it was working.
The once-bright workspace grew dim with bureaucracy.
The ant’s song faded.
And slowly, so did its productivity.
The lion, observing the decline, took the most predictable managerial step: it created another layer.
Enter the Cricket: Management Level 2
A new department was established. A cricket was brought in to lead it — a connoisseur of plush carpets, ergonomic chairs, and PowerPoint templates. The cricket believed deeply in structure, hierarchy, and the profound importance of having a personal assistant.
Rumours say the cricket held more meetings in a week than the ant had held conversations in a year.
Naturally, the department’s energy evaporated. The workspace that once buzzed with rhythm now echoed with silence. Laughter retired. Camaraderie dimmed. Everyone was too busy “aligning” and “realigning” and “strategising” to actually do their work.
Enter the Owl: The Consultant with a Report
Sensing something amiss (it was impossible to ignore the declining numbers), the lion hired a consultant — an owl — known for its wisdom, thick glasses, and invoices thicker than its reports.
The owl spent three months analyzing the ecosystem of the ant. It held interviews, surveyed morale, and studied performance charts with a seriousness that could terrify even graphs.
Finally, the owl emerged with a report — large, leather-bound, and heavy with recommendations.
The verdict?
“There is too much staff. Productivity has dropped. Downsizing is necessary.”
The verdict?
“There is too much staff. Productivity has dropped. Downsizing is necessary.”
The irony? The ant — the one who once carried the company on its tiny shoulders — was listed as lacking motivation and disrupting workplace morale.
And so, in a move that surprises no one who has worked in large organizations, the ant was shown the door.
Not the cockroach, not the spider, not the fly, and certainly not the cricket.
But the ant — the only creature who had actually ever done any real work.
The Parable Beneath the Punchline
This story, though dressed in whimsy, mirrors a harsh truth:
Over-management can destroy what it seeks to improve.
Somewhere between processes, procedures, and presentations, we forget that work does not get done by forms or meetings — it gets done by people.
When bureaucracy grows unchecked, efficiency shrinks silently.
When layers increase, clarity decreases.
When reporting takes precedence over doing, productivity collapses.
And when organisations value noise over nuance, the quiet contributors become invisible — until the day they disappear.
And by then, the system rarely realises what it has lost.
The Real Lesson: What Happens When We Stop Listening to the Ants
The ant’s fate is not fiction for many workplaces.
The ones who keep teams afloat are often the ones lost in the crowd.
Their silence is mistaken for passivity, their efficiency for simplicity, their focus for lack of ambition.
But here’s the truth every competent manager knows:
The quietest workers often carry the heaviest load.
Processes matter — but they are meant to aid productivity, not choke it.
Technology matters — but only when it empowers people, not replaces thought.
Leadership matters — but only when it listens before it decides.
If the story of the ant teaches us anything, it is this:
When the people who do real work stop singing, it is not their fault.
It is the ecosystem that has forgotten how to value them.
What About You?
Have you lived a version of this tale?
Seen an ant pushed aside by a cricket?
Watched a cockroach create paperwork for problems that didn’t exist?
Or witnessed brilliance buried under bureaucracy?
Share your thoughts, stories, and reflections.
After all, Indrosphere thrives on the lived experiences that make our workplaces — and our lives — the complex, curious ecosystems they are.
Great post! While process is crucial for consistency, quality, and scalability, too many layers or overly rigid processes can absolutely harm productivity. When processes become too bureaucratic, they can create unnecessary friction, slow down work, and even kill enthusiasm within teams. The key is to balance both—processes should simplify and support productivity, not hinder it. When processes become a barrier, they impact work culture and output negatively. A good process empowers employees, but flexibility is key to avoiding the stifling effects of overcomplication.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absolutely! You’ve nailed it—processes are meant to enable teams, not weigh them down. It’s all about finding that sweet spot where structure supports creativity and efficiency, but doesn’t choke it. Flexibility, as you said, is key. When teams can adjust processes to fit the situation, they’re empowered to move quickly and innovate without feeling bogged down by unnecessary steps. It’s the balance between order and agility that truly drives productivity and morale.
LikeLike
Thank you Roy for sharing this parable—it’s brilliantly told and sadly all too familiar. It resonated deeply with me, particularly as someone who has spent years in both structured corporate environments and fast-paced startups.
