4 ms·

But this is why such organizations fail (EDIT: or succeed sub-optimally with a horrible culture that doesn't resemble the fairy tale policy document) . They cre

by buff-a 15y ago

But this is why such organizations fail (EDIT: or succeed sub-optimally with a horrible culture that doesn't resemble the fairy tale policy document) . They create a culture of "policies and the like" in which individuals are supposed to be perfect examples. But the reality is that each business unit (of any size) is run as personal fiefdom based on the ego and personality of the person in charge. Such "policies and the like" are guaranteed to fail. And the reason that they fail is because regardless of whatever they put in print, the people in the organization are still ego machines. They still deal with emotions rather than content. They deal with the meta-message ("this person thinks he is clever than me") instead of the message ("this idea failed to produce dollar value"). Their brain is wired to produce the meta-message and what it means for them and their future, instead of the message, and what it means for the company and the company's future. So basically you got as far as reading that Company X has a Policy and stopped reading, instead of getting the whole point which is that this company's policy is nothing like any other company's policy. That was poor, superficial analysis on your part. Go and read Principles and come back with a better analysis. http://www.bwater.com/Uploads/FileManager/Principles/Bridgewater-Associates-Ray-Dalio-Principles.pdf http://www.bwater.com/Uploads/FileManager/Principles/Bridgew...

arctangent 15y ago
I think you're being a little harsh on me but perhaps it's my own fault for not explaining in more depth. I certainly don't think that the way large organisations are currently run is the best way for them to be run. In my own very large organisation I actually introduced a (bespoke) system to allow communication that cuts across hierarchical boundaries. I've taken some serious knocks pushing my agenda and it's taking a long time for the culture to change. Only now are some (20%) of our large number of directors starting to "blog" openly to staff rather than sending messages up and down the hierarchy. I hope to get managers beneath them to start using our internal social tool too. I know that policies fail. I'm well known as a rule-breaker within my organisation but I'm also known as a person who can "get things done". I don't just mean that in a technical sense, or in a works-very-hard sense, but in a will-ignore-your-rules-to-get-things-done sense. Inevitably this means that I tread on some toes. However, policies do have their place in large organisations. Very few people actually care about achieving any kind of significant change in such an organisation - many are happy to work 9-to-5 and just do what they're told (and do as little as possible). Policies are designed for exactly these people. In an ideal world every worker would actually give a damn about their work and innovate in their own little area of responsibility. But it turns out that the way things are structured doesn't encourage this sort of behaviour. It's very hard to pay someone more than a lazy person with the same job title if they have the same job title. I acknowledge your point about how people in large organisations will often look to better themselves at the expense of the company rather than seek to better the company and then hope for commensurate reward. I could talk about that for some time, but it wasn't really in the scope of my reply above. I do understand that many people act in this way. I could talk all day about why individuals might pursue goals different from those they're actually paid for but I'll skip it for now. Coming back around to your point (per paragraph 3), I'd have to say that I do understand (as much as an individual can) the nature of large companies. My "company" is the fourth largest employer in the world and figures for how many people work for us tend to vary. However, it's somewhere between 1 and 2 million people. We have a very developed notion of "corporate culture" where I work :-) My original point was that all companies do have a culture, as do all groups of people. Past a certain size it is always beneficial (to the shareholders) to ensure that the individuals within your company do not act as individuals so much but instead act in a way aligned to your corporate goals. I did glance at the document you linked to but I don't really see the point of reading it all just to reply to your comment :-)
- buff-a 15y ago
  It will take somewhere between 30 minutes and the rest of your life.

by buff-a 15y ago

arctangent 15y ago

I think you're being a little harsh on me but perhaps it's my own fault for not explaining in more depth. I certainly don't think that the way large organisations are currently run is the best way for them to be run. In my own very large organisation I actually introduced a (bespoke) system to allow communication that cuts across hierarchical boundaries. I've taken some serious knocks pushing my agenda and it's taking a long time for the culture to change. Only now are some (20%) of our large number of directors starting to "blog" openly to staff rather than sending messages up and down the hierarchy. I hope to get managers beneath them to start using our internal social tool too. I know that policies fail. I'm well known as a rule-breaker within my organisation but I'm also known as a person who can "get things done". I don't just mean that in a technical sense, or in a works-very-hard sense, but in a will-ignore-your-rules-to-get-things-done sense. Inevitably this means that I tread on some toes. However, policies do have their place in large organisations. Very few people actually care about achieving any kind of significant change in such an organisation - many are happy to work 9-to-5 and just do what they're told (and do as little as possible). Policies are designed for exactly these people. In an ideal world every worker would actually give a damn about their work and innovate in their own little area of responsibility. But it turns out that the way things are structured doesn't encourage this sort of behaviour. It's very hard to pay someone more than a lazy person with the same job title if they have the same job title. I acknowledge your point about how people in large organisations will often look to better themselves at the expense of the company rather than seek to better the company and then hope for commensurate reward. I could talk about that for some time, but it wasn't really in the scope of my reply above. I do understand that many people act in this way. I could talk all day about why individuals might pursue goals different from those they're actually paid for but I'll skip it for now. Coming back around to your point (per paragraph 3), I'd have to say that I do understand (as much as an individual can) the nature of large companies. My "company" is the fourth largest employer in the world and figures for how many people work for us tend to vary. However, it's somewhere between 1 and 2 million people. We have a very developed notion of "corporate culture" where I work :-) My original point was that all companies do have a culture, as do all groups of people. Past a certain size it is always beneficial (to the shareholders) to ensure that the individuals within your company do not act as individuals so much but instead act in a way aligned to your corporate goals. I did glance at the document you linked to but I don't really see the point of reading it all just to reply to your comment :-)

buff-a 15y ago
It will take somewhere between 30 minutes and the rest of your life.