Some scattered thoughts which may or may not link up:
* One of the big changes in the last half century is the size of corporate bodies. Companies are simply bigger than they were 50 years ago. The growth has been occurring for some time. Where once a company was Matthew and Son with 10s or 100s of workers, now there is McDonalds with nearly 2 million - and a multitude of satellite companies dependent on their operations.
* The larger any group of people gets the more communication paths there are and the more effort is required to hold it together. Indeed the major purpose of any organisation, and most of the effort it expends, is to hold itself together (I did see this quoted somewhere but I can't find it). Administrative overhead grows exponentially. Stricter controls and tighter hierarchy are required to ensure that the costs of size do not overwhelm any economies of scale.
* Fifty years ago, it was believed that automation and technological advances would reduce the need for work and eventually the majority of our time would at leisure, not at work. Somewhere along the way this has changed and working hours are now longer than at any time since the start of the industrial revolution.
* The type of work which is expanding it office and administrative work. Areas such as primary industry and manufacturing have had some growth but the number of people required to achieve the same outcome has dropped dramatically. The one exception is at head office. Many corporate headquarters now employ more people than a small country.
* I have heard it said that the purpose of many of these jobs is to keep people occupied. I think maybe that is one outcome, but the other consequence is that the administrative tasks necessary to hold together such large numbers can now be done. Management is the highest aspiration of many employees and organising other people is the main task that managers do - whether it is actually needed or not. Note that, in general, this is not productive work in that it does not produce anything. It simply allows others to produce.
* In short, the outcome of technological advance (especially in communications technology) has been to allow larger and larger organisations to balance their bloated managements on a smaller and smaller base of actual workers. Not that the base is necessarily small in many cases (see the numbers for McDonalds above) - not compared to the worker base during the peak of unionism half a century (or more) ago. It is just that the productive employees are a smaller percentage of the whole.
I see a great many people working near me in office buildings and I wonder what they are doing all day. How much actually gets done after all the late nights and meetings and proposals and business cases and evaluation and analysis and revisions and documents and status reports and strategies and estimates and decisions and visions and everything? How much is really achieved for all that work? Is it really just a matter of keeping all those people occupied?
Or perhaps I am just feeling jaded
Thursday, November 6, 2014
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Corporate Morality and cultural alignment
The larger the company the more and tighter the rules that are required to do anything. The stereotypical garage start-up with two people rarely needs permission to try something new. The multinational corporation with 100,000 workers scattered over five continents requires forms (on paper) signed by a senior general manager in advance to someone to take a $10 taxi ride.
The rules and governance are required to make sure everyone knows the correct, acceptable thing to do within the culture of the corporation. The more people involved the harder it is to align standards without externalising them into pre-defined processes. The trouble arises since pre-defined processes are generally applied to trivial and obvious things while the important and ambiguous cannot be so simply prescribed. The solution is therefore to boot the decisions up to the food chain - hence dis-empowering the general staff and ensuring that senior managers, who don't actually care about the matter at hand, are too busy to think about what they are doing.
There is a connection here to social media and the control of the message that your company is putting out. If a company is uncertain about how closely the opinions of its staff align with that of the senior management then they will try to make sure that the staff do not say anything publicly that may embarrass the company. The obvious solution is to make sure that the staff ARE aligned with the company goals - a process that, in management-speak, is called 'employee engagement'. When the disconnect between workers and governed [board level managers can be considered the legislative arm of the company] is small, the friction within the company is reduced and things really get moving. When they are not aligned there is a lot of effort wasted in just keeping things together.
But in general people do not change their opinions very easily and engagement can be difficult. How much easier it would be to align corporate goals with the common morality or ethical stance of the staff. Except where the company government which set the corporate goals have a completely different set of morals to the people doing the work.
One obvious consequence of this view is that the hiring policy should be focused on employing people who's opinions and approach align with the company culture. And indeed this this the approach that is starting to filter into the corporate world, especially by companies such as Google.
