3 ms·

That's brilliant. However, I don't think it's only PMs who indulge in that behavior. I've seen managers and engineers (yes, indeed) do the same shit. Internal

That's brilliant. However, I don't think it's only PMs who indulge in that behavior. I've seen managers and engineers (yes, indeed) do the same shit. Internal competition within companies is pure corrosion and it's always detrimental. I'm convinced that there are no exceptions to that. The rare good manager is K-selective insofar as she intends to reproduce (scale) processes with quality and moral decency. If she runs a company, she won't hire before she trusts, and she'll make sure everyone gets credit and autonomy. Most managers are r-selectors, though; they over-hire, don't trust, and throw shit at the wall until something sticks. The egoistic bad-guy PMs being described here are the ones who thrive in the typical r-strategist corporation.

GFischer 14y ago
Had to look up R and K selection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  It's what I'm focusing on as I study organizational decline. It turns out that the metaphor (reproduction of processes, skill sets, and values) applies to corporate life. The reason most jobs suck balls is that most companies are r-strategists. The r-selective alpha male was the harem owner who treated his "wives" like chattel and invested nothing in his (hundreds of) children, most of whom would fail. It was "spray and pray". The K-strategist was the monogamist who treated his one wife well (often, as an equal) and invested heavily in the health of mother and children. The r-strategist boss doesn't mentor employees, creates a sink-or-swim environment, and over-hires, generating internal competition, which is always toxic. The K-strategist hires more slowly but invests trust and interest in the people brought in. Of course, r-strategist companies grow a lot faster and, in many spaces, are much more "fit", but I believe that's going to change amid the convexity of post-technological work.
  - aswanson 14y ago
    Could you expound on what you mean by post technological work?
    - michaelochurch 14y ago
      Essentially, I mean that technology is taking the boring, commodity work away from humans and the stuff that remains can't really be managed into existence.
      - aswanson 14y ago
        oh, okay. I thought you meant that we were entering a phase of economic development where technology had obsoleted itself as a business advantage.
        michaelochurch 14y ago
        Oh, no. If anything, it's the opposite. "Post-technological" was terrible word choice on my part. I meant "post-technological transition" but there is no way anyone could have known that based on what I actually said. The last transitions were 10000 BC (into agrarian) and about 1750 (into the industrial era). The technological transition is underway. We're probably 10-20% technological at this point.

GFischer 14y ago

Had to look up R and K selection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

michaelochurch 14y ago
It's what I'm focusing on as I study organizational decline. It turns out that the metaphor (reproduction of processes, skill sets, and values) applies to corporate life. The reason most jobs suck balls is that most companies are r-strategists. The r-selective alpha male was the harem owner who treated his "wives" like chattel and invested nothing in his (hundreds of) children, most of whom would fail. It was "spray and pray". The K-strategist was the monogamist who treated his one wife well (often, as an equal) and invested heavily in the health of mother and children. The r-strategist boss doesn't mentor employees, creates a sink-or-swim environment, and over-hires, generating internal competition, which is always toxic. The K-strategist hires more slowly but invests trust and interest in the people brought in. Of course, r-strategist companies grow a lot faster and, in many spaces, are much more "fit", but I believe that's going to change amid the convexity of post-technological work.
- aswanson 14y ago
  Could you expound on what you mean by post technological work?
  - michaelochurch 14y ago
    Essentially, I mean that technology is taking the boring, commodity work away from humans and the stuff that remains can't really be managed into existence.
    - aswanson 14y ago
      oh, okay. I thought you meant that we were entering a phase of economic development where technology had obsoleted itself as a business advantage.
      - michaelochurch 14y ago
        Oh, no. If anything, it's the opposite. "Post-technological" was terrible word choice on my part. I meant "post-technological transition" but there is no way anyone could have known that based on what I actually said. The last transitions were 10000 BC (into agrarian) and about 1750 (into the industrial era). The technological transition is underway. We're probably 10-20% technological at this point.