3 ms·

Thats interesting, it feels like that upper level you mention are more like individual contributors, except optimising very slow responding systems indirectly t

by shubb 7y ago

Thats interesting, it feels like that upper level you mention are more like individual contributors, except optimising very slow responding systems indirectly through policies.

ci5er 7y ago
I like that - I think that's about right. Working on the business as a machine, not only to drive the machine (the CEO and his staff), but to optimize the internal architecture of, and to optimize its various inner workings and component-to-component linkages, is a thing. But - it's a machine made out of people. Whom are inherently squishy emotional things to build a well-oiled machine out of...
epc 7y ago
Yes. If you’re a middle manager you’re typically getting directives from on–high that you have to implement indirectly by pushing buttons and pulling levers which themselves are pushing buttons or pulling levers. Picture driving some sort of vehicle remotely. There's a slight delay to everything, right? You turn, and the vehicle turns a few seconds later. By the time you see an object on the horizon you’re marginally closer to it. And you know this all so you build in certain factors to change response time. But there's still a lag. And now picture driving the vehicle by telling the remote operator how to react. There's now two levels of lag, and depending on how you communicate, two more chances for mis–communication. It’s why bottom–up communications get to be so bad in large organizations. The classic production line “the product is a piece of shit” transmutes, through absolutely normal and routine communications softening and filtering, into “our product brings things to life through its fertilization qualities.” And conversely, the top–down message gets filtered and manipulated by each layer of management. It’s also why escalation culture becomes a thing in large organizations. IBM (in the 1990s, can't speak for today) had a notorious escalation culture: if I didn't do a thing you wanted me to do, and was in a different organization, you’d “escalate” up to some middle manager or executive somewhere who had enough pull to scare my manager into doing something, regardless of the business value or need. The executive doesn't particularly care, he or she just wants the issue off their pile, and it makes them feel good that they're doing something to help their product area. Every organization is susceptible to this as it grows. It’s human nature.
Spooky23 7y ago
Totally. I’ve worked with very senior level people in corporations and government. The people at the top who aren’t on the letterhead are simultaneously powerful and powerless. All of their information is 2-5 degrees from the source. They are held accountable for outcomes, and need to be able to navigate through all sorts of stuff. Senior government middle managers are the most fucked. They are either civil service or staff people who moved up the ranks and have extensive expertise in their programs or field or political appointees who know anything from less than nothing to being preeminent in their field. IME, the government people are smarter, but get ground up by the machinery of bureaucracy. Often times you have layer of formal leaders who are in a symbiotic relationship with the next level down who really run things. Sort of like how in many ways sergeants run the army.

by shubb 7y ago

Thats interesting, it feels like that upper level you mention are more like individual contributors, except optimising very slow responding systems indirectly through policies.

ci5er 7y ago

I like that - I think that's about right. Working on the business as a machine, not only to drive the machine (the CEO and his staff), but to optimize the internal architecture of, and to optimize its various inner workings and component-to-component linkages, is a thing. But - it's a machine made out of people. Whom are inherently squishy emotional things to build a well-oiled machine out of...

epc 7y ago

Yes. If you’re a middle manager you’re typically getting directives from on–high that you have to implement indirectly by pushing buttons and pulling levers which themselves are pushing buttons or pulling levers. Picture driving some sort of vehicle remotely. There's a slight delay to everything, right? You turn, and the vehicle turns a few seconds later. By the time you see an object on the horizon you’re marginally closer to it. And you know this all so you build in certain factors to change response time. But there's still a lag. And now picture driving the vehicle by telling the remote operator how to react. There's now two levels of lag, and depending on how you communicate, two more chances for mis–communication. It’s why bottom–up communications get to be so bad in large organizations. The classic production line “the product is a piece of shit” transmutes, through absolutely normal and routine communications softening and filtering, into “our product brings things to life through its fertilization qualities.” And conversely, the top–down message gets filtered and manipulated by each layer of management. It’s also why escalation culture becomes a thing in large organizations. IBM (in the 1990s, can't speak for today) had a notorious escalation culture: if I didn't do a thing you wanted me to do, and was in a different organization, you’d “escalate” up to some middle manager or executive somewhere who had enough pull to scare my manager into doing something, regardless of the business value or need. The executive doesn't particularly care, he or she just wants the issue off their pile, and it makes them feel good that they're doing something to help their product area. Every organization is susceptible to this as it grows. It’s human nature.

Spooky23 7y ago

Totally. I’ve worked with very senior level people in corporations and government. The people at the top who aren’t on the letterhead are simultaneously powerful and powerless. All of their information is 2-5 degrees from the source. They are held accountable for outcomes, and need to be able to navigate through all sorts of stuff. Senior government middle managers are the most fucked. They are either civil service or staff people who moved up the ranks and have extensive expertise in their programs or field or political appointees who know anything from less than nothing to being preeminent in their field. IME, the government people are smarter, but get ground up by the machinery of bureaucracy. Often times you have layer of formal leaders who are in a symbiotic relationship with the next level down who really run things. Sort of like how in many ways sergeants run the army.