There are a couple of issues that immediately come to mind:
1) what happens when the companies expressed aims do not align with the real culture? I would think this *should* be rare but I would not be surprised to find that it is fairly common. After all, corporate governors are as likely as the next person to have an incorrect self-image - and culture will follow actions, not expressed intentions (see Google again).
2) If everyone in a company is the same, it really restricts the creative options available. In the extreme it amounts to having only middle-aged married white men on the board. There is a single, constantly re-enforced, point of view which leads to a massive corporate myopia.
The rules and governance are required to make sure everyone knows the correct, acceptable thing to do within the culture of the corporation. The more people involved the harder it is to align standards without externalising them into pre-defined processes. The trouble arises since pre-defined processes are generally applied to trivial and obvious things while the important and ambiguous cannot be so simply prescribed. The solution is therefore to boot the decisions up to the food chain - hence dis-empowering the general staff and ensuring that senior managers, who don't actually care about the matter at hand, are too busy to think about what they are doing.
There is a connection here to social media and the control of the message that your company is putting out. If a company is uncertain about how closely the opinions of its staff align with that of the senior management then they will try to make sure that the staff do not say anything publicly that may embarrass the company. The obvious solution is to make sure that the staff ARE aligned with the company goals - a process that, in management-speak, is called 'employee engagement'. When the disconnect between workers and governed [board level managers can be considered the legislative arm of the company] is small, the friction within the company is reduced and things really get moving. When they are not aligned there is a lot of effort wasted in just keeping things together.
But in general people do not change their opinions very easily and engagement can be difficult. How much easier it would be to align corporate goals with the common morality or ethical stance of the staff. Except where the company government which set the corporate goals have a completely different set of morals to the people doing the work.
One obvious consequence of this view is that the hiring policy should be focused on employing people who's opinions and approach align with the company culture. And indeed this this the approach that is starting to filter into the corporate world, especially by companies such as Google.
There are a couple of issues that immediately come to mind:
1) what happens when the companies expressed aims do not align with the real culture? I would think this *should* be rare but I would not be surprised to find that it is fairly common. After all, corporate governors are as likely as the next person to have an incorrect self-image - and culture will follow actions, not expressed intentions (see Google again).
2) If everyone in a company is the same, it really restricts the creative options available. In the extreme it amounts to having only middle-aged married white men on the board. There is a single, constantly re-enforced, point of view which leads to a massive corporate myopia.
Sunday, July 27, 2014
Cargo Cult Management
Actually observing the management style of some of the people I have worked for recently brought to mind the idea of Cargo Cult Management - which I think I'll coin (if no-one has already done so before me).
This is management by the book: saying the right thing ("thanks for that valuable input") and doing the right thing ("I appreciate your effort over the weekend") according to the latest management treatise doing the rounds. Be it '7 Habits' or 'Who moved my cheese' these people are following the prescriptive advice without actually understanding where it comes from. I won't make any direct comment on the books themselves except to say that there seem to be an awful lot which flash in and out of fashion like an old fluorescent tube.
Commonly the followers of this management style are ex-technical people who are deliberately trying to be leaders. Sadly, many of them were better leaders when they weren't trying to be managers; when they weren't trying to live up to some imaginary standard.
On the other hand, there are a great many senior managers - who should know better - who come up with Mission Statements and Visions etc. These can useful tools to bind a team and engage employees. But something whipped up on a weekend junket is not going to engage those people who had to stay at work and keep the engines ticking over while you live it up at a 5 star resort. A good vision emerges from the views and goals of the team. A good leader develops it in conjunction with his staff, not isolated from them. It needs to be relevant and contextual to everyone who is supposed to sign up to it - something they can relate to and aspire to. It does not contain the word "Synergy".
Leadership is not prescriptive (or proscriptive). It varies according to the people in your team and the work that they are doing. It does not come out of a book.
On the other hand 'fake it until you make it' does work - just be prepared for people to laugh at your attempts along the way; and don't believe everything you read.
