4 ms·

>The workers are great at running (execution), but left to themselves are horrible at self organizing and running in the direction required in tandem This is a

>The workers are great at running (execution), but left to themselves are horrible at self organizing and running in the direction required in tandem This is an ideological claim that is counter to my experience. Workers are fine at self-organizing, they just might organize in ways that management does not agree with because workers and management may have different ideas about what the company needs. In my experience the usual reason that workers have trouble organizing themselves is that they are not given control over resources like hiring and equipment purchases, specifically so that they won't be able to organize without management.

xivzgrev 7y ago
Can you share more of your experience? Mine tends to be like the OP. For example, suppose a company has a new product and everyone believes there is a lot of opportunity with new product. So then each team figured out a strategy on how to approach said product independently -product managers build new features and iterate -marketers start launching campaigns to drive adoption and engagement -data science is building new models to find the best customers for -customer support is trying to figure out what the hell new product is and what all these complaints are referencing Etc Depending on the product / size there may be some self organizing collaboration but many times not, or certain teams are left out unconciously. At least one reason is that each team doesn’t yet trust other teams to help set their strategy - not maliciously but just from a lack of evidence. If you are trying to maximize impact the intuitive thing is to work out what you can contribute and ask for what you need from other teams vs developing a joint strategy / approach. Collaboration takes time with an unknown return. Now if you happen to know the other teams and already have worked a lot together you are more likely to reach out from the start. It’s the senior managers / directors that are calling out that teams should be talking with each other sooner than later, getting buy in, etc.
- astazangasta 7y ago
  My experience is that senior managers don't have the time or inclination to be aware of operational issues. They are unable to perceive something like there is a structural issue between units A and B. These issues are actually seen and surfaced by workers in units A and B, who actually experience the result of the mismatch. If they are able to cross-communicate directly they may be able to resolve the issue without intervention from above. However, they may not be able to, typically if this involves hiring. But the only way that a senior manager could even understand there is an issue is if someone in unit A or unit B makes them aware of it. This is useless overhead. The workers have to be able to successfully communicate the issue up to senior management and usually also suggest the resolution, then get buy-in from senior management on implementation. If instead the workers were more empowered to make decisions themselves the information and decision-making bottleneck could be avoided.
Spooky23 7y ago
It depends on the job, and the phase of the company’s life. When times are good and things are growing, self-organization works great because doing what you do better is easy to grasp, easyish to rally around, and whatever fuck-ups happen get buried in growth. When things are more challenging, answers aren’t always so clear. Somebody has to lose something. You need accountability, someone who owns the strategy and execution. Enter the manager. The other issue with self management is that it is usually bullshit unless you have a great culture and the good fortune to pull together an amazing team. That is incredibly difficult to do. There’s always a pecking order based on relational based power, and whomever holds the positional power must understand what that means for her team.

xivzgrev 7y ago

Can you share more of your experience? Mine tends to be like the OP. For example, suppose a company has a new product and everyone believes there is a lot of opportunity with new product. So then each team figured out a strategy on how to approach said product independently -product managers build new features and iterate -marketers start launching campaigns to drive adoption and engagement -data science is building new models to find the best customers for -customer support is trying to figure out what the hell new product is and what all these complaints are referencing Etc Depending on the product / size there may be some self organizing collaboration but many times not, or certain teams are left out unconciously. At least one reason is that each team doesn’t yet trust other teams to help set their strategy - not maliciously but just from a lack of evidence. If you are trying to maximize impact the intuitive thing is to work out what you can contribute and ask for what you need from other teams vs developing a joint strategy / approach. Collaboration takes time with an unknown return. Now if you happen to know the other teams and already have worked a lot together you are more likely to reach out from the start. It’s the senior managers / directors that are calling out that teams should be talking with each other sooner than later, getting buy in, etc.

astazangasta 7y ago
My experience is that senior managers don't have the time or inclination to be aware of operational issues. They are unable to perceive something like there is a structural issue between units A and B. These issues are actually seen and surfaced by workers in units A and B, who actually experience the result of the mismatch. If they are able to cross-communicate directly they may be able to resolve the issue without intervention from above. However, they may not be able to, typically if this involves hiring. But the only way that a senior manager could even understand there is an issue is if someone in unit A or unit B makes them aware of it. This is useless overhead. The workers have to be able to successfully communicate the issue up to senior management and usually also suggest the resolution, then get buy-in from senior management on implementation. If instead the workers were more empowered to make decisions themselves the information and decision-making bottleneck could be avoided.

Spooky23 7y ago

It depends on the job, and the phase of the company’s life. When times are good and things are growing, self-organization works great because doing what you do better is easy to grasp, easyish to rally around, and whatever fuck-ups happen get buried in growth. When things are more challenging, answers aren’t always so clear. Somebody has to lose something. You need accountability, someone who owns the strategy and execution. Enter the manager. The other issue with self management is that it is usually bullshit unless you have a great culture and the good fortune to pull together an amazing team. That is incredibly difficult to do. There’s always a pecking order based on relational based power, and whomever holds the positional power must understand what that means for her team.