Archive
Tribal Leadership
In “Tribal Leadership” (the audio version of the book is downloadable for free here), the authors summarize the results of their ten-year, 24,000 person research. Their tag line is: “Birds flock, fish school, and people tribe“. As a result of their experience, they’ve categorized organizational cultures into five “staged” types based on the general attitude of tribe participants.
The figure below and its accompanying annotations show my understanding of the TL authors’ message.
Notice that as one moves up the scale, the focus shifts from “me” to “we” and “all“. That’s why the authors assert that an epiphany is required to make the leap from stage 3 to stage 4. Successful people who are tired and frustrated at playing the dog-eat-dog game against other individuals at stage 3 shed their “it’s all about me” mindset and transform into sharers and effective catalysts for group advancement. Books and articles of techniques and tips for getting ahead, a multi-billion dollar industry targeted at the Donald Trump wannabes of the world, instantaneously become useless and irrelevant to stage 4 leaders. Those books and articles that concentrate on platitudes, community, and inspiration, formerly considered to be useless new age drivel, take on new meaning and serve as guidance for stage 4 leaders.
Reflecting on my behaviors and modus operandi over the years, I’m seemingly stuck in the isolationist world of stage 3 and impatiently waiting for the epiphany. How about you? Where are you, and are you at peace with your position?
The New Software Development Certification Fad
I like Alistair Cockburn‘s work, but I’m bummed. He, like fellow agilist Ken Schwaber, is on a certification kick. You know, like the phony belt colors in six sigma and the levels of “assessment” (<– psuedo-certification) in the CMMI and the “highly coveted” ISO-900X certification cartel.
InfoQ: Interview with Alistair Cockburn.
How well do you think certification/assessment systems have really worked to establish high quality products and services coming out of highly credentialed orgs and individuals? All it is to me is another way to extract snake oil money out of struggling orgs. You see, those few orgs that know how to develop high quality, value-added software products don’t need no stinkin’ certs. Those orgs that repeatedly screw up cuz of CCH mismanagement and misalignment need certs to give themselves a false sense of pride and to temporarily cloak their poor performance. However, when the money’s gone, the time’s gone, and the damn thang don’t work, the truth is revealed.
Greenspun’s Tough Love
In Founders At Work, Phil Greenspun recounts his tough-love approach toward molding his young programmers into well-rounded and multi-talented individuals:
For programmers, I had a vision—partly because I had been teaching programmers at MIT—that I didn’t like the way that programmer careers turned out. I wanted them to have a real professional résumé.
They would have to develop the skill of starting from the problem. They would invest some time in writing up their results. I was very careful about trying to encourage these people to have an independent professional reputation, so there’s code that had their name on it and that they took responsibility for, documentation that explained what problem they were trying to solve, what alternatives they considered, what the strengths and limitations of this particular implementation that they were releasing were, maybe a white paper on what lessons they learned from a project. I tried to get the programmers to write, which they didn’t want to do.
People don’t like to write. It’s hard. The people who were really good software engineers were usually great writers; they had tremendous ability to organize their thoughts and communicate. The people who were sort of average-quality programmers and had trouble thinking about the larger picture were the ones who couldn’t write.
So, did it work? Sadly, Phil follows up with:
In the end, the project was a failure because the industry trends moved away from that. People don’t want programmers to be professionals; they want programmers to be cheap. They want them to be using inefficient tools like C and Java. They just want to get them in India and pay as little as possible. But I think part of the hostility of industrial managers toward programmers comes from the fact that programmers never had been professionals.
Programmers have not been professionals because they haven’t really cared about quality. How many programmers have you asked, “Is this the right way to do things? Is this going to be good for the users?” They reply, “I don’t know and I don’t care. I get paid, I have my cubicle, and the air-conditioning is set at the right temperature. I’m happy as long as the paycheck comes in.”
FAW was published in 2008. Two years later, do you think attitudes have changed much? What’s your attitude?
