4 ms·

This is funny. They always shuffle the deck chairs when threatened. I've been that new exec guy. It's scary. You know 1% of what everybody else does, and everyb

by jl2718 5y ago

This is funny. They always shuffle the deck chairs when threatened. I've been that new exec guy. It's scary. You know 1% of what everybody else does, and everybody expects miracles. Realistically you can only be effective at that 1% intersection of what you know with what you need to know. So what do you do? Obviously get another new guy to pass the buck to. That way, they can't point out how much you don't know. But ultimately I think everybody knows it's not really about the few people at the top; it's just the only thing they can safely change, because, well, it's not really about the people at the top.

djmips 5y ago
That doesn't make sense because just look at sports teams, a good GM can turn a team around by setting up a good team, changing the way things are done, adding accountability and steering in the right direction. Sure they aren't out on the court or field but they can influence greatly all of that. Hiring the right coach and drafting the right players.
- warricksothr 5y ago
  I don’t think that comparison makes sense. A GM of a sports team isn’t a dozen levels removed from the team and their target isn’t an ever changing field of competing goals. Changing out upper leadership at a technology company isn’t analogous to a general manager of a sports team.
- jl2718 5y ago
  Well I do think that systems and policies shape a company’s success much more than most people realize. Usually, a new exec comes in and they are given latitude over a particular domain of execution decisions, most especially who is making them, but not over any policies and procedures of management, because that is defined by HR. So they have no real power, and spend their time trying to understand what is going on from an external perspective, with no real understanding of the internal mechanisms that make the company work. For instance, the microstructure of an organization is probably the most important element of success. Let’s say the board hires an exec to because they want to see project X succeed. New exec comes in, hires, fires, but it’s still the same low-level structure of engineers. So they set up a bunch of meetings where they get fed the same watered-down technical pablum that the old exec got, until they unsurprisingly come to exactly the same conclusions as the previous execs. The regime change was irrelevant and wasteful. The question they should have been asking is: “How is this organization failing to get the best ideas and the best work out of its people?” Almost always, it’s because they are being told to do stupid things, and the incentives are aligned to keep it that way. Hierarchies based on financial allocation are often to blame. If people’s jobs rely on a project budget, they’ll fight for it, no matter how stupid they know the project to be. Execs will never get the truth about anything. A lot of organizations start with matrix management to fight this, but functional managers are lazy, while project managers are aggressive, so authority always drifts toward financial hierarchies. This is corporate poison. Great organizations get the best out of their employees by constantly breaking up financial hierarchy.

by jl2718 5y ago

djmips 5y ago

That doesn't make sense because just look at sports teams, a good GM can turn a team around by setting up a good team, changing the way things are done, adding accountability and steering in the right direction. Sure they aren't out on the court or field but they can influence greatly all of that. Hiring the right coach and drafting the right players.

warricksothr 5y ago
I don’t think that comparison makes sense. A GM of a sports team isn’t a dozen levels removed from the team and their target isn’t an ever changing field of competing goals. Changing out upper leadership at a technology company isn’t analogous to a general manager of a sports team.
jl2718 5y ago
Well I do think that systems and policies shape a company’s success much more than most people realize. Usually, a new exec comes in and they are given latitude over a particular domain of execution decisions, most especially who is making them, but not over any policies and procedures of management, because that is defined by HR. So they have no real power, and spend their time trying to understand what is going on from an external perspective, with no real understanding of the internal mechanisms that make the company work. For instance, the microstructure of an organization is probably the most important element of success. Let’s say the board hires an exec to because they want to see project X succeed. New exec comes in, hires, fires, but it’s still the same low-level structure of engineers. So they set up a bunch of meetings where they get fed the same watered-down technical pablum that the old exec got, until they unsurprisingly come to exactly the same conclusions as the previous execs. The regime change was irrelevant and wasteful. The question they should have been asking is: “How is this organization failing to get the best ideas and the best work out of its people?” Almost always, it’s because they are being told to do stupid things, and the incentives are aligned to keep it that way. Hierarchies based on financial allocation are often to blame. If people’s jobs rely on a project budget, they’ll fight for it, no matter how stupid they know the project to be. Execs will never get the truth about anything. A lot of organizations start with matrix management to fight this, but functional managers are lazy, while project managers are aggressive, so authority always drifts toward financial hierarchies. This is corporate poison. Great organizations get the best out of their employees by constantly breaking up financial hierarchy.