4 ms·
I share the frustration you express based on my experience working at large companies. However, there is a strong steelman explanation for why this is required
by takinola 3y ago
I share the frustration you express based on my experience working at large companies. However, there is a strong steelman explanation for why this is required.
In a 5 person company, it is easy to sit around the table and decide what needs to be done and then have everyone "get good work done and go home". In a 5,000 person company, it is not obvious what needs to be done in the first place talk less of making sure everyone knows their part in it. Should we be going after SMBs or Enterprise customers? What do we (or more importantly I) do differently based on that decision? How do we time the next campaign push to line up with the product launch?
There are thousands of decisions that need to be made and it is impossible to do that without having these formal processes that allow people to coordinate in large groups. I would argue that >60% of work involved in a large company is coordination rather than actual building, selling, marketing, whatever. The larger the company, the greater this percentage becomes.
I would love to know if anyone has found a solution to counteract this phenomenon but it seems like an immutable law based on my experience.
- nine_zeros 3y agoI think OKRs are required to communicate intent and targets. It is a great way for communication "across" and "upwards". But it is a shitty tool "downwards". Suddenly you have managers insisting that a feature must be rolled out before the 31st of March, even though rolling out 2 days later will be safer. It creates perverse incentives such as OKRs used for "individual" performance reviews when in reality, a lot of work is team/x-team/group effort. It causes ICs to play corporate games.
- takinola 3y agoBut that's an issue with how the OKRs are derived rather than if the OKRs are required. If the teams come up with OKRs with bottoms-up involvement then the issue you mention is mitigated. The fact that a thing can be done badly is not an argument for not doing the thing.
- nine_zeros 3y ago> If the teams come up with OKRs with bottoms-up involvement then the issue you mention is mitigated This still does not solve the problem that "individuals" are scapegoated for OKRs defined by someone else. I have actually seen people getting fired for not delivering on OKRs, which were ultra ambitious in the first place. The problem was not ambitious OKRs. The problem was individual consequences for team/management ambition. > The fact that a thing can be done badly is not an argument for not doing the thing. Sure, but this doesn't prevent discussion and bringing the failure modes to the fore. In fact, I would suggest that Gen-z and gen-alpha will be very difficult to hire and keep because they naturally understand the BS that OKRs are, having been exposed to BS games in school, college and with friends.
- nradov 3y agoOne solution is to establish a strict, clear company culture with guiding principles for making most decisions. All employees are expected to conform or leave. This allows for rapid alignment and execution. But it doesn't work as well for dealing with disruptive innovations.
- sharts 3y ago1,000 separate companies of 5 people each.
- Xorakios 3y agoMicroservices vs monolith at the human level?
- ehnto 3y agoThat is essentially the best reason to do microservices. You have small teams own a service each. If you are doing microservices and your company itself is a monolith, you've got competing agendas. Not impossible, just a bit of an anti-pattern.
- hnav 3y agocommunication overhead kills you though (in both cases)
- brianmcc 3y agoOKRs etc are one approach - everything written, documented, and whatnot. Honestly though I think it's wildly ineffective. What's a better approach? Every single manager, up to CEO level, trusts implicitly his or her direct reports. CEO trusts and delegates with confidence to their immediate reports. They in turn do likewise. Any missed opportunities or mis-steps are an issue between 2 levels in the org, IMO. Fundamentally it's a people, comms, co-ordination and aptitude problem, so solve it like one.