4 ms·

Avoiding situations like this has swung me around to the profound organization health effects of regularly shuffling director+ level personnel (e.g. every 2-4 y

by ethbro 8y ago

Avoiding situations like this has swung me around to the profound organization health effects of regularly shuffling director+ level personnel (e.g. every 2-4 years). What you lose in efficiency (as they refamiliarize themselves) -- you more than gain in healthier politics, cross-organization cooperation and knowledge, and overall following of rule of law / documentation.

Gibbon1 8y ago
Reminds me of chatting with a director level manager at a fortune 500 firm. He was on vacation between assignments. When I asked why he was being reassigned he said the company moves them around every 2-3 years. Another example friend lives in a small rural town. The county sheriffs department rotates deputies every two years. Because the deputy needs to be willing to arrest respected members of the community for drunk driving and not be taking bribes from the local meth dealer.
- jhayward 8y ago
  > Reminds me of chatting with a director level manager at a fortune 500 firm. He was on vacation between assignments. When I asked why he was being reassigned he said the company moves them around every 2-3 years. This is a healthy practice in larger organizations. Not only does it avoid the concretion of personal politics but it exposes managers to a breadth of experience, which is useful if they are promoted. It also ensures that the organization has stretched its adaptation muscles regularly, and is not brittle in the event of personnel turnover.
  - ethbro 8y ago
    Well put. Imho, it's especially important in businesses that are stable enough that it doesn't have to be done (e.g. utility, insurance). I saw functionally identical insurance companies with and without the practice. Those without were, every single time, more disfunctional and less likely to successfully deliver projects.
  - Gibbon1 8y ago
    One of the issues I found with the first company I worked at was because there was little turnover there wasn't a lot of horizontal knowledge transfer that you get at more dynamic companies. Meant their processes, technologies, etc were stale and getting more stale as time went on. Which is why I left. Best thing that happened to them was they let one of my utterly burned out coworker go, followed by exit of myself and another more sr engineer. Which forced them to hire three outsiders within a short span.

by ethbro 8y ago

Gibbon1 8y ago

Reminds me of chatting with a director level manager at a fortune 500 firm. He was on vacation between assignments. When I asked why he was being reassigned he said the company moves them around every 2-3 years. Another example friend lives in a small rural town. The county sheriffs department rotates deputies every two years. Because the deputy needs to be willing to arrest respected members of the community for drunk driving and not be taking bribes from the local meth dealer.

jhayward 8y ago
> Reminds me of chatting with a director level manager at a fortune 500 firm. He was on vacation between assignments. When I asked why he was being reassigned he said the company moves them around every 2-3 years. This is a healthy practice in larger organizations. Not only does it avoid the concretion of personal politics but it exposes managers to a breadth of experience, which is useful if they are promoted. It also ensures that the organization has stretched its adaptation muscles regularly, and is not brittle in the event of personnel turnover.
- ethbro 8y ago
  Well put. Imho, it's especially important in businesses that are stable enough that it doesn't have to be done (e.g. utility, insurance). I saw functionally identical insurance companies with and without the practice. Those without were, every single time, more disfunctional and less likely to successfully deliver projects.
- Gibbon1 8y ago
  One of the issues I found with the first company I worked at was because there was little turnover there wasn't a lot of horizontal knowledge transfer that you get at more dynamic companies. Meant their processes, technologies, etc were stale and getting more stale as time went on. Which is why I left. Best thing that happened to them was they let one of my utterly burned out coworker go, followed by exit of myself and another more sr engineer. Which forced them to hire three outsiders within a short span.