Archive

Posts Tagged ‘linkedin’

Three Types

One simple (simplistic?) way of looking at how orgs of people operate is by classifying them into three abstract types:

  1. The Malevolent Patriarchy
  2. The Benevolent Patriarchy
  3. The Meritocracy

Since it’s so uncommon and rare to find a non-patriarchically run org (which is so pervasive that the genre includes small, husband-wife-children, families like yours and mine), I struggled with concocting the name of the third type. Got a better name?

The figure below shows a highly unscientific family of maturation trajectories that an org can take after “startup”. The ubiquitous, well worn path that is tread as an org grows in size is the Meritocracy->Benevolent Patriarchy->Malevolent Patriarchy sojourn. Note that there are no reverse transitions in any of the trajectories. That’s because reverse state changes, like a Benevolent Patriarchy-to-Meritocracy transformation, are as rare as a company remaining in the Meritocracy state throughout its lifetime.

The state versus time graph below communicates the same information as the state machine family above, but from a time-centric viewpoint. Since “all models are wrong, but some are useful” (George Box), the instantaneous transition points, T1 and T2, are wrong. These insidious transitions occur so gradually and so slooowly that no one, not even the So-Called Org Leadership (SCOL), notices a state change. Bummer, no?

Push Back

June 29, 2010 4 comments

Besides being volatile, unpredictable, and passionate, I “push back” against ridiculous schedules. While most fellow DICs passively accept hand-me-down schedules like good little children and then miss them by a mile, I rage against them and miss them by a mile. Duh, stupid me.

How about you? What do you do, and why?

Stewardship

June 27, 2010 2 comments

In “Stewardship: Choosing Service Over Self-Interest“, Peter Block logically and unemotionally exposes the warts of patriarchical management and promotes the concept of stewardship as a much needed replacement for it. Check out these gems:

The antidote to self-interest is to commit and to find cause. To commit to something outside of ourselves. To be part of creating something we care about so we can endure the sacrifice, risk, and adventure that commitment entails. This is the deeper meaning of service.

When patriarchy asks its own organization to be more entrepreneurial and empowered, it is asking people to break the rules that patriarchy itself created and enforces.

Stewardship is the willingness to hold power, without using reward and punishment and directive authority, to get things done.

Many managers open the door to their employees, and no one walks through it. (BMs love when no one from below confronts them).

At the heart of entitlement is the belief that my needs are more important than the business and that the business exists for my own sake. (BMs always think this way).

At some point each of us has to discover that our self-interest is better served by doing good work than getting good things.

“Are you here to build a career or to build an organization?” has to be clear and without hesitation…we are here first to build the organization.

“You are teaching revolution to the ruling class.” The phrase stayed with me. There is something both unsettling and very true about it. The truth is that we are, in fact, talking about a revolution. Revolution means a turning. Changing direction. The act of revolving. It means the change required is significant, obvious even to the casual observer. Obvious, for example, even to customers. It is more comforting to talk about evolutionary change. Evolutionary change means that everything is planned, under control, and reasonably predictable.

Getting better at patriarchy is self-defeating. Having one group manage and one group execute is the death knell of the entrepreneurial spirit. (BMs ignore this).

The notion of management prerogatives disappears. There is no privileged class of people. Everyone does work that brings value to the marketplace. And everyone should do some of the core work of the organization part of the time. (BMs have no idea how to perform core work).

Measure business results and real outcomes, stop measuring people’s behavior and style in getting there.

The trick here is to be accountable without being controlling. Patriarchy has always justified control on the basis of accountability.

Overhead costs are an interesting one. We are very verbal about the costs of direct labor. There is much less information on the cost of field overhead or, especially, home office overhead charges and what they consist of. (BMs think they are worth every overhead penny that they consume).

We have been swinging between centralization and decentralization for decades, with our patriarchal method of governance remaining unscathed.

Systems are usually designed to control people, not to give those close to the customer information to make good decisions for the business.

Groups that invent, design, produce, market, sell, and deliver the product or service are the line functions. The line functions are what are referred to in this book as the core work teams or core workers. (These are the DICs).

