Something for the weekend, sir?: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|devil}} Newsletter cribnotes | {{a|devil}}Newsletter cribnotes | ||
===[[Modernism]], formalism=== | ===[[Modernism]], formalism=== | ||
Vertex | *Vertex versus edge | ||
Text | *Text versus meaning | ||
Formal versus informal | *Formal versus informal | ||
Tool versus application | *Tool versus application | ||
Innate | *Innate versus emergent | ||
Obvious versus subtle | *Obvious versus subtle | ||
Simple versus complex | *Simple versus complex | ||
Quantitative | *Quantitative wersus qualitative | ||
Calculated versus interpreted | *Calculated versus interpreted | ||
Static versus dynamic | *Static versus dynamic | ||
Noun versus verb | *Noun versus verb | ||
Trees | *Trees versus wood | ||
Permanent versus | Permanent versus ephemeral | ||
==== | ====The illusion of permanence and the Ship of Theseus==== | ||
We see that even many of the markers we treat as formal, fixed and permanent are really temporary: the Dread Pirate Roberts effect: the personnel comprising a corporation ''change'' over time. Likewise institutions: corporations merge, change business models, change locations, move into different markets. IBM of 2021 is very different from the IBM of 1971. | |||
But the individuals may be fleeting and transitory; the residue they leave behind is not: The corporation’s devotion to the [[Form|formal]] means that successive individuals become progressively constrained by their predecessors actions and decisions — even if, in the mean time the dynamic considerations that led to the decision no longer prevail. A rule that has been there for a long time, but that no-one knows the provenance of, acquires a kind of mystical quality. I think this is the inverse of the “Lindy effect”. | |||
====The illusion of significance==== | ====The illusion of significance==== | ||
Because we can see the formal structures easily we tend to attribute significance | Because we can see the formal structures easily we tend to attribute them with significance, and assume the static connections between the formal structures are what matters. For example the [[org chart]]: this places every person in a firm in a logical, hierarchical relationship to everyone else, and can be neatly and easily controlled, that's not to say many organisation charts become positively Byzantine. | ||
There is much management theory around optimal organisation charts no more than 5 layers of management; no more than 5 direct reports and so on. | There is much management theory around optimal organisation charts no more than 5 layers of management; no more than 5 direct reports and so on. This, from [https://peoplepuzzles.co.uk/news/ive-got-too-many-direct-reports/#:~:text=Around%20five%20direct%20reports%20seems,really%20hold%20the%20business%20back People Puzzles], is pretty funny: | ||
<small>{{quote|'''How many is too many?''' <br>Around five direct reports seems to be the optimum number, according to Mark and Alison, although there are some scenarios where up to nine can work.<br>When it comes to the senior team in a company, however, too many people reporting directly to the owner manager can really hold the business back. Alison recalls working with someone who had 13 people reporting directly to her. “She had to do 13 [[Performance appraisal|appraisals]] at the end of every year!” she says. “It simply wasn’t an effective use of her time.”}}</small> | |||
But this is largely to miss the map for the territory. An organisation chart is just that: a static map of the firm as it is configured ''before'' interacting or doing anything. They are the plan that the organisation has ''before it gets punched in the mouth''. Often reporting lines are the most sclerotic, rusty and resented interaction channels in the organisation. Focussing on them misses the lateral communications and interactions that make up the firm’s actual day-to-day operations: these are the communications that employees ''must'' make to get their job done and move the organisation along. These interactions necessarily cross siloes (communications between specialists in the firm), and transgress the firm’s own hermetic boundaries (communications with clients and suppliers). These interactions are where things happen: where tensions manifest themselves, problems emerge and opportunities arise. | |||
Typically, ''vertical'', staff-to-manager communications don’t have those qualities. Reporting lines are more an interaction ''constraint'' rather than an indicator of productivity. They ''impede'' the firm from interacting freely. | |||
They | |||
The [[modernist]] theory is that the firm is a unitary machine that must be centrally managed and controlled from the top; therefore the more organisational structure the better. | |||
The | The “agilist” advocates removing layers, disestablishing silos, and decluttering the organisational structure. | ||
The agile theory is that risks and opportunities both arise unexpectedly, come from places unanticipated by the formal management structure, and therefore the optimal organising principle is to allow talented people at the the coalface the maximum flexibility to react to those risks and opportunities. Thus, the imperative is to have the best people, with the best equipment, in the best place to react skilfully. Those people aren’t middle managers, the optimal equipment isn’t the one that leaves the best audit trail, and that place is not the board room, much less the [[steering committee]] or the [[operating committee]]. It is out there in the jungle. the fewest number of formal impediments to their creative use by those people. | |||
For a [[modernist]], this is inevitably a scary prospect. The [[modernist]] view is that as long as the structure is correct the quality of the people in any of the positions on the organisational structure is immaterial as they have predefined roles to perform. | |||
So to understand a business one needs not understand its formal structure, but its ''informal'' structure: not the roles but the people who fill them: who are the key people whom others go to to help get things done; to break through logjams, to ensure the management is on side? These lines will not show up in any organisational structure. They are not what {{author|James C. Scott}} would describe as legible. They are hard to see: they are the beaten tracks through the jungle: the neural pathways that light up when the machine is thinking. They show up in email traffic, phone records, swipcode data. | |||
===Turtles=== | |||
Talking Politics with Adam Curtis | |||
The idea that the truth is in the patterns in the days that human cannot even see. | |||
Money as an abstract token of value that has no intrinsic value | |||
Advertising generates economic production, rather than economic production generating advertising. | |||
=== | === Authenticity === | ||
The importance of [[authenticity]]. Why is it not the same when it isn't David gilmour playing that guitar solo? | The importance of [[authenticity]]. Why is it not the same when it isn't David gilmour playing that guitar solo? | ||