The story of the ant highlights a recurring issue in many organisations: when performance is overshadowed by process, and when the obsession with structure and optics takes precedence over actual output. Often, the quiet, consistent performers—the real value creators—are overlooked in favour of flashy reports, additional layers of oversight, and bureaucracy that may look impressive but add little to core productivity.
In my experience, I’ve seen how well-meaning attempts to “professionalise” or “streamline” operations can sometimes become counterproductive. Tools, meetings, and layers of supervision are useful only when they serve the people doing the actual work—not when they become ends in themselves. When management begins to lose sight of the ground reality, and decisions are made based on dashboards rather than dialogue, organisations risk alienating their best contributors.
More troubling is the conclusion of the story: that the ant was the first to be let go, labelled as demotivated. This reminds me of how low morale is often a symptom, not a cause, and unless leaders are attuned to what’s happening on the ground, they might misdiagnose the issue entirely.
The lesson here is not anti-management, but pro-awareness. Leaders must balance governance with empathy and constantly ask: Are we empowering our team, or entangling them?
The below I’ve Encountered in My Career:
The Ant: Quiet achiever, foundation builder
1. Consistency is undervalued but crucial – Me like the ant, consistent, quiet performers are often the backbone of any organization. I’ve learned to recognise and protect these individuals, even when others overlook them.
Experience:I have been the “ant” in many roles—especially in early banking career and during hands-on fintech leadership. Have showed up consistently, understood y responsibilities, and delivered results without needing oversight. Whether managing complex treasury functions or driving digital finance initiatives, I was focused, dependable, and quietly effective.
Impact:At times, my quiet performance was likely undervalued in environments where visibility mattered more than outcomes. Yet, contributions laid the foundation for success in teams—even when others got more credit.
Navigating Lions: Managing up to visionary but misaligned leadership
2. Leadership must stay connected to the ground – Lions may have vision, but unless they stay close to frontline realities, their decisions risk disrupting the very systems that work well. A leader must listen before they lead.
Experience: I have worked under senior leaders who, like the lion, meant well and wanted better performance but misunderstood the dynamics of their teams. In some cases, their decisions added unnecessary complexity—such as creating new layers of management or initiating “improvement” projects that derailed productivity.
Impact:I had to adapt to their top-down directives, manage upward communication, and often shield team from misaligned expectations. Sometimes, I may have had to reverse or clean up after inefficient structural changes that came from above.
Cushioning Cockroaches: Keeping your team focused despite overbearing reporting
3. Structure must serve purpose—not the other way around – The cockroach taught me that over-management can paralyse progress. Systems, dashboards, and meetings must enhance productivity, not replace it.
Experience:
In traditional banking setups or during fintech scaling phases, I have likely encountered people who, like the cockroach, created systems for the sake of control—introducing reporting mechanisms, KPIs, or procedures that looked good on paper but distracted from real work.
Impact: I would had to spend time on unnecessary reporting, defend team’s productivity, or justify why operational freedom mattered more than micromanagement. It likely made me more cautious when hiring or collaborating with process-heavy professionals.
Managing Spiders : Balancing compliance and tech with actual needs,Back-office, documentation, compliance-heavy functions
4. Compliance should not override common sense – From the spider, I’ve learned that while documentation is essential in regulated industries, it must not become a substitute for action.
Experience:
Especially in regulatory-driven sectors like banking or when preparing audits, I have worked with (or managed) people like the spider—who are obsessed with documentation and record-keeping. While valuable in compliance contexts, their focus can sometimes stall agility.
Impact:
I had to ensure documentation didn’t outweigh decision-making. I likely coached teams to balance governance with execution—ensuring efficiency wasn’t lost in bureaucracy.
Managing Flies: Balancing compliance and tech with actual needs
5. Technology is a tool, not a trophy – The fly reminds me that tech adoption must be thoughtful and user-driven. Shiny tools don’t equal better results unless they solve real problems.
Experience:
During digital transformation in fintech role, I have seen roles created for tech support or automation that didn’t always align with core business goals. Much like the fly, these roles were reactive rather than strategic.
Impact:
I probably had to course-correct tech implementations, pushing back on IT tools that complicated workflows or didn’t solve actual problems—advocating instead for user-friendly, results-oriented tech adoption.Tech teams introduced for superficial productivity gains.