The main limitation of a functional structure is that it does not react well to the customer’s need for quick and whole-system oriented solutions.

If you insist on having an appraisal process, let people be appraised by their customers. This means bosses will be appraised by their subordinates. (BMs think subordinates have no right to appraise them).

Everyone likes the idea of pay for performance, but most of us have rarely experienced it. We most often get paid on the basis of how our boss evaluates us. This is more accurately called “pay for compliance.”

A demand for measurement is an expression of doubt and lack of faith.

Middle managers who made a living planning, organizing, and controlling are no longer needed and, in fact, get in the way. If they cannot now answer the question of what real value they add to their unit, then perhaps they are no longer needed. (LOL!)

Victims are strong believers in patriarchy, they are just angry that they are not the patriarchs. (Victims = DICs like you and me).

We replace coercion and persuasion with invitation.

At nights and on weekends we cry out for human rights and freedom of speech, and then we go to work and become strategic and cautious about our every word for fear we will be seen as disloyal or uncommitted.

Of course, since Block’s views align closely with my own, reading the book got me all juiced up. I found myself rooting for him and constantly saying to myself: “Wow, I wish I’d thought of that!”.

Work Life Balance

June 26, 2010 6 comments

Since I develop software for a living, I’m not fully on board with Richard Stallman‘s radical views regarding free software. However, in an interview with the author of the book “Making It Big In Software” (which is pathetically patronizing and patriarchical – so don’t buy it), Richard answers the question:

How do you achieve a work-life balance? How do you keep your software life from dominating everything?

with

Why would I want to do that? ….. This is not just a pastime and not just a job. It’s the most important thing I know any way to do. I’m proud of it, and when I achieve something, I am very satisfied. It should be the main focus of my life, and it is.

I’m on board with that. I go on week-long fishing, golfing, and Mardi Gras jaunts, but other than that, I love specifying, architecting, designing, writing, and testing software. I feel the same way about what I do as Richard does about his passion.

How about you? Is the line of demarcation between your work and your life blurry, or fine? Do you think it’s “bad” if someone doesn’t clearly distinguish between “work” and “life”?

Cppcheck Test Run

June 22, 2010 2 comments

Since I think that a static code analyzer can help me and my company produce higher quality code, I decided to download and test Cppcheck:

Cppcheck is an analysis tool for C/C++ code. Unlike C/C++ compilers and many other analysis tools, we don’t detect syntax errors. Cppcheck only detects the types of bugs that the compilers normally fail to detect. The goal is no false positives.

After the install, I ran Cppcheck on the root directory of a code base that contains over 200K lines of C++ code. As the figure below shows, 1077 style and error violations were flagged. The figure also shows a sample of the specific types of style and error violations that Cppcheck flagged within this particular code base.

After this test run, I ran Cppcheck on the five figure code base of the current project that I’m working on. Lo and behold, it didn’t flag any suspicious activity in my pristine code. Hah, hah, the last sentence was a joke! Cppcheck did flag some style warnings in my code, but (thankfully) it didn’t spew out any dreaded error warnings. And of course, I mopped up my turds.

Because of the painless install, its simplicity of use, and its speed of execution, I’ve added Cppcheck to my nerd toolbelt. I’m gonna run Cppcheck on every substantial piece of C++ code that I write in the future.

I want to sincerely thank all the programmers who contributed their free time to the Cppcheck project for the nice product they created and unselfishly donated to the world. You guys rock.

Executive Misnomer

I don’t know why the dudes at the top of the corpo food chain are called “executives”. They don’t execute anything except non-conformers. They coerce and patronize others into bidding their will – which is to make themselves rich regardless of the performance of their orgs.

  • CEO = Chief Evisceration Officer
  • COO = Chief Oppression Officer.
  • CTO = Chief Torture Officer

Sycophant compensation committees reinforce the ubiquitous make-me-rich executive process by striving to pay execs as much as they can (to retain top “talent”) while striving to pay the DICforce as little as possible (to keep fixed costs down).

