Archive
Desired And Actual
One Size Fits All
On Bjarne Stroustrup’s FAQ page, he state’s his opinion on the utility of object oriented programming:
The strength of OOP is that there are many problems that can be usefully expressed using class hierarchies – the main weakness of OOP is that too many people try to force too many problems into a hierarchical mould. Not every program should be object-oriented. As alternatives, consider plain classes, generic programming, and free-standing functions (as in math, C, and Fortran).
The same could be said of organizations of people, no? Of course, in a purposeful org of people and machines, the goal is to produce and distribute material wealth to all stakeholders: products/services to its customers and financial well-being to its employees and owners. Thus, some sort of controller-controllee structure is required to keep the org from deviating too far from its purpose. There are alternative structures to hierarchy but, as Bjarne sez, “too many people try to force too many problems into a hierarchical mould“. Bummer.
A Missing Core Value?
I’d venture to say that every technology company has phrases similar to “elegant products“, “technical excellence“, “innovative solutions“, and “quality first” smartly written in its mission and/or core values statements. I’d also venture to say that “schedule is king” is not explicitly inscribed in those WORN documents.
Regardless of what is espoused in their cutesy mission and core values statements, all mediocre and underperforming corpricracies operate day-to-day as if “schedule is king” is their top priority. How many times have you heard managers say the words “quality“, “elegance“, or “excellence” when discussing or reviewing a project? Now, how many times have you heard the word “schedule” uttered by managers?
If “quality“, “elegance“, or “excellence” are never mentioned because they’re “auto-assumed” to be present in all project endeavors, then why write them down? If “meeting schedule at all costs” is really what drives day-to-day behavior in the DYSCO, then why not write it down and put it at the top of the list?
No Reflection
In “Seeing Your Company as a System“, uber systems thinker Russell Ackoff is quoted as saying:
“Experience is not the best teacher; it is not even a good teacher. It is too slow, too imprecise, and too ambiguous.” Organizations have to learn and adapt through experimentation, which he (Ackoff) said “is faster, more precise, and less ambiguous. We have to design systems which are managed experimentally, as opposed to experientially.” – Russell Ackoff
Judging whether an experiment is a success, failure, or something in between, requires the ability to pause and reflect on the results (or lack thereof) being achieved while the experiment is in operation.
In borgs run by self-perceived infallible popes, there is no experimentation and there is no reflection. Orders from above are assumed to be “right” and their execution is never perceived to be an experiment. They are undoubtedly based on an unquestioned, proven theory (usually Theory X) that’s underpinned by a set of rock solid axioms. If success doesn’t manifest as a result of carrying out papal orders, it’s auto-assumed to be the fault of the congregation, or (in less borgy institutions) mysterious supernatural forces beyond papal control. It’s unconscionable to think that the orders themselves were the cause of failure. Why? Because pauses during, and reflection after, execution are not allowed.
Sergeant Schultz Defense
We’ve heard it before, we’re hearing it now from formerly unassailable media mogul Rupert Murdoch, and we’ll hear it again from other self-important papal figures. Yawn.
What will we hear, you ask? Well, it’s the ubiquitous Sergeant Schultz defense: “I hear nothing, I see nothing, I know nothing“. But ya know, the hot shot dudes who whip out this get-out-of-jail-free card may actually be right. If they “skillingfully” setup their borg’s structure and culture so that they can’t know, then they won’t.
Schein On You Crazy Diamond
Edgar Schein is a well known MIT expert on the topic of organizational culture. In “A Corporate Climate of Mutual Help“, Mr. Schein describes his method for taking on the huge challenge of changing institutional culture. Wisely, he harbors a:
deep respect for the power and legitimacy of ingrained assumptions and attitudes that people develop together gradually.
While talking about the approach that CGHs, BUTTs, and SCOLs typically pursue when trying to improve their CLORG‘s culture, he sez:
they think that to change culture, you simply introduce a new culture and tell people to follow it. All you’ve done is stated the obvious, like “We’re for motherhood.”
