4 ms·
Most arguments missing the nasty side of companies. Speaking from an execution consultant pov: Most companies still rely on the easiest form of getting somethin
by jksmith 4y ago
Most arguments missing the nasty side of companies. Speaking from an execution consultant pov: Most companies still rely on the easiest form of getting something done, which is management telling people what to do. Current state of management is generally if they can't appear to tell people what to do, their ability to execute anything is greatly impaired, then their jobs are threatened.
So where does most organizational leadership come from? Paying their dues as management in a prior life. So they're inculcated with the same mental model. Difference between a leader and a manager is, managers tell people what to do, while leadership like to tell their reports what they should have done.
Anyway all these components feed the whole back to work thing. Managers keep their jobs by telling people what to do, and the easiest way to do that is via the official office environment. It's also the most expensive and inefficient way to get anything done, leading to most corporations having very mediocre delivery systems. That's my take after consulting with numerous F500s.
Sure, there are exceptions; work dependent on equipment that isn't practical for remote applications, heavy experimentation with specific environment requirements, etc. But if your office life is centered around a laptop, then use the "laptop" as intended.
So what's far more strategic is moving from managing people to managing the flow of value. Manager mind blown. The latter doesn't have the same dependency on having people come into the office, but it's a much more sophisticated approach requiring at least some interest in business systems engineering, which is more complicated. But the approach is far more efficient, cost-effective, and requires far less energy usage. Manager refrain: "Can't I just go back to telling people what to do, in the office?"
- uxcolumbo 4y agoInteresting perspective. Do you have more details regarding managing the flow of value? Reading material or other resources that goes deeper into this?
- jksmith 4y ago"Principles of Product Development Flow" This is an academic standard for queuing theory and flow of value by Don Reinertsen. Tough read btw. "The Fifth Discipline" by Peter Senge. This is a classic text that also covers the mental model side of the shift from managing people to managing flow. "Team Topologies" by Skelton and Pais. Another classic on team structure as it relates to flow of value. And well, have to mention my little book, "Agile V2 Coach's Field Manual" available on Amazon. Hardcover only. I need to write a rev, but still holds up regarding the concept of codifying behaviors into a delivery system, thus cutting down on politics, finger-pointing, unethical decision-making, and other crap that represents the legacy people-management model. Quick read. Lot more books available. This is a very rich area of study that's been around since people have been trying to figure out how to get out of each other's way for better outcomes.
- uxcolumbo 4y agoI’ve not come across that term before. Agile, yes, but it’s been distorted / hijacked by consultancies, eg SAFe. Thanks for those reading suggestions.
- jksmith 4y agoSure thing, fascinating stuff. I teach all 12 SAFe certifications, so I'm familiar with the framework. The issue that SAFe identified, is the very issue I'm bringing up here. In the case of this framework, it gives managers the chance to keep managing people, but with an out of box framework that keeps them from the burden of understanding systems engineering fundamentals that emphasize flow. That's the problem in a nutshell with SAFe - layer 1 process and team fundamentals are sacrificed in favor of a layer 2 framework. And managers get to lead meetings and report-outs. Otherwise, SAFe is ok. It just puts some structure around managing an increment of increments - another chance to inspect and adapt, pivot, whatever is needed for minimum viable product, plus managers feel like they (managers) are useful by guiding PI planning, whatever. The reality? High performing teams tend to snicker at SAFe. They think things like confidence vote events are silly because they expect product owners to be bringing them nothing but work-items that already meet their confidence standards. Otherwise their time is being wasted with this event. Additionally, high performing teams will refuse to plan out multiple iterations worth of work (as done in PI planning), when they expect to have a healthy backlog to work that already meets their readiness standards for multiple iterations. All they'll say is prioritize that work and they'll knock it out. But once again, planning out multiple iterations helps managers reinforce telling people what to do in a micro fashion.