Cucumbers, Pickles, Brine

June 19, 2010 1 comment

It’s been a while since I read Gerry Weinberg’s “Secrets Of Consulting“, but the cucumber-pickle-brine story has been frequently appearing (uninvited, of course) in my mind. It goes something like this:

No matter how vehemently a cucumber says he/she will not turn into a pickle if dropped into a barrel of pickles filled with brine, he/she will get pickled. No exceptions.

When a DIC crosses the magical threshold into the land of privilege, the guild of management, the cucumber-to-pickle transformation is inevitable. From lowly wealth creator to status taker, schedule jockey, planner, watcher, controller, evaluator. Trouble is, most cucumbers want to get pickled.

Ornament And Substance

When you’re forced to be simple, you’re forced to face the real problem. When you can’t deliver ornament, you have to deliver substance. – Paul Graham (Hackers And Painters)

Mr. Graham’s quote explains why the higher one goes up in the corpo chain of command, the more jargon-filled and superficial the communications bestowed upon the adoring DICforce below. This ornament/substance conundrum is also true for DIC to DIC communication when one DIC is a highly credentialed complexifier and obfuscator. You see, when people don’t know what they’re freakin’ talkin about and they feel the egoic need to appear infallible and all-knowing, they’re compelled to cover it up by attempting to make others feel inferior and dumb.

Alas, don’t lose your faith in humanity because it’s not the individual ornament-deliverers that are “bad”. It’s the ancient pyramidal class system that they’re an integral cog in that weaves that behavior into the fabric of their being. Because the ornament/substance dichotomy is a blind spot to them and the system automatically provides them with power and riches (at the expense of the whole), the system’s designers and maintainers have no incentive to blow up and redesign the system for optimal performance of the whole. Plus, virtually every other corpricracy is structured as a CCH, so it must be right, no?

Emergent Design

I’m somewhat onboard with the agile community’s concept of “emergent design“. But like all techniques/heuristics/rules-of-thumb/idioms, context is everything. In the “emergent design” approach, you start writing code and, via a serendipitous, rapid, high frequency, mistake-making, error-correction process, a good design emerges from the womb – voila! This technique has worked well for me on “small” designs within an already-established architecture, but it is not scalable to global design, new architecture, or cross-cutting system functionality. For these types of efforts, “emergent modeling” may be a more appropriate approach. If you believe this, then you must make the effort to learn how to model, write (or preferably draw) it up, and iterate on it much like you do with writing code. But wait, you don’t do, or ever plan to do, documentation, right? Your code is so self-expressive that you don’t even need to comment it, let alone write external documentation. That crap is for lowly English majors.

To religiously embrace “emergent design” and eschew modeling/documentation for big design efforts is to invite downstream disaster and massive post delivery stakeholder damage. Beware because one of those downstream stakeholders may be you.

Approver To Approvee Ratio

June 14, 2010 4 comments

Every non-trivially sized profit-making organization has a number of approvers and approvees. For approvees to be enabled to do anything of significance like, uh, create products and respond to customers, they need the blessing of one or more approvers. As the graph below implies, it’s the “or more” word duo in the previous sentence that has an ominous connotation.

As the AAR in a group of people organized for a purpose increases, the org’s CPERF will start declining at some point in time. At a mystical value of “K”, the point of no return is reached and it’s all down hill from there. As the K threshold is exceeded, the maze of approver signatures that an approvee needs to navigate becomes untenable and the responsiveness of the “system” goes down the crapper. Even worse, the lower class approvee subgroup soon jettisons its sense of initiative and only assaults the approver fortress when a high ranking approver him/herself forces the action.

In clueless corpricracies, no one diligently watches over the AAR and prevents it from exceeding K. Quite the contrary, approvers love to hire more approvers because they have much in common with them and they love to have other approvers report to them – so they can approve the underling approver’s future requests for approval.

Approve, approve, approve your request, gently up the chain.
Sourly, sourly, sourly, sourly, work is but a drain.