Something for the weekend, sir?: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 14: Line 14:
*Noun versus verb
*Noun versus verb
*Trees versus wood
*Trees versus wood
Permanent versus ephemeral
*Permanent versus ephemeral


====The illusion of permanence and the Ship of Theseus====
====The illusion of permanence and the Ship of Theseus====
Line 22: Line 22:


====The illusion of significance====
====The illusion of 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.
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. 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:
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:
Line 28: Line 28:
<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>
<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.  
Yet we are also told, by the same sorts of people, that we should optimise efficiency with flat management structures:
 
<small>{{quote|.In Bain’s database, the average large company had between eight and nine layers of management, while “best-in-class” firms are flatter, with six to seven layers.
 
Two dogmas of contemporary management in conflict here: You can’t enforce small teams ''and'' have flat management structures. There is a mathematical relationship between them: for a given size of firm, the smaller the average team, the more management layers it implies.
 
In any case 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.
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.
Line 40: Line 46:
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.
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.  
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, swipecode data.  




Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Something_for_the_weekend,_sir%3F"