This is management by the book: saying the right thing ("thanks for that valuable input") and doing the right thing ("I appreciate your effort over the weekend") according to the latest management treatise doing the rounds. Be it '7 Habits' or 'Who moved my cheese' these people are following the prescriptive advice without actually understanding where it comes from. I won't make any direct comment on the books themselves except to say that there seem to be an awful lot which flash in and out of fashion like an old fluorescent tube.
Commonly the followers of this management style are ex-technical people who are deliberately trying to be leaders. Sadly, many of them were better leaders when they weren't trying to be managers; when they weren't trying to live up to some imaginary standard.
On the other hand, there are a great many senior managers - who should know better - who come up with Mission Statements and Visions etc. These can useful tools to bind a team and engage employees. But something whipped up on a weekend junket is not going to engage those people who had to stay at work and keep the engines ticking over while you live it up at a 5 star resort. A good vision emerges from the views and goals of the team. A good leader develops it in conjunction with his staff, not isolated from them. It needs to be relevant and contextual to everyone who is supposed to sign up to it - something they can relate to and aspire to. It does not contain the word "Synergy".
Leadership is not prescriptive (or proscriptive). It varies according to the people in your team and the work that they are doing. It does not come out of a book.
On the other hand 'fake it until you make it' does work - just be prepared for people to laugh at your attempts along the way; and don't believe everything you read.
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Learning and understanding
In the last post I mentioned that I seem to learn things differently to most people. I found this description which seems to sum it up. I have always found it easier to get things straight in my own mind if I imagine describing them to others. It was something that I used to do mentally while out running as a teenager - a form of mediation.
One immediate consequence that occurs to me would be that this should also make one a better teacher but I am not sure this worked for me. While I have done quite of bit of teaching (tutoring/lecturing/instruction whatever you want to call it), I am not certain that I am particularly good at it. Once I understand the concept and can explain it to my own satisfaction, I have too little patience with others that have not yet caught on. I think my wife can probably vouch for this :-)
In terms of learning, I suppose I consider the approach of 'do more and more problems until you become familiar with the way of solving it' to be a bit brute force. It is hammering the information into the students minds and holding it there until it stops falling out. I prefer a little more finesse and try to work out how the technique or information fits with what I already know, perhaps adjusting mental models along the way, until there is a space to place the learnings where it will take root.
I am sure that good teachers approach things this way - although I haven't actually thought about it until recently so I haven't taken notice about how I was taught. However, it does require the teacher to understand the topic *in depth* themselves before trying to pass it on. It also requires the student to be willing and able to adjust their mental view of the world to incorporate the new knowledge.
Perhaps I can see why it is not such a common approach.
One immediate consequence that occurs to me would be that this should also make one a better teacher but I am not sure this worked for me. While I have done quite of bit of teaching (tutoring/lecturing/instruction whatever you want to call it), I am not certain that I am particularly good at it. Once I understand the concept and can explain it to my own satisfaction, I have too little patience with others that have not yet caught on. I think my wife can probably vouch for this :-)
In terms of learning, I suppose I consider the approach of 'do more and more problems until you become familiar with the way of solving it' to be a bit brute force. It is hammering the information into the students minds and holding it there until it stops falling out. I prefer a little more finesse and try to work out how the technique or information fits with what I already know, perhaps adjusting mental models along the way, until there is a space to place the learnings where it will take root.
I am sure that good teachers approach things this way - although I haven't actually thought about it until recently so I haven't taken notice about how I was taught. However, it does require the teacher to understand the topic *in depth* themselves before trying to pass it on. It also requires the student to be willing and able to adjust their mental view of the world to incorporate the new knowledge.
Perhaps I can see why it is not such a common approach.
Sunday, June 22, 2014
Working under Pressure
ON occasion I have been told that I am *too* laid back at work. Usually by a manager who feels that there is some virtue in rushing around like a head-less chook, in such a state of stress that you can't think straight. Obviously if I am not constantly active in pursuing my work then I can't be taking the deadline seriously enough.
Personally I find that most of the time, a more *effective* response is to slow down; to identify what truly needs to be done - and that is often NOT what is on the project plan - and to make sure it is done in the simplest and more useful manner. In other words, to take the time to understand the problem and generate a straightforward solution. Even if that means short-cutting the existing project plan.