Union Deterioration
It took me forever to concoct this dorky picture, so I’m not gonna try to ‘splain it with any accompanying words. Hopefully, you’ll understand my message. If you need clarification on my interpretation, please ask.
Cows And Babies
From The End of Management – WSJ.com:
“Corporations, whose leaders portray themselves as champions of the free market, were in fact created to circumvent that market.”
“In the relatively simple world of 1776, when Adam Smith wrote his classic “Wealth of Nations,” the enlightened self-interest of individuals contracting separately with each other was sufficient to ensure economic progress. But 100 years later, the industrial revolution made Mr. Smith’s vision seem quaint.”
“In recent years, however, most of the greatest management stories have been not triumphs of the corporation, but triumphs over the corporation.”
“The best corporate managers have become, in a sense, enemies of the corporation.”
“Corporations are bureaucracies and managers are bureaucrats. Their fundamental tendency is toward self-perpetuation. They were designed and tasked, not with reinforcing market forces, but with supplanting and even resisting the market.”
“The thing that limits us,” he (Gary Hamel) admits, “is that we are extraordinarily familiar with the old model, but the new model, we haven’t even seen yet.”
Alas, many smart people have been predicting the demise of mechanistic, coercive, command and control hierarchies for decades. But like Tom Peters said in a semi-recent tweet:
Looking on the bright side, since the herd will be practicing self-serving hierarchy till kingdom come, if you split with the cows and truly install a decentralized participative meritocracy that leverages all of the creative brains in your org instead of treating them like children, then you’ll kick ass. But, uh, how do you do that? Hah, the devil’s in the delicious details. I certainly don’t know how – I’m just a standard, run ‘o the mill RUU DIC.
Directors Of Disasters Wanted
As the title of the following “Directors Are in Demand, Even if Companies Fail” NY Times article states, high paid, do nothing directors who snoozed while the companies they “directed” went right down the tubular chute are still being sought out to “help” corpo survivors prosper.
While in some cases investors are suing members of the boards of the failed companies, shareholder advocates have for the most part focused their energies on other issues. And public outrage over the financial crisis has been mainly focused on the executives in charge of firms like Bear and Lehman.
In many cases during the real estate bubble, directors approved the strategy that paved the way for executives to make risky investments on borrowed money.
In our corporate system the directors are supposed to be in charge, not the C.E.O., yet they rarely get any of the blame because they’re typically dominated by the C.E.O.
The incestuous inbreeding that goes on in the CEO and board of directors stratosphere is so powerful that not even an A-bomb can break the lovefest. Of course, the classic response of board members from failed CCFs (which does have a grain of truth in the unlikely case where they’ve learned something from the failure) is that their hands-on experience will save their new CCFs from suffering the same fate. Uh, OK.
Get Your Beer Here!
The table below shows a mapping of 10 systems thinking approaches into 4 types based on primary “purpose“. I extracted this table from Michael C. Jackson‘s terrific “Systems Thinking: Creative Holism For Managers“.
Did you notice that the brilliant Stafford, awesome-last-name, Beer is listed twice and his “Team Syntegrity” approach falls under the “ensuring fairness of the system category“? In Jackson’s opinion, Beer created his cybernetics-based, recursive 5 subsystem, Viable System Model (VSM) for the purpose of improving the goal seeking performance of complex social systems. Beer, both a tasty drink and a staunch anti-hierarchy champion, got so pissed when BMs, BOOGLs, BUTTs, SCOLs and dudes with BFTs interpreted his VSM as just another way of implementing a CCH with omnipotent and omniscient bosses at levels 2-5, that he developed his wildly innovative, polyhedron-based, “Team Syntegrity” approach to ensure fairness in org governance. In his design of the VSM, even though Beer articulated that the sole purpose of subsystems 2-5 is to support the operations of system 1 at the bottom (you know, the DICforce where you and I dwell), people of importance still kept their self-serving UCB blinders on and interpreted his system of management to be hierarchical.
