Archive
What Would It be Like?
In this TED video, Sir Ken Robinson asks: “What would the world be like if all knowledge was instantaneously accessible to everyone at any time?” My less ambitious question is “What would the workplace culture be like if every manager, from the pinnacle of power all the way down the chain, made it his/her top (but obviously not only) priority to ensure that every one of his/her direct reports has continuous access to the tools, training, and information to get their jobs done?
Different Views
In all triangular CCHs (Command and Control Hierarchies), the DICs (Dweebs In the Cellar) directly create the value added outputs that sustain the enterprise. It’s management’s job (I think?) to ensure that the quality of those outputs is high enough for customers to want to buy the CCH’s products and services over competing CCHs. Of course, there are many ways to accomplish this. One is to inspect the outputs, a second is to get customer feedback, a third is to directly sample intermediate points in the value stream, and a trio of closely coupled others is to; personally descend to the cellar, observe what the DICs see, listen to what the DICs have to say regarding the issues/obstacles they face, and act “aggressively” (corpo-speak for “effectively”) to resolve those issues/obstacles. Note that the verbs, which require “hard work”, are emphasized.
The simple, dorky figure below tries to convey the difference in viewpoint between the DICs and the apex dwellers. Unlike the hierarchs, who operate freely and do whatever they want whenever they want, the DICs operate within a fragmented web of constraining “support” processes and “direction” from former DICs-turned-mini-hierarchs (picture mini-me in the Austin Powers movie franchise). Over time, since the hierarchs (and more importantly, the mini-hierarchs in training) stay away from the dirty and musty cellar and don’t do anything of substance to improve the environment, the stratification increases, the latency from raw input to value-added output increases, and the quality of output decreases. Bummer.
In CCHs with stay-at-home corpocrats, the deterioration in responsiveness and quality often gets detected at that point in time in which the real issues that are wreaking havoc are virtually unsolvable. Even then, the so-called leadership team stays away from the boiler room, speculating from afar at the causes of the performance deterioration. Out of all the methods for continuously monitoring and improving DIC performance, I assert (with no backing scientific evidence, of course) that frequent, periodic trips to the cellar to rub elbow grease with the DICs is the only true way of improving performance. Even if it’s impractical for the supreme hierarchs to do this, it’s not impractical for the mini-hierarchs, dontcha think?
Gift Wrap
In dysfunctional corpocracies, it’s not only acceptable, but it’s expected that STSJs (Status Takers and Schedule Jockeys) will routinely drop turd-bombs on DICs (Dweebs In the Cellar) when schedules, no matter how far off the mark they are, are not met.
However, it’s socially unacceptable for a DIC to hurl a turd-coil skyward toward an STSJ. Nevertheless, if a DIC has been trained to “communicate effectively” and is clever and skillful enough, a gift-wrapped turd-ball may be accepted “temporarily” by an STSJ – until he/she opens the box. Thus, the best course of action for DICS “privileged” enough to work in a one way command and control hierarchy is to flush turd-bombs down the toilet when they are discovered. Whoosh!
Particular Individuals Don’t Matter
It doesn’t matter who the particular individuals in a corpocracy are. No matter how smart and well meaning they are, the awesome power of the pyramidal structure of woe to suppress their individuality and transform them into zombie clones tasked to guard the status-quo will prevail. How many of you have seen and experienced the ascension of smart, and formerly-effective, people into the ranks of the elite, only to be instantaneously transformed into ineffective druids?
Must Be An Outsider
One must be an outsider to escape being scalded for pointing out problems within a corpocracy. Unlike insiders (except for the obligatory, once a year, watered down employee survey), outsider opinions are actually solicited by the infallible hierarchs (who confidently and assuredly think they run the show). In addition, outsider pundits with “impeccable credentials” actually get paid for their analysis and recommendations! That’s why Weinberg’s “Secrets of Consulting” is in my reading queue.