This is not new. I do recall that when at Uni, and even at school, I could not understand how much effort everyone else seemed to put into their study. I had friends who would spend hours endlessly memorising formulae and doing problem after problem. I tended to find it sufficient to take a little time to concentrate on exactly why the theory worked and how the equations were derived, often running just a few key problems just confirm. I was generally not the highest ranking student but I was certainly up there - and with considerably less effort than most of my class-mates.
To be clear I believe the best students were the ones that did both - understood the theory AND memorised the text. But I have since found that it is rare that the diminishing returns are worthwhile in a real business, especially taking into account the opportunity costs.
There is also a tie in with another observation I've had about people I have worked with - and would avoid ever working with again if I have a choice. Those who work best under pressure.
If you are one of these people there is a distinct advantage to putting a project into crisis. You get to shine and display the heroic actions to save the day.
One of the most egregious examples of this was a lead I worked alongside. Another architect assigned to a project came came up with a practical solution to the business problem, but one that side-stepped the lead's vision. So he re-designed it himself - halfway through the testing phase. After a complete re-write of the solution, and with the deadline pressing, it was found that the theoretical approach could not deal with real world necessities and they had to revert. For various reasons this meant another re-write, re-testing, deployment etc. all happening after the original deadline.
A month of over 80 hours a week by the entire team got the project over the line. The lead was promoted for 'saving' something that he put in danger and the original architect left he company.
I wish I could say this was an isolated occurrence, but that lead could *only* work well under pressure. And after a couple of repeats he was the chief architect of the whole programme.
Needless to say - we did not get on well together.
One final point that occurs to me in re-reading this: How much of the work being done actually needs doing? How much is due to the inability of people to 'work smarter not harder'? And how much effort could be saved if people would just THINK about the problem a bit instead of falling into the Politician's Fallacy.
Personally I find that most of the time, a more *effective* response is to slow down; to identify what truly needs to be done - and that is often NOT what is on the project plan - and to make sure it is done in the simplest and more useful manner. In other words, to take the time to understand the problem and generate a straightforward solution. Even if that means short-cutting the existing project plan.
This is not new. I do recall that when at Uni, and even at school, I could not understand how much effort everyone else seemed to put into their study. I had friends who would spend hours endlessly memorising formulae and doing problem after problem. I tended to find it sufficient to take a little time to concentrate on exactly why the theory worked and how the equations were derived, often running just a few key problems just confirm. I was generally not the highest ranking student but I was certainly up there - and with considerably less effort than most of my class-mates.
To be clear I believe the best students were the ones that did both - understood the theory AND memorised the text. But I have since found that it is rare that the diminishing returns are worthwhile in a real business, especially taking into account the opportunity costs.
There is also a tie in with another observation I've had about people I have worked with - and would avoid ever working with again if I have a choice. Those who work best under pressure.
If you are one of these people there is a distinct advantage to putting a project into crisis. You get to shine and display the heroic actions to save the day.
One of the most egregious examples of this was a lead I worked alongside. Another architect assigned to a project came came up with a practical solution to the business problem, but one that side-stepped the lead's vision. So he re-designed it himself - halfway through the testing phase. After a complete re-write of the solution, and with the deadline pressing, it was found that the theoretical approach could not deal with real world necessities and they had to revert. For various reasons this meant another re-write, re-testing, deployment etc. all happening after the original deadline.
A month of over 80 hours a week by the entire team got the project over the line. The lead was promoted for 'saving' something that he put in danger and the original architect left he company.
I wish I could say this was an isolated occurrence, but that lead could *only* work well under pressure. And after a couple of repeats he was the chief architect of the whole programme.
Needless to say - we did not get on well together.
One final point that occurs to me in re-reading this: How much of the work being done actually needs doing? How much is due to the inability of people to 'work smarter not harder'? And how much effort could be saved if people would just THINK about the problem a bit instead of falling into the Politician's Fallacy.