Correcting Crickets: Steering away from style-over-substance leadership
6. Not all ‘leaders’ are effective – The cricket symbolizes performative leadership. I’ve seen firsthand how focusing on optics and hierarchy can slowly erode a team’s spirit and momentum.The well-spoken but disconnected leader.
Experience:
I have interacted with leaders like the cricket—more concerned with office décor, strategic presentations, and status than actual team dynamics. Their leadership style is about impression over impact.
Impact:
Their decisions may have demoralized team, diluted accountability, or created friction. I likely had to recalibrate such leadership influences—reminding teams to stay grounded and focused on value.
Challenging Owls: Defending your people from superficial judgments, They are Outsiders with polished reports but limited insight.
7. External advice needs internal wisdom – The owl taught me that consultants and audits offer value, but they must be weighed against the lived experiences of those who actually do the work.
Experience:
Whether during audits or board reviews, I have seen consultants like the owl come in with thick reports, well-structured recommendations, and sweeping conclusions—often without fully understanding team dynamics or the history behind performance dips.
Impact:
I have had to defend team from unfair assessments, or worse—watched capable colleagues be let go based on skewed interpretations. This taught me the importance of narrative and internal documentation, even when the work “speaks for itself.”
8. The cost of neglecting real contributors is high – When organisations lose sight of who actually delivers value, they risk making decisions that damage their core. Losing the “ant” hurts more than it seems.
Empower the quiet workers. Simplify the process. Stay connected to your team. And never let management become a burden to those who make things work.
This parable, and my own journey, are reminders that leadership is not just about steering the ship—it’s about protecting and enabling those who keep it afloat.
LikeLike
Thank you for such a thoughtful and insightful comment! You’ve beautifully captured the essence of how organizations, regardless of their structure, can easily lose sight of what truly drives success. Your experiences resonate strongly, especially the emphasis on protecting and empowering those “quiet achievers” like the ant. It’s so easy for leaders to get caught up in the optics, but the true value lies in those who deliver the consistent, reliable results.
I particularly appreciate your point about leadership staying connected to the ground reality. It’s all too common for decisions to be made in a vacuum, with little understanding of the actual challenges teams face. Your perspective on balancing governance with empathy is key—leaders need to listen first and lead second.
You’ve also nailed the role of technology, compliance, and external consultants in the larger ecosystem. It’s crucial that these tools and interventions don’t overwhelm the people who are the real drivers of progress. Your reflections on balancing structure with common sense really hit home.
This is a reminder that leadership should be about creating environments where people can thrive, not simply following the latest trends or adding layers for the sake of visibility. Thanks again for sharing your experiences and insights—they’re incredibly valuable!
LikeLike
What a brilliant allegory wrapped in wit and truth. The way you’ve used simple characters—an ant, a cockroach, a cricket—to echo the complex realities of today’s corporate structures is masterful. It’s both
humorous and haunting in its message
You’ve reminded us that unchecked processes and misplaced supervision can smother genuine productivity. The ant, with all its quiet dedication, becomes the tragic hero—sidelined not by incompetence, but by the very system meant to support it.
The tale brings home a resonant message: > Efficiency thrives in trust, not layers of oversight. When organizations value process over purpose, and optics over outcomes, they risk alienating their real contributors.
The ant symbolizes genuine dedication, self-motivation, and quiet excellence—sacrificed in the name of structure and control. The deeper irony? The system built to boost productivity ends up eroding it entirely
Your narrative didn’t just entertain—it made me pause and think. This isn’t just a tale; it’s a subtle but powerful reflection of what many professionals experience but struggle to articulate.
Kudos for capturing something so relatable with such grace. More power to your pen (or keyboard)! ✍️👏
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you so much for this deeply thoughtful and eloquent response. You’ve not only grasped the core of the allegory but expanded it with such clarity and insight—it’s incredibly heartening to read. Indeed, the quiet tragedy of the ant mirrors what so many diligent professionals endure in environments where structure overtakes sense, and supervision overshadows substance. Your observation—“Efficiency thrives in trust, not layers of oversight”—perfectly captures the crux of the message. I’m grateful that the story resonated with you and sparked reflection. Here’s to valuing purpose over process, and to all the silent ants out there who keep the wheels turning. 🙏🐜
LikeLike
Pretty much captures the essence of any Organization. The example given is apt and the narrative keeps the reader interested. Thank you
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks!
LikeLike