Template:M intro design org chart: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:M intro design org chart (view source)

Revision as of 16:35, 27 October 2023

1,368 bytes added ,  27 October 2023
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 7: Line 7:


===[[Form]], not [[substance]]===
===[[Form]], not [[substance]]===
“[[Desire lines]]” are the informal pathways we make when our “built environment” lets us down.<ref>Nicely put by Steve Bates in “Lines of Desire”, ''{{plainlink|https://issuu.com/warrendraper/docs/doncopolitan_rosy2_issue__online_|Doncopolitan}}'', July 2014 </ref> They cross open ground, emerging over time as individuals make their own judgments as to the best and most convenient routes, often ignoring central planning and its designed pathways.
But organisations have a way of frustrating their executives’ best-laid plans, just as cities delight in upsetting their urban planners’ platonic aspirations. This is not an accident but necessary consequence of forward motion into an uncertain future: an organisation that devoutly obeys its present operating manual is, to all intents and purposes, on [[Work-to-rule|strike]]. That is, in fact, the definition of a “[[work-to-rule]]”.


Org charts, being a [[the map and the territory|a map and not the territory]], and tells you as much about what the organisation does as an ordinance survey map tells you what the weather will be like or what’s on at the cinema. It contains no ''desire lines'': the communication channels the firm’s personnel willingly open because they ''want'' to, or ''need'' to, to get anything done.  
For an organisation is what it ''does'', not what it ''is''. What it is, when not ''doing'' something, is a dematerialised pile of papers.


(Don’t underestimate the importance of the “want” in that calculus, by the way: there is always a choice as to whom you call to get a given job done. All other things being equal, we choose the dude over the bore. It is reflexive: over time dudes field more calls get more experience build better networks and give better outcomes: “want” converges with “need”. ''Lesson: if you want to get ahead, don’t be a dork.'')
Org charts say as much about what an organisation ''does'' as an ordinance survey map does about what the weather will be like, or how people will behave if it rains. Being static, they speak to what is ''meant'' to happen in an expected future that behaves according to the historical model. They cannot accommodate contingencies, opportunities, and unexposed risks. They contain only the vertical communication channels that personnel are ''meant'' to use to respect the firm’s governance structure, not the lateral ones they ''must'' use to move the organisation forward, much less the informal ones they ''do'' use, because they ''want'' to, and because — to hell with the rules — these have proven the best way to get anything done.
 
We should not underestimate the importance of the “want” in that calculus, by the way: we always have a choice as to whom we call to progress a given task. [[All other things being equal]], we choose those who we have found to be helpful, co-operative and imaginative over those who tend to be defensive, hostile, boring or stupid. It is reflexive: “no good deed goes unpunished”: over time, popular staff field more calls, get more experience, build better networks and give better outcomes: “want” converges with “need”. ''Lesson: if you want to get ahead, don’t be a dork.''
 
In any case, these vital informal communication channels rarely run along the formal lines of the org chart. Why ''would'' they?


In any case, these vital informal communication channels rarely run along the formal lines of the org chart. Why would they?


===What you see is all there is===
===What you see is all there is===
Yet management is obliged to focus on this [[formal]], static structure, made flesh in reporting lines, because ''that is all it sees''.  
Yet management is obliged to focus on this [[formal]], static structure, made flesh in reporting lines, because ''that is all it sees''.  Consider an imaginary employee: Dan Grade.<ref>Readers may wonder whether the JC had someone in mind when drawing this pen sketch. Undoubtedly, yes. If you think it might be you, you are almost certainly wrong, because it would never occur to Dan that he was this important. That is what is so good about him. </ref>
 
{{quote|
Dan is an ED in the risk team. The CEO can’t see what everyone knows: that Dan is the go-to guy for dumb questions, sensible takes and tricky escalations. He’s also an agreeable chap: he has been in the organisation twenty-five years, runs a tight ship, holds a trove of [[institutional knowledge]] and personal capital which he applies deftly to managing risk, tamping flare-ups, calming intemperate traders and heading off incipient trainwrecks while patiently educating generations of grads, juniors and, frankly, his own line management in the mystical ways of sound of risk management, all the while maintaining and heroic sense of composure and superhuman tolerance for tedium, time wasting and petty initiatives foisted on him by middle management. Dan does all this so well that he rarely comes to the attention of anyone important. From the eagles nest, he’s just tiny, fungible node in the thickets of branches fanning out across the valleys and plains of the org chart chart below. Only his reporting line and salary is “[[legible]]” from the executive suite. They can count and optimise the [[spans and layers]], of which he is part, and attribute to them the profits and losses of the organisation even if, in practice, they don’t map awfully well, but they have no clue as to what he does to move the organisation on.  


Consider poor old Dan Grade, an ED in the risk team. The CEO can’t see what everyone knows: that Dan is the go-to guy for dumb questions, sensible takes and tricky credit escalations. He’s also an affable chap: he has been in the organisation twenty-five years, runs a tight ship, holds a trove of [[institutional knowledge]] and personal capital which he applies deftly to managing risk, fixing flare-ups, tamping down client situations, patiently educating generations of grads, inside his department and out, about the tenets of risk management, all the while and making his really rather useless boss look good. Dan does all this so well that he rarely comes to the attention of anyone important, and from 30,000 feet he’s just a node in the thickets of branches in the org chart. Only his reporting line and salary is “[[legible]]” from the executive suite. They can count and optimise the [[spans and layers]], of which he is part, and attribute to them the profits and losses of the organisation even if, in practice, they don’t map awfully well, but they have no clue as to what he does to move the organisation on.
Closer at hand, there are hundreds people — all of them indistinguishable nodes on the org chart, of course — who know the place would fall apart without people like Dan.}}


Instead, the reporting lines which management sees are the most sclerotic, rusty and ''resented'' communication channels in the organisation. They are the “keep off the grass” signs; vain attempts to coerce inferior modes of communication over better ones, for if they really were the best lines of communication, no-one would ''need'' to coerce them: they would just ''happen'', the same way lateral communications naturally flow into Dan.  
Management can’s see Dan. It sees only the reporting lines which are the most sclerotic, rusty and ''resented'' communication channels in the organisation. They are the “keep off the grass” signs; vain attempts to coerce inferior modes of communication over better ones, for if they really were the best lines of communication, no-one would ''need'' to coerce them: they would just ''happen'', the same way lateral communications naturally flow into Dan.  


Since they don’t, management exhorts [[line manager]]s to [[one-to-one|meet weekly]] with their directs, populating standing agendas to furnish [[management information and statistics]] fit for injection into [[opco]] [[Microsoft PowerPoint|decks]] and [[RAG status|RAG dashboards]] of handsome looking, but — given the circumstances of its generation — basically useless data.  
Since they don’t, management exhorts [[line manager]]s to [[one-to-one|meet weekly]] with their directs, populating standing agendas to furnish [[management information and statistics]] fit for injection into [[opco]] [[Microsoft PowerPoint|decks]] and [[RAG status|RAG dashboards]] of handsome looking, but — given the circumstances of its generation — basically useless data.  
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/79967"

Navigation menu