Sunday, June 15, 2014
Some thoughts on job creation
The justification for governments giving incentives to companies and cutting spending on individuals - especially in 'tough' economic times - is that companies create jobs and so there is a natural trickle down of funds to the population.
Of course, this approach was dis-proven by Thatcherism and Reaganomics but it still seems to be a common anti-pattern for governments.
The error is the theory is that companies create jobs. Any company worth its share rating considers job creation as a last resort. Almost any other efficiency will be sort to reduce costs and increase productivity. The larger the company, and therefore more distant from the people of which it is composed, the less feeling it has about those people.
The only reason for an organisation to add jobs would be if they could not meet demand any other way. In other words the best way for a government to increase jobs would to increase the demand for services that jobs provide. i.e. increase the disposable income of individuals.
Of course, if you are looking across an entire country, shifting jobs from one industry to another does not really achieve the goal. Hence attacking the issue by dealing with large established industries is just shuffling jobs between one company to another - with little room for growth in the total.
Instead focusing on new and innovative industries - especially those which are labour intensive is likely to provide more bang for your buck. IN today's world that means knowledge based industries and new technologies. Apart from anything else the nature of the internet means that individuals are more capable of creating their own jobs now than at any time in the past. The options for commerce that it opens up, particularly in small, personal operations is enormous.
But the nature of politics has never been attracted to de-centralisation and distributed growth. It is much more flashy and news-worthy to publicity hungry politicians to focus on large showy projects.
Of course, this approach was dis-proven by Thatcherism and Reaganomics but it still seems to be a common anti-pattern for governments.
The error is the theory is that companies create jobs. Any company worth its share rating considers job creation as a last resort. Almost any other efficiency will be sort to reduce costs and increase productivity. The larger the company, and therefore more distant from the people of which it is composed, the less feeling it has about those people.
The only reason for an organisation to add jobs would be if they could not meet demand any other way. In other words the best way for a government to increase jobs would to increase the demand for services that jobs provide. i.e. increase the disposable income of individuals.
Of course, if you are looking across an entire country, shifting jobs from one industry to another does not really achieve the goal. Hence attacking the issue by dealing with large established industries is just shuffling jobs between one company to another - with little room for growth in the total.
Instead focusing on new and innovative industries - especially those which are labour intensive is likely to provide more bang for your buck. IN today's world that means knowledge based industries and new technologies. Apart from anything else the nature of the internet means that individuals are more capable of creating their own jobs now than at any time in the past. The options for commerce that it opens up, particularly in small, personal operations is enormous.
But the nature of politics has never been attracted to de-centralisation and distributed growth. It is much more flashy and news-worthy to publicity hungry politicians to focus on large showy projects.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
The Transition Plan
Over the last few years there have been several articles or accounts I have seen talking about the new world order; the era of abundance in all things, the age in which everything will know will collapse. The end of the world as we know it, possibly replaced with something immeasurably better, perhaps replaced by ecological or economic or cultural collapse.
The one thing that seems to be missing in all these accounts is - how do we get there from here?
I did a post about this before but a couple of things have brought it to mind again. For a start, the city in which I live has recently seen the closure of not one, but three major employers. Leading, of course, to headlines about the mass job losses which will result. At the same time, I have heard many in the know who talk about the many small start-ups, new enterprises and even government organisations that are moving into the area and soaking up all the available staff.
The difference is that the closure are large manufacturing companies - Ford, Shell, Alcoa - while the myriad ventures that are taking over are technical and in the service industries. In other words - a microcosm of the (apparent) global trend.
The upside is that there is much more energy, better work conditions and potential involved in the new order. I would argue that it is a major improvement for the city and the society within it. On the other hand, the downside is personal and immediate to those affected. A blue collar worker who has spent his entire working life in the engine assembly plant is *not* going to get a job with an insurance office or at a biomedical research team.
So how are we to get to the wonder of the future from a time of upheaval and personal disaster. The stories are all either local and short term disaster, or global and long term golden age. The question that occurs to me is: what about the middle?
What is the transition plan? What is happening to families, not the society; what will occur in the next few years not decades? How can we best minimise the harm while still aiming for the stars.
