5 ms·

Top down comes with its own risks. The bottom line is big ideas and big change can only happen with both the champion at the top, as well as good understanding

Top down comes with its own risks. The bottom line is big ideas and big change can only happen with both the champion at the top, as well as good understanding at the bottom, and a critical mass of good alignment and competence throughout the middle layers. Though Conway's Law is immutable, it doesn't necessarily depend on a formal org chart, it can be worked with by simply creating ad-hoc communication structures between the right tech leads and competent managers. A handful of technically weak or empire-building managers in the middle can fuck the whole thing pretty easily though, and depending on the lifecycle of your company it may be a lost cause due to Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy.

LightFog 3y ago
Although it’s not always necessary to go through the middle - you can do the old switcheroo and build a parallel org in your image, emerge from the shadows and duke it out with the old structure.
- chasd00 3y ago
  If you come at the king you best not miss. Fail at taking down the old structure and those relationships are so destroyed they will come after you. I’ve seen groups of consultants become unemployable across the whole industry by failing to take down the old guard. Word spreads.
szundi 3y ago
Very good comment
nonrandomstring 3y ago
> as well as good understanding at the bottom, and a critical mass of good alignment and competence throughout the middle layers. How do you hold the middle together? Especially under such turbulence? "Strong" leadership isn't enough. Reflective practice [0] is one way to build that. It's common in medical and some safety-critical civil/military spheres but strangely missing from many corporate structures. I talk about it here with regard to a more mature cybersecurity stance [1]. It intersects with Agile ideas but doesn't make much noise in software engineering project management as much as it should? Anyone have this in their org? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflective_practice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflective_practice [1] https://cybershow.uk/blog/posts/reflective https://cybershow.uk/blog/posts/reflective
- dartos 3y ago
  Have fewer middle managers?

LightFog 3y ago

Although it’s not always necessary to go through the middle - you can do the old switcheroo and build a parallel org in your image, emerge from the shadows and duke it out with the old structure.

chasd00 3y ago
If you come at the king you best not miss. Fail at taking down the old structure and those relationships are so destroyed they will come after you. I’ve seen groups of consultants become unemployable across the whole industry by failing to take down the old guard. Word spreads.

szundi 3y ago

Very good comment

nonrandomstring 3y ago

> as well as good understanding at the bottom, and a critical mass of good alignment and competence throughout the middle layers. How do you hold the middle together? Especially under such turbulence? "Strong" leadership isn't enough. Reflective practice [0] is one way to build that. It's common in medical and some safety-critical civil/military spheres but strangely missing from many corporate structures. I talk about it here with regard to a more mature cybersecurity stance [1]. It intersects with Agile ideas but doesn't make much noise in software engineering project management as much as it should? Anyone have this in their org? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflective_practice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflective_practice [1] https://cybershow.uk/blog/posts/reflective https://cybershow.uk/blog/posts/reflective

dartos 3y ago
Have fewer middle managers?