As the figure below shows, the VSM appears to be hierarchical on the surface and, since most (not all) managers operate on the “surface” because they no longer roll up their sleeves to dive into anything difficult to understand, they internalize it as a better way to run their CCH psychic prisons as instruments of domination. However, when one studies Beer’s VSM approach to org management, it’s a self sufficient system of collaboration and intergroup support with each subsystem playing a key role in the holarchy.
Improving, Exploring, Ensuring, Promoting
In Michael C. Jackson‘s rich and engrossing “Systems Thinking: Creative Holism For Managers“, Mr. Jackson describes 10 holistic systems thinking approaches designed to solve complex social managerial problems. As the tables below illustrate, Mr. Jackson allocates the approaches to four classes depending on the main purpose of the approach. For example, he asserts that Stafford Beer‘s “Team Syntegrity” approach is employed primarily to ensure fairness during the process of solving a complex social systems problem.
I really like Jackson’s book because of its breadth, vocabulary, and the way he covers each of the 10 systems approaches from its philosophical roots, to theory, to methods. He also supplies a real application example for each approach. In the final part of the book, Jackson integrates all of the approaches into a supra-holistic (?) approach that advocates mixing and matching elements of each approach and tailoring the “Creative Holism” meta-methodology to the specific “mess” at hand.
The last book that I read twice in a row was the brilliant Quantum Enigma by Fred Kuttner and Bruce Rosenblum. I’m gonna do the same with this masterpiece.
Science, Philosophy, Systems Thinking
In Michael C. Jackson‘s rich and engrossing “Systems Thinking: Creative Holism For Managers“, Mr. Jackson describes 10 holistic systems thinking approaches designed to solve complex social managerial problems. As he progressed from the earlier, purely science based, hard-systems thinking approaches to the modern, soft-systems approaches that attempt to fuse science with philosophy, I composed the two pictures below to help clarify my understanding. As usual, I felt an internal urge to externally express my discombobulated thoughts on the topic; so here are the pics.
The main distinguishing difference that I see between the hard/soft models is the way that internal system “parts” are characterized. In the hard systems approaches, the system parts are conveniently assumed to have no self-purposes. This, as some people know from experience, is a horribly wrong assumption for systems composed of individual persons – social organizations.
Social org BOOGLs, SCOLs, and BUTTs are forever mired in the hard systems thinking mindset of yesteryear. Their simplistic solution for suppressing any externalization of self-purpose that is at odds with their own is to either consciously or unconsciously apply force to extinguish it. History has shown that this ubiquitously applied technique works – temporarily.
In The “Old Days”
In the “old days”, when companies fell upon hard times and had to let some DICs go, or when the DICforce went on strike, jobs were mechanized enough so that managers could fill the holes and keep the joint running until the situation improved. Of course, in most orgs, that is no longer true today since most managers, certainly those that are BMs, shed and conveniently forget their lowly “worker’s skills” as soon as they are promoted out of the cellar into the clique of elites. Thus, a company that cuts front line DICs without cutting some managers puts itself into a deeper grave. Not only does productivity go down because the holes of work expertise go unfilled, but the overhead cost rises because the same number of managers are left to “supervise” fewer DICs. On the other hand, if all or most of the jettisoned DICs were dead weight, the previous sentence may not be true – unless dead weight BMs were retained. But hey, in the minds of most managers (and all of those who fall into the BM category), fellow comrade managers are not dead weight.
Update: Shortly after I queued this post up for publication, a friend(?) serendipitously sent me this link: Lockheed Martin press release. Notice the “delay” that took place from the time they shed 10000 DICs to the time they offered some 600 BOOGLs, CGHs, and SCOLs their (no doubt generous) “Voluntary Executive Separation Program“. Better late than never, right?
The executive reductions will help align the number of senior leaders with the overall decline of about 10,000 in the employee population since the beginning of last year, cut overhead costs and management layers, and increase the Corporation’s speed and agility in meeting commitments.
Nice corpo jargon, no?
Why am I here?
WTF?
Meh!
D'oh!
My BTC Address
Bulldozer00's Blog 