Mr. Schein goes further in peeling the onion:
It’s the very nature of authority to say, “Don’t be a squeaky wheel. You made your point, but we’re going to go ahead anyway. I don’t want to hear any more.”
In lieu of the easy “dictate-and-skidaddle-away” strategy, Mr. Schein’s painstakingly thoughtful and time consuming approach to cultural change (which makes it unacceptable to most institutional SCOLs) is:
…one of observation, inquiry, and leverage.This means observing the ways in which an organization’s employees act; deducing (or inquiring about) the ways they think; and putting in place small behavioral changes that lead them, bit by bit, to think about things differently.
Notice that to execute Mr. Schein’s strategy requires sustained commitment, hard work, and empathy. You know, those traits that SCOLs demand from their subordinates but not themselves.
So, why is designing and implementing a healthy culture becoming more and more important in this era of social networking and instantaneous connectivity? It’s because:
…work in many companies is getting more complex, and subordinates have more relative power by virtue of their specialized expertise. If they choose to not tell the boss about problems, the company will never know that there’s an issue until it’s too late. The people with the most authority and established knowledge must make the others feel psychologically safe; everyone will speak up freely when something is wrong.
Of course, if institutional leaders auto-assume that their culture matches the esprit de corps they espouse it to be, then they don’t have a clue that it needs maintaining or (heaven forbid) improving. They then deserve what they get – a deterioration in the quality of work life for all (which includes themselves), which leads to increased apathy at the workface, which leads to decreased commitments to efficiency and innovation, which leads to a degradation in the borg’s products and services, which leads to an incremental (and undetectable) decline in long term financial viability….. until it’s too late and a hairball crisis appears seemingly out of nowhere.
Effective And Ineffective
In the 50 year old book, “The Human Side Of Enterprise“, Douglas McGregor lists the attributes of effective groups as follows:
- The atmosphere is informal, comfortable, relaxed.
- There is lots of pertinent discussion and it stays on track.
- The group’s task is well understood and accepted.
- Members listen to each other and have no fear of looking foolish.
- There is disagreement and no conflict avoidance.
- Decisions are made mostly by consensus.
- Criticism is frank, frequent, relatively comfortable.
- Members freely express feelings on problems and group operation.
- Clear assignments are made and accepted.
- The group lead doesn’t dominate and there is no struggle for power.
- The group is self-conscious and periodically reflects on performance.
So, do you think this list is outdated and inapplicable in this day and age? How many effective groups have you had the privilege of participating in?
For grins, let’s look at an inverted version of the list:
- The atmosphere is formal, uncomfortable, tense.
- There is lots of impertinent discussion and it wanders all over the map.
- The group’s task is vague, undefined and thus, unaccepted.
- Members ignore each other and put on a mask of infallibility.
- There is no disagreement and conflicts are avoided.
- Decisions are made by authority
- Criticism is personal and uncomfortable.
- Members cover up and suppress feelings.
- No assignments are made and tasks fall though the cracks – accepted by no one or the ubiquitous “we”.
- The group head dominates and there is much politicking to curry favor.
- The group is unconscious.
Which of these lists feels more familiar to you?
Downward Dependence
Almost everybody knows about, and behaves in accordance with, the concept of “Upward Dependence“. You know, the hapless dependence of the many toiling in the lower levels of a hierarchically structured org upon the few in the higher levels for financial, psychological and, in extreme cases (e.g. despot-commandeered governments), physical health. However, in CLORGs and DYSCOs, the reality of “Downward Dependence” is willfully ignored in the minds of the DICforce and the SCOLs who rule over them.
The term “Downward Dependence” captures the fact that the health of the whole org, which obviously includes its upper echelons, depends heavily on the quality and efficiency of the work performed in the lower tiers. As a minimum, a recognition of the reality of “Downward Dependence” requires:
- humility on the part of SCOLs
- assertiveness on the part of DICsters
In viable and cutting edge orgs, these behaviors are on display daily, but not in CLORGs or DYSCOs. In these types of monstrosities, the 18th century reward and punishment system they utilize requires the org’s SCOLs to don masks of infallibility and its DICs to be unassertive – regardless of whether the participants know it or not. Bummer for the “whole“, no?
