7 ms·

The content isn't obvious to them because they operate in a different context than you. Managerialist culture is founded on the notion that workers must be sup

The content isn't obvious to them because they operate in a different context than you. Managerialist culture is founded on the notion that workers must be supervised and controlled. That the important thinking should be done by people in the managerial class. In that context, the experiences of non-managers is always secondary, because workers must be coerced via carrots and sticks to do things they are not smart/wise/good enough to see on their own. A great example here is the ubiquitous status meeting. Everybody troops into a conference room for an hour and takes turns saying things to the boss while everybody else's eyes glaze over. This lets the boss feel powerful and important, but it's a giant waste of time. The POSIWID conclusion is that organizational effectiveness is very much secondary to reinforcing the dominance hierarchy. For somebody adapted to that world, treating the time of minions as truly important -- by which I mean more important than the passing feelings of the powerful -- is radical. Even though that's something blatantly obvious to makers and others who do direct work.

incone123 4y ago
Almost every meeting I ever attended had an agenda and the others were on single, specific topics. So is that normal and hbr is inventing a problem, or am I very fortunate?
- mattnewton 4y ago
  I think you are exceedingly fortunate to the point where you must know how to pick companies/roles better than average.
  - incone123 4y ago
    Well someone has to be the lucky outlier. And these meetings do have digressions plus heavy use of Any Other Business!
- wpietri 4y ago
  In my experience that is wildly out of the norm, and you are very fortunate.
CPLX 4y ago
Why do you think a regular status meeting is definitionally a giant waste of time in all business contexts? Is informing others of status and next steps not a business goal?
- sethhochberg 4y ago
  Many tech-forward schools of thought would probably suggest that status of work is something that should be discoverable - ie, we shouldn't need a status update meeting because the status is obvious from looking at tasks on a Kanban board or some other tool that is used for tracking work. I'd guess the person you're replying to believes more that meetings are a poor way to accomplish this than that a pulse on work isn't important to business.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    Yes, well spotted. I'm a big fan of Kanban boards, to the point of having run entire companies with them: https://williampietri.com/writing/2015/the-big-board/ https://williampietri.com/writing/2015/the-big-board/
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ethanwillis 4y ago
  Human memory is bad. It's also synchronous. It's also not easily referenceable. Why aren't status reports more common than status meetings?
- wpietri 4y ago
  Please try to accuse me of things I actually said, thanks.
jdlshore 4y ago
> Managerialist culture is founded on the notion that workers must be supervised and controlled. That's a shallow view of the situation. What you're describing is "Taylorist" management, or "Theory X" management. Modern management theory also discusses "Theory Y" management, in which providing context and trust is more important than supervision and control. Many managers are unaware of this concept, even though it's Management 101. If that's the case in your company, it's not a problem with "managerialist culture"... it's a problem with your company's culture.
- feoren 4y ago
  > Modern management theory also discusses "Theory Y" management, Good god, "management" is so deeply devoid of any actual substance that they can't even name their prominent theories? No wonder it's a constant struggle for them to justify their own existence.
  - jdlshore 4y ago
    The names are “Theory X” and “Theory Y.” Now excuse me while I go work on some C and get a hot cup of Java and complain about JavaScript.
  - throwoutway 4y ago
    These theories are taught in an MBA program. Most managers never go through such a program. Ironically, MBAs are often mocked on HN, but now I find it ironic that you find it shocking that managers (who don't complete an MBA) don't know what the prominent theories are.
    - feoren 4y ago
      > Ironically, MBAs are often mocked on HN It's possible to have strongly negative opinions of both MBAs and middle managers, even if they don't perfectly overlap. > now I find it ironic that you find it shocking that managers (who don't complete an MBA) don't know what the prominent theories are Hard to be "shocked" anymore, since it's so normalized, but if we break it down: - Management theory is mostly bereft of useful information - Most managers don't learn the theory anyway - Most managers don't bother to try to get better at their jobs, and if they do, it's by reading vapid articles like this one or going to the expensive training version of the same - Higher-level managers earn multiple times what ACs ("actual contributors") earn - Bad managers can, and do, sink entire teams, and may represent some of the biggest risk to most companies, and yet virtually no effort is ever made to hold any managers accountable for anything, because the only people who could do that are other, higher-level managers, whose jobs are even more worthless, and they know it, so bad managers are kept around because otherwise the entire House of Feudalism could collapse - Good managers are frequently praised for their ability to protect their reports from the torrent of stupid bullshit coming from above them in the chain, and yet nobody ever asks why the fuck there's a torrent of stupid bullshit coming from higher-level managers, who, again, make much more than the people being protected from their wanton disregard for effective management. Are you not shocked?
omginternets 4y ago
I don’t disagree with any of what you’ve said, but you haven’t addressed the issue. The issue is that anyone unable to intuit what has been said in this HBR rag has no business directing the work of another human being. No amount of difference in “mindset” or “context” can account for the sheer obviousness or what is being said, nor can it justify passing this off for expert analysis.
- mentalpiracy 4y ago
  is-ought problem though; unfortunately many/most of the individuals managing work are not able to intuit this on their own.
  - omginternets 4y ago
    And so I rest my case: I fail to see what value HBR’s core readership can possibly bring to a company.
- wpietri 4y ago
  It is obvious to you and me. It is not obvious to them. I would agree that it's terrible that this is the dominant management paradigm is one that seems terrible to a lot of workers. Whether or not these people "have no business" managing doesn't really matter in that they are broadly in charge. Denying the reality isn't going to change the situation.
neogodless 4y ago
Never heard of POSIWID before... To save others a web search. “The Purpose of a System Is What It Does.”
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
bjornasm 4y ago
>A great example here is the ubiquitous status meeting. Everybody troops into a conference room for an hour and takes turns saying things to the boss while everybody else's eyes glaze over. This lets the boss feel powerful and important, but it's a giant waste of time. The POSIWID conclusion is that organizational effectiveness is very much secondary to reinforcing the dominance hierarchy. This is a good point and resonated with me. It would be a better use of the employees time (and thus presumably better for the company) if the boss walks around, and sit down with people to have a chat about the status of the project/status in general. However this would take a lot more time for the boss and probably doesn't feel as empowering as well, so all hands on deck, lets use 1/8 of today to sit and do nothing. I think having a 1 on 1 would help people be more honest about their status, and maybe even the group dynamic in their team as well. I have been a consultant where we were 10+ consultants plus 2-3 internals in a weekly meeting. It baffles me that the customer wanted to do something that costly and ineffective.