Obviously the answers will be controversial. It is a topic on which personal experience plays a major part. For myself I feel the shiny goal is worth the mud we need to slog through to get there, but I am not the one getting stomped into the ground by the stampede.
I think this is topic that is likely to lead to more posts - at least until I get distracted by something else.
The one thing that seems to be missing in all these accounts is - how do we get there from here?
I did a post about this before but a couple of things have brought it to mind again. For a start, the city in which I live has recently seen the closure of not one, but three major employers. Leading, of course, to headlines about the mass job losses which will result. At the same time, I have heard many in the know who talk about the many small start-ups, new enterprises and even government organisations that are moving into the area and soaking up all the available staff.
The difference is that the closure are large manufacturing companies - Ford, Shell, Alcoa - while the myriad ventures that are taking over are technical and in the service industries. In other words - a microcosm of the (apparent) global trend.
The upside is that there is much more energy, better work conditions and potential involved in the new order. I would argue that it is a major improvement for the city and the society within it. On the other hand, the downside is personal and immediate to those affected. A blue collar worker who has spent his entire working life in the engine assembly plant is *not* going to get a job with an insurance office or at a biomedical research team.
So how are we to get to the wonder of the future from a time of upheaval and personal disaster. The stories are all either local and short term disaster, or global and long term golden age. The question that occurs to me is: what about the middle?
What is the transition plan? What is happening to families, not the society; what will occur in the next few years not decades? How can we best minimise the harm while still aiming for the stars.
Obviously the answers will be controversial. It is a topic on which personal experience plays a major part. For myself I feel the shiny goal is worth the mud we need to slog through to get there, but I am not the one getting stomped into the ground by the stampede.
I think this is topic that is likely to lead to more posts - at least until I get distracted by something else.
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Aniarism
I recently saw a post which described an attitude toward religion that I have felt but not articulated before.
The sentiment is basically that it plays no significant role in my life - certainly not enough to bother associating myself with the various labels that exist. I realise that many people in our society, and definitely in less sophisticated cultures define themselves according to their religion but this is often not the case amongst within the WEIRD cultures. Even those who attend church regularly can scarcely be called devout. In many cases religion is something one does on the weekend and it barely touches everyday life.
I reject the term atheist because it implies a deliberately negative stance on the existence of a God. In the past I have considered myself agnostic with tendencies toward atheism. The point of view being that I would be quite disappointed if I found that a supreme being created the universe and has a hand in everything that happens. As an answer it closes down so many interesting questions in a very unsatisfying way.
Recently however, I have realised that even this was a Friday night philosophy belief and, in truth, I didn't really see how it mattered in any meaningful way.
But, to the point of this post, what is the correct term for this attitude? Traditionally atheism or agnosticism would be the only options. In keeping with the Greek roots of those words I suggest "Aniarism" from the word aniaros = uninteresting.
I have no idea if anyone else has already come up with something similar. And really I don't care.
The sentiment is basically that it plays no significant role in my life - certainly not enough to bother associating myself with the various labels that exist. I realise that many people in our society, and definitely in less sophisticated cultures define themselves according to their religion but this is often not the case amongst within the WEIRD cultures. Even those who attend church regularly can scarcely be called devout. In many cases religion is something one does on the weekend and it barely touches everyday life.
I reject the term atheist because it implies a deliberately negative stance on the existence of a God. In the past I have considered myself agnostic with tendencies toward atheism. The point of view being that I would be quite disappointed if I found that a supreme being created the universe and has a hand in everything that happens. As an answer it closes down so many interesting questions in a very unsatisfying way.
Recently however, I have realised that even this was a Friday night philosophy belief and, in truth, I didn't really see how it mattered in any meaningful way.
But, to the point of this post, what is the correct term for this attitude? Traditionally atheism or agnosticism would be the only options. In keeping with the Greek roots of those words I suggest "Aniarism" from the word aniaros = uninteresting.
I have no idea if anyone else has already come up with something similar. And really I don't care.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)