Home | Login | Recent Changes | Search | All Pages | Help

HeirarchicalGame

I think Jerry once wrote that the "Big Game" is often deciding who gets to tell people what to do.

I've been observing a hierarchical organzation that pretty much doesn't have information perculate upwards, only commands going downwards.

For example, the CEO says : use this SCM tool in all locations. I don't think anyone has told the CEO that the tool hasn't yet been made to work correctly in our far east locations, or that the tool doesn't work on the all platforms we have to support.

Does anyone have stories about helping this kind of org become less dysfunctional?

Anonymouse

Dear A-nony-mouse,

Uncle Dutch gets many requests for advice from enthusiastic rodents like yourself, all bright-eyed, if un-bushy-tailed. His advice at this point is mostly the same:

• First as the wise old owl says, try to make them more functional. It's more fun to set one's sights high. More important, it is far more effective to move toward a goal, than away from a discomfort. The famous cat staying off the hot stove is successful at avoiding an unpleasant burning sensation, but this strategy makes little contribution to Fluffy's effectiveness, as either lap-cat or pardon the reference, mouser.
• Second, watch out for snakes. My discomforting use of preditors in this advice is deliberate. There are many corporate creatures willing to make a meal of a well-intentioned mouse, even an a-nony-mouse, should they spot one.
• Third, whatever directions issue from on high make sense to them in some way. This one is hard to see from down in the weeds grubbing about for breadcrumbs, seeds, and cheese. Sometimes the pronouncement is in aid of a goal that you can't see. Sometimes it's cynical, like kickbacks from a vendor. Sometimes less cynical, but more personal, like experience with a particular tool. Sometimes there is even a legitimate agenda for the company as a whole that causes some distress in you're particular burrow. It's real hard to run a company on a gaggle of different financial systems, for example. As a wise old colleague of mine once said: "The important thing about standards is that you have them." (Where you need them, only, went without saying.)
• It is a common mistake among mice, what with your acute senses, and direct contact with your world, to overestimate the precision with which those on high can know the details of their world. They can't know, and indeed shouldn't try to know the details of many things. What should be mandated and standard, vs. what should not is the great conundrum of organizations.
• It is an all to common mistake for would-be rebel mice to underestimate ultimate impact of those who pronounce. In the end, they hold certain formal authority within the organization. In the end, they will either get their way, or make you very, very miserable along the way (unless you can hide effectively, which makes it hard to effect general changes.)

The key to improving function is to understand these things. Watch out for snakes, while you try to understand why the directive makes sense to the directive creators. Offer a better alternative in terms of their concerns, if a better alternative is to be had. There may not be. The problem with learning about the world from their POV is the risk of learning that they made the best choice available - even thought it stinks.

The one immediately practical suggestion I have is that those who provide advice and perspective often in the end have more influence than those who pronounce or rebel. So I offer these words to your wisdom, to make of them what you will.

Your humble Dutch Uncle.

If you feel safe enough to expose yourself, I suggest you talk directly to the CEO.

The key to a successful conversation for any level of management, especially the top, is to have a recommendation about what to do differently.

If you are intersted, I would be happy to help you frame the conversation.

SteveSmith 2003.10.03

see also

http://www.chaordic.org/learn/notes/

KeithRay 2003.10.04

Back in the Jurassic Industrial Age, C&C organizations were standard and thrived. They were far more "destructive of the biosphere" then. They started as a "public menace" (they didn't call the big cheeses "Robber Barons" for nothing). They also enriched the now industrialized democracies to the point where consumers (us little mammals) could aford to care for our environment They are fading as people vote with their feet, not being tied to one for simple survival. As a counterpoint, with paternalism dying, layoffs have become standard and loyalty has become more personal, less institutional. So, not surprisingly, many forms of mild nepotism (more often based on friendship than family) have become normal. C&C has lost, we rodents have gained, but there are always tradeoffs.

Now that I've say all that, I can take Mr. Hock seriously.

Misha Melendez 2003.10.04

http://www.chaordic.org/who_hock2.html

KeithRay 2003.10.04

Least I give the wrong idea, I am not supporting C&C orgs, just noting history that long predated this decade as well as the beginning of Mr. Hock's career.

I've now taken the time to read down the links you, Keith, have provided. I find merit in much of what is noted (so -- knowing my own limits -- there must be much more), but little new and much, as the fastcompany article put it at the beginning, "preaching".

MikeMelendez 2003.10.05 "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Santayana, The Life of Reason