Middle management: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Amwelladmin moved page Middle management to Middle management blues |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Removed redirect to Middle management blues Tag: Removed redirect |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The inevitable consequence of scale; when your organisation passes the fulcrum between ''arsehole'' risk and ''tedium'' risk. It is an [[event horizon]] from which there is no return; a kind of [[Schwarzschild radius of bureaucracy]]. The thing is you can always find and get rid of — or at least ''deal with'' — an arsehole: the more people in your organisation the easier it is to do. But bureaucracy is a type of entropy; it is a point of flat, tepid equilibrium to which dead organisms converge. It is sticky. Once you have appointed a [[director of human resources]], you are stuck with an HR department until the organisation dies: there is no personnel manager who will ever tell accept one it not needed; and it will can only grow: it will develop “competencies”: it will institute [[performance appraisal]] systems; create then outsource and manage talent acquisition and retention programmes; it will develop future leadership courses and will appoint itself as sole competence for [[environmental and social governance[[ and [[diversity and inclusion]], to which the remainder of the organisation is thereafter accountable. | |||
There is an argument that the moment your organisation is big enough to need a [[chief operating officer]], and not just a [[head of operations]], is the unequivocal point at which your organisation has maximised its growth, maximised its return, and commenced the slow, steady, comforting decline into entropy and death. | |||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Middle management blues]] | |||
*[[Schwarzschild radius]] | |||
Revision as of 12:39, 25 October 2020
The inevitable consequence of scale; when your organisation passes the fulcrum between arsehole risk and tedium risk. It is an event horizon from which there is no return; a kind of Schwarzschild radius of bureaucracy. The thing is you can always find and get rid of — or at least deal with — an arsehole: the more people in your organisation the easier it is to do. But bureaucracy is a type of entropy; it is a point of flat, tepid equilibrium to which dead organisms converge. It is sticky. Once you have appointed a director of human resources, you are stuck with an HR department until the organisation dies: there is no personnel manager who will ever tell accept one it not needed; and it will can only grow: it will develop “competencies”: it will institute performance appraisal systems; create then outsource and manage talent acquisition and retention programmes; it will develop future leadership courses and will appoint itself as sole competence for [[environmental and social governance[[ and diversity and inclusion, to which the remainder of the organisation is thereafter accountable.
There is an argument that the moment your organisation is big enough to need a chief operating officer, and not just a head of operations, is the unequivocal point at which your organisation has maximised its growth, maximised its return, and commenced the slow, steady, comforting decline into entropy and death.