Sadly, even if the situation on the left in the above diagram never happens in your org, DICs won’t stand up and expose turds that threaten the well being of the corpocracy because the image is dogmatically burned into their mind. There’s a reason why the story of the “emperor’s new clothes” is so funny and well known. The boy who pointed out his “highny”-ness’ s wardrobe malfunction was outside of the emperor’s kiss-ass court. Had he been an insider, it would have been “off with his head”.
Proprietary Sneeze
In stodgy, arrogant, and paranoid corpocracies, everything is marked as proprietary: the company letterhead, the standard powerpoint layout, all documented processes (that (shhhh!) nobody follows), every e-mail, every conversation, the company newsletter, the recipes in the cafeteria, etc. Hell, when someone sneezes it’s deemed proprietary. Geez, what up wit dat?
“Lighten up Francis” – Sergeant Hulka (from the movie “Stripes”)
Heaven forbid that a competitor gets its slimy hands on any of your proprietary “stuff”. OMG, they’ll put you out of business by using all of your world-changing intellectual property against you. Anyone caught disclosing anything about the corpo innards will swiftly receive a peek-a-boo visit from a high ranking corpocrat, right?
To be fair, there probably is some stuff that really is proprietary, like some domain-specific algorithms and/or some custom hardware modules. But gimme a break Einstein. Regardless of what you espouse, the ubiquitous Bell curve says that you’re most likely not all that (pause for a yawn) great. Although you, like the vast majority of corpo citadels on the landscape, think and espouse that you’re obviously a cut above the rest, you’re not. Deal with it. Remove the camouflage that everyone is aware of, but is forbidden to discuss.
When you explicitly “allow” your people to discuss the undiscussables in a truly open and receptive environment without publicly or privately tarring and feathering them, then you’ve taken the first courageous step toward differentiating yourself from the herd. Mooo!
Note: I’m just a Dilbertonian DIC (Dweeb In the Cellar) who makes things up, so don’t believe a word I say.
Six To Nine Months
As a rule of thumb, one can assume that a corpo reorg will take place every six to nine months. “Our new organization will (no doubt) increase efficiency, profitability, and align us more closely with our customers“. Yada, yada, yada. Yeah, right. Whatever you say dude.
The figure below shows sample before-and-after corpo reorg charts. After the re-org, more profit-sapping fat has been added in an ill fated attempt to increase corpo performance. In the shiny new org, less productive work gets performed because some lucky(?) or ass-kissin’ DICs (Dweebs In the Cellar) are “promoted” into the ranks of the elite. Of course, as a reward for their loyalty, and regardless of their performance (because behavior is always more important than performance), some MIMs (Managers In the Middle) are further promoted up into the rafters or reshuffled sideways. Narrow, specialized, confusing, undefined, and weird new corpo titles are conjured up like “manager of the company newsletter”, “deputy director of timecard compliance”, “director of trade show booth setup “, and “manager of coffee grounds disposal”.
After six to nine months of further deteriorating financial performance, the corpo hierarchs shrug, scratch their heads, and repeat the cycle to “(no doubt) increase efficiency, profitability, and align us more closely with our customers“. Wash, rinse, and repeat. Wash, rinse, and repeat………….
Evasion And Abdication
One way to evade or abdicate responsibility is to never write anything down. Writing something down is a form of commitment because other people can see what you wrote, and archive it, and use it to hold you accountable.
“The palest of ink is better than the best memory.” – Chinese proverb
As a rule, managers don’t write down what they’ve signed up to do because they don’t “do” anything of substance. Of course, everyone in a standard cookie-cutter corpo hierarchy unquestioningly accepts that it’s “not a manager’s job” to do or commit to anything. Managers do, however, insist that others write things down because without the written word a manager can’t periodically poll for status and hold others accountable when schedules are missed.
On the other hand, really bad managers love to conjure up and write down what work others are required to do and when that work is due (even when they don’t have a klue what the work is). It’s the best of both worlds because they can hold others accountable without having to be held accountable themselves (whoopee!).
Even if managers are held accountable for poor team performance by higher up meta-managers (who also don’t write down their non-existent commitments), they don’t experience a guilty conscience because they fall back on the “the team failed and not me because it’s not my job” mentality.