Rimshot
Research In Motion (RIM) is the creator of the wildly successful Blackberry phone. However, even with the recent release of the well-respected (but too late to the game) Playbook tablet, RIM’s financial and market positions have started to erode as a result of the iPhone and Android onslaught.
Either RIM is shot, or they’re well on their way to being shot – as in “out of business“. For the details, check out “RIM gets handed open letter from disgruntled employee, quickly responds in kind — Engadget“.
The interesting aspect to this “open-letter-from-disgruntled-employee-to-management” case is that the anonymous employee is a senior executive and not a DIC; nor even a manager from a flabby middle borg layer. This fact just about seals the deal – RIM is probably shot.
Another serious piece of evidence that forbears the impending implosion of the RIM corpricracy is the totally predictable and papally infallible response from the corpo spin team:
Of course, as the papal response implies, the open letter writer is a traitorous, agenda-seeking coward and “the senior management team at RIM is fully aware of and aggressively addressing both the company’s challenges and its opportunities“.
But wait! The flood gates have opened and there appear to be several more traitorous, anonymous cowards in the borg that are coming forward. Gee, RIM’s hiring processes must suck to allow all these unethical yellow bellies through the door, no?
These Guys “Get It”
In the freely downloadable National Academies book, “Critical Code: Software Producibility for Defense“, the dudes who wrote the book “get it“. Check out this rather long snippet and place close attention on the bolded sentences. If you dare, pay closer attention to the snarky Bulldozer00 commentary highlighted in RED .
An additional challenge to the DoD is that the split between technical and management roles will result (has already resulted) in leaders who, on moving into management, face the prospect of losing technical excellence and currency over time. This means that their qualifications to lead in architectural decision making (and schedule making) may diminish unless they can couple project management with ongoing architectural leadership and technical engagement. The DoD does not (and legions of private enterprises don’t) have strong technical career paths that build on and advance software expertise with the exception of the service labs. Upward career progression trends leading closer to senior management-focused roles and further away from technical involvement tend to stress general management rather than technical management experience (well, duh! That’s the way status-centric command and control hierarchies are designed.). This is not necessarily the case in technology-intensive roles in industry (not necessarily, but still pervasively). Many (but nearly not enough) of the most senior leaders in the technology industry have technical backgrounds and continue to exercise technical roles and be engaged in technology strategy. Nonetheless, certain DoD software needs remain sufficiently complex and unique and are not covered by the commercial world, and therefore call for internal DoD software expertise. In the DoD, however, as software personnel take on more management responsibility, they have less opportunity and incentive to stay technically current (<- this “feature” is baked into command and control hierarchies where, of course, caste and who-reports-to-who is king – to hell with excellence and what sustains an enterprise’s health and profitability). At the same time, there is an increasing need for an acquisition workforce that has a strong understanding of the challenges in systems engineering and software-intensive systems development. It is particularly critical to have program managers who understand modern software development and systems (If that’s the case, then the DoD and most private enterprises are hosed. D’oh!).
Could it be that unelected, anointed “managers” in DoD and technology industry CLORGs and DYSCOs are still stuck in the 20th century FOSTMA mindset? You know, the UCB where they “feel” they are entitled to higher compensation and stature than the lower cast knowledge workers (architects, designers, programmers, testers, etc) just because they occupy a higher slot in an anachronistic, and no longer applicable, way of life – no matter what the cost to the whole org’s viability.
In command and control hierarchies, almost everybody is a wanna-be:
“I wanna rise up to the next level so I’ll: make more money, have more freedom, be perceived as more important, and rule over the hapless dudes in my former level“. Nah, that’s not true. BD00 has been drinkin’ too many dirty, really really dirty, martinis.
Why am I here?
WTF?
Meh!
D'oh!
My BTC Address
Bulldozer00's Blog 