incone123 4y ago

Almost every meeting I ever attended had an agenda and the others were on single, specific topics. So is that normal and hbr is inventing a problem, or am I very fortunate?

mattnewton 4y ago
I think you are exceedingly fortunate to the point where you must know how to pick companies/roles better than average.
- incone123 4y ago
  Well someone has to be the lucky outlier. And these meetings do have digressions plus heavy use of Any Other Business!
wpietri 4y ago
In my experience that is wildly out of the norm, and you are very fortunate.

CPLX 4y ago

Why do you think a regular status meeting is definitionally a giant waste of time in all business contexts? Is informing others of status and next steps not a business goal?

sethhochberg 4y ago
Many tech-forward schools of thought would probably suggest that status of work is something that should be discoverable - ie, we shouldn't need a status update meeting because the status is obvious from looking at tasks on a Kanban board or some other tool that is used for tracking work. I'd guess the person you're replying to believes more that meetings are a poor way to accomplish this than that a pulse on work isn't important to business.
- wpietri 4y ago
  Yes, well spotted. I'm a big fan of Kanban boards, to the point of having run entire companies with them: https://williampietri.com/writing/2015/the-big-board/ https://williampietri.com/writing/2015/the-big-board/
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ethanwillis 4y ago
Human memory is bad. It's also synchronous. It's also not easily referenceable. Why aren't status reports more common than status meetings?
wpietri 4y ago
Please try to accuse me of things I actually said, thanks.

