Archive

Posts Tagged ‘organizational behavior’

Double Whammy

Five Principles

Watts Humphrey is perhaps the most decorated and credentialed member of the software engineering community. Even though his project management philosophy is a tad too rigidly disciplined for me, the dude is 83 years young and he has obtained eons of experience developing all kinds of big, scary, software-intensive systems. Thus, he’s got a lot of wisdom to share and he’s definitely worth listening to.

In “Why Can’t We Manage Large Projects?“, Watts lists the following principles as absolutely necessary for the prevention of major cost and time overruns on knowledge-intensive projects – big and small.

Since nobody’s perfect (except for me — and you?), all tidy packages of advice contain both fluff and substance. The 5 point list above is no different. Numbers 1, 4 and 5, for example, are real motherhood and apple pie yawners – no? However, numbers 2 and 3 contain some substance.

Trustworthy Teams

Number 2 is intriguing to me because it moves the screwup spotlight away from the usual suspects (BMs of course), and onto the DICforce. Watt’s (rightly) says that DIC-teams must be willing to manage themselves. Later in his article, Watts states:

To truly manage themselves, the knowledge workers… must be held responsible for producing their own plans, negotiating their own commitments, and meeting these commitments with quality products.

Now, here’s the killer double whammy:

Knowledge worker DIC-types don’t want to do management work (planning, measuring, watching, controlling, evaluating), and BMs don’t want to give it up to them. – Bulldozer00

Besides disliking the nature of the work, the members of the DICforce know they won’t be rewarded or given higher status in the hierarchy for taking on the extra workload of planning, measuring, and status taking. Adding salt to the wound, BMs won’t give up their PWCE “job” responsibilities because then it would (rightfully) look like they’re worthless to their bosses in the new scheme of things. Bummer, no?

Facts And Data

As long as orgs remain structured as stratified hierarchies (which for all practical purposes will be forever unless an act of god occurs), Watts’s noble number 3 may never take hold. Ignoring facts/data and relying on seniority/status to make decisions is baked into the design of CCHs, and it always will be.

It’s the structure, stupid! – Bulldozer00

DIC In A Box

I’ll wager $0 cents that 99% of corpo America institutes some kind of (yawn) standard DIC-in-a-box compensation system as shown in the figure below. Why? Because that’s what the Sloan, Wharton, and other “elite” B-schools say is the “optimum” motivational system, of course. Plus, it’s the safest and easiest way to reward the DICforce. What box are you in, fellow DICster? If you’re a BM, you’re unboxed at the mysterious and unrecorded level N+1, where there is no $Max, right?

Check out the two radical, but non-theoretical, compensation systems in place at these two real and deviant orgs:

According to “normal” business criteria, which are profit and revenue growth, Fog Creek Software and Semco must be considered successful companies, no?

What kind of innovative compensation system does your company use?

The Art Of Rationalization

July 2, 2010 3 comments

A major defense mechanism that all human beings develop over time is the art of rationalization. A perpetrator (like me and you?) of “bad” behavior who doesn’t want to be held accountable for his/her behavior always uses the skill of rationalization to disconnect and distance him/herself from personal feelings of guilt and to convince others that the manifest behavior was “noble and just”. Street smart politicians, corpo managers, so-called leaders, and over-educated experts are extremely clever and highly skilled rationalizers. They’re at the top of Everest.

“Half of the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They do not mean to do harm… They are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.” – T. S. Eliot

Hitler is perhaps the ultimate example of a supremely skilled rationalizer. He not only convinced himself that the atrocities he committed against mankind were noble and just, this dude convinced an entire nation so effectively that “his” people deified him. Ominously, in many orgs around the globe, millions of little Hitlers operate unfettered. They perpetrate their “bad” behavior on their fellow human beings while (astonishingly) being rewarded for it. Blech!

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?

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!”.

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).

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?

High Level Doers

Jim Goodnight, (CEO of the SAS Institute, Inc), writes code on the side: “His first love is programming, which he likens to solving puzzles“. Marissa Meyer (Vice President, Search Products & User Experience, Google, Inc.) writes code on the side:

I still like to write some programs every year. I do some programming on the weekends. Lately it’s been more web-centric, using PHP and MySQL. The next thing I’ll try to tackle is the Google App Engine. I’m looking to do a little more programming with Python and Ruby on Rails. But I think it’s just an element of keeping my skills fresh by exploring some of these new trends and keeping my hand in coding, even if it’s on the side of core Google work. – From the book “Making It Big In Software

Gee, do you think this low level behavior by high level employees has anything to do with why these two companies are considered insanely great by boatloads of experts and laymen? How about your company? Forget about those in the stratosphere like Jim and Marissa, do any of your front line managers do any grunge work “on the side” to keep themselves grounded in reality? Probably not, because when they made the leap into the guild of management they became too self-important for such mundane activity. Plus, because they’re expected to be infallible, they can’t be “seen” making any mistakes by the DICforce.

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.

Survive And Prosper

The purpose of a living system is to survive and prosper. There are different levels of systems. For example, there’s the organization, the organizational unit, the organizational group, and the organizational worker. Each of these human-composed entities can be considered a System Of Interest (SOI) unto itself and, as the figure below shows, SOIs are nested and connected.

If you believe my BS assertion that the purpose of a SOI is to survive and prosper, then each SOI may (and almost always does) choose to do whatever it can to survive, regardless of the cost to other internally nested and externally coupled systems. Of course, since everything is connected, the actions chosen by one “subsystem” to optimize its survival can (and almost always does) degrade the survival chances of those subsystems nested within it and those systems in which it is nested. For example, if a Bureaucratic Overhead Org Group (BOOG) like “purchasing” puts a boatload of Draconian procedures and forms and approval barriers in place to show how “important” they are, they degrade corpo performance by hindering timely acquisition of external equipment and services needed to get the job done. Schedules slip, which means customers aren’t delighted, and the people in other SOIs think twice about ordering tools that could make them more efficient and happy.

The dysfunction is even worse than you think. When a member of another SOI tries to point out the inefficiency of a BOOG to the so-called BOOG Leader (BOOGL), the auto-defense instinct kicks into high gear. Clever BOOGLs (and they must be clever because they got themselves appointed as a BOOGL in the first place) twist the situation out of whack. The instigator and his/her native SOI are made out to be the cause of inefficiency in the BOOG. This is done, of course, so that the BOOGL and his/her BOOG can survive and prosper. It’s so sad that ya gotta laugh…… LOL!