When was the last time your immediate manager asked you “what problems are you having and how can I help?” or told you “let me know when you run into a problem so that I can try my best to help you“?
Disclaimer: I don’t have any badges or credentials and I just make things up, so don’t believe a word I say.
Fifty-Fifty
Because of the current economic environment, lots of recycled articles (take charge) regarding continuous education have appeared. Almost every one of them dispenses the same advice: “only you are responsible for continuously educating yourself and keeping your skills up to date”. Of course this is obviously true, but what about an employer’s duty to its stakeholders for ensuring that its workforce has the necessary training and skills to keep the company viably competitive in a rapidly changing landscape? Because of this duty, shouldn’t the responsibility be shared? What about fifty-fifty?
There are at least two ways that corpo managements (if they aren’t so self-absorbed that they’re actually are smart enough to detect the need) react to the need for continuing education of the people that produce its products and provide its services.
- Hire externally to acquire the new skills that it needs
- Invest internally to keep its workforce in synch with the times
Clueless orgs do neither, average orgs do number 1, above average orgs do 2, and great orgs do 1 and 2. Hiring externally can get the right skills in the right place faster and cheaper in the short run, but it can be much riskier than investing internally. Is your hiring process good enough to consistently weed out bozos, especially those that will be placed in positions that require leading people? If it’s a new skill that you require, how can your interviewers (most of whom, by definition, won’t have this new skill) confidently and assuredly determine if candidates are qualified? As everyone knows, face-to-face interviews, references and resumes can be BS smokescreens.
If external competitive pressures require a company to acquire deep, vertical and highly specialized skills, then hiring or renting from the outside may be the right way to go. It may be impractical and untimely to try and train its workforce to acquire knowledge and skills that require long term study. If you have a bunch of plumbers and you need an electrician to increase revenue or execute more efficiently, then it may be more cost effective and timely to hire a trained electrician than to train your plumbers to also become electricians (or it may not).
Which strategy does your corpocracy predominantly use to stay relevant? Number 1, number 2, both, or neither? If neither, why do you think that is the case? No cash, no will, neither?
The Vault Of No Return
In big system development projects, continuous iteration and high speed error removal are critical to the creation of high quality products. Thus, it’s essential to install flexible and responsive Configuration Management and Quality Assurance (CMQA) support systems that provide easy access to intermediate work products that (most definitely) will require rework as a result of ongoing learning and new knowledge acquisition.
As opposed to virtually all methodologies that exhort early involvement of the CMQA folks in projects, I (but who the hell am I?) advise you to consider otherwise. If you have the power (and sadly, most people don’t), then keep the corpo CMQA orgs out of your knickers until the project enters the production phase. Why? Because I assert that most big company CMQA orgs innocently think they are the ends, and not a means. Thus, in order to project an illusion of importance, the org creates and enforces Draconian, Rube Goldberg-like, high latency, low value-added, schedule-busting procedures for storing work products in the vault of no return. Once project work products are locked in the vault, the amount of effort and time to retrieve them for error correction and disambiguation is so demoralizing and frustrating that most well-meaning information creators just give up. Sadly, instead of change management, most CMQA orgs unconsciously practice change prevention.
The figure below contrasts two different product developments in terms of when a CMQA org gets intertwined with the value creation project pipeline. The top half shows early coupling and the bottom half shows late coupling. Since upstream work products are used by downstream workgroups to produce the next stage’s outputs, the downstreamers will discover all kinds of errors of commission and (worse,) omission. However, since the project info has been locked in the vault of no return, if the culture isn’t one of infallible machismo, upstream producers and downstream consumers will circumvent the “system” and collaborate behind the scenes to fix mistakes and clarify ambiguities to increase quality. If and when that does happen, the low quality, vault-locked information gets out of synch with the informal and high quality information in the pipeline. Even though that situation is better than having both the vault and project pipeline filled with error infested information, post-delivery product maintenance teams will encounter outdated and incorrect blueprints when they retrieve the “formal” blueprints from the vault. Bummer.
Why am I here?
WTF?
Meh!
D'oh!
My BTC Address
Bulldozer00's Blog 