jdlshore 4y ago

> Managerialist culture is founded on the notion that workers must be supervised and controlled. That's a shallow view of the situation. What you're describing is "Taylorist" management, or "Theory X" management. Modern management theory also discusses "Theory Y" management, in which providing context and trust is more important than supervision and control. Many managers are unaware of this concept, even though it's Management 101. If that's the case in your company, it's not a problem with "managerialist culture"... it's a problem with your company's culture.

feoren 4y ago
> Modern management theory also discusses "Theory Y" management, Good god, "management" is so deeply devoid of any actual substance that they can't even name their prominent theories? No wonder it's a constant struggle for them to justify their own existence.
- jdlshore 4y ago
  The names are “Theory X” and “Theory Y.” Now excuse me while I go work on some C and get a hot cup of Java and complain about JavaScript.
- throwoutway 4y ago
  These theories are taught in an MBA program. Most managers never go through such a program. Ironically, MBAs are often mocked on HN, but now I find it ironic that you find it shocking that managers (who don't complete an MBA) don't know what the prominent theories are.
  - feoren 4y ago
    > Ironically, MBAs are often mocked on HN It's possible to have strongly negative opinions of both MBAs and middle managers, even if they don't perfectly overlap. > now I find it ironic that you find it shocking that managers (who don't complete an MBA) don't know what the prominent theories are Hard to be "shocked" anymore, since it's so normalized, but if we break it down: - Management theory is mostly bereft of useful information - Most managers don't learn the theory anyway - Most managers don't bother to try to get better at their jobs, and if they do, it's by reading vapid articles like this one or going to the expensive training version of the same - Higher-level managers earn multiple times what ACs ("actual contributors") earn - Bad managers can, and do, sink entire teams, and may represent some of the biggest risk to most companies, and yet virtually no effort is ever made to hold any managers accountable for anything, because the only people who could do that are other, higher-level managers, whose jobs are even more worthless, and they know it, so bad managers are kept around because otherwise the entire House of Feudalism could collapse - Good managers are frequently praised for their ability to protect their reports from the torrent of stupid bullshit coming from above them in the chain, and yet nobody ever asks why the fuck there's a torrent of stupid bullshit coming from higher-level managers, who, again, make much more than the people being protected from their wanton disregard for effective management. Are you not shocked?

omginternets 4y ago

I don’t disagree with any of what you’ve said, but you haven’t addressed the issue. The issue is that anyone unable to intuit what has been said in this HBR rag has no business directing the work of another human being. No amount of difference in “mindset” or “context” can account for the sheer obviousness or what is being said, nor can it justify passing this off for expert analysis.

mentalpiracy 4y ago
is-ought problem though; unfortunately many/most of the individuals managing work are not able to intuit this on their own.
- omginternets 4y ago
  And so I rest my case: I fail to see what value HBR’s core readership can possibly bring to a company.
wpietri 4y ago
It is obvious to you and me. It is not obvious to them. I would agree that it's terrible that this is the dominant management paradigm is one that seems terrible to a lot of workers. Whether or not these people "have no business" managing doesn't really matter in that they are broadly in charge. Denying the reality isn't going to change the situation.

neogodless 4y ago

Never heard of POSIWID before... To save others a web search. “The Purpose of a System Is What It Does.”

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

bjornasm 4y ago

>A great example here is the ubiquitous status meeting. Everybody troops into a conference room for an hour and takes turns saying things to the boss while everybody else's eyes glaze over. This lets the boss feel powerful and important, but it's a giant waste of time. The POSIWID conclusion is that organizational effectiveness is very much secondary to reinforcing the dominance hierarchy. This is a good point and resonated with me. It would be a better use of the employees time (and thus presumably better for the company) if the boss walks around, and sit down with people to have a chat about the status of the project/status in general. However this would take a lot more time for the boss and probably doesn't feel as empowering as well, so all hands on deck, lets use 1/8 of today to sit and do nothing. I think having a 1 on 1 would help people be more honest about their status, and maybe even the group dynamic in their team as well. I have been a consultant where we were 10+ consultants plus 2-3 internals in a weekly meeting. It baffles me that the customer wanted to do something that costly and ineffective.