82,510
edits
Org chart: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|hr|{{image|Org Chart|png}}}}{{quote|“What you see is all there is.” | {{a|hr|{{image|Org Chart|png}}}}{{quote|“What you see is all there is.” | ||
:— {{author|Daniel Kahneman}}}} | :— {{author|Daniel Kahneman}}}} | ||
{{quote| | {{quote|Der Teufel mag im Detail stecken, aber Gott steckt in den Lücken.<br>''“The Devil may be in the detail, but God is in the gaps.”'' | ||
:—{{Buchstein}}, ''[[Die Schweizer Heulsuse]]''}}{{d|Org chart|/ɔːg ʧɑːt/|n|}} | :—{{Buchstein}}, ''[[Die Schweizer Heulsuse]]''}}{{d|Org chart|/ɔːg ʧɑːt/|n|}} | ||
A glib schematic that tells you everything you don’t need to know about an organisation, but which | A glib schematic that tells you everything you ''don’t'' need to know about an organisation, but which it treats as its most utmost secret. | ||
===[[Form]], not [[substance]]=== | |||
Because we can see [[form]] easily, we imbue it with meaning. We assume the fixed connections we draw between the vertices of our institutions ''matter'': that they ''are'' “structural”, because we ''say'' they are. | Because we can see [[form]] easily, we imbue it with meaning. We assume the fixed connections we draw between the vertices of our institutions ''matter'': that they ''are'' “structural”, because we ''say'' they are. | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
===Spans and layers=== | ===Spans and layers=== | ||
There is much management theory around the relationship of “spans” and “layers”<ref>[https://www.google.com/search?q=spans+and+layers Let me google that for you].</ref> in the optimal organisation. There should be no more than 5 “layers” of management; a “span” of no more than 5 direct reports and so on. Why? ''To make performance appraisal easier''. | |||
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: | |||
{{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.”}} | |||
To wit: a worldview ''in which the most significant thing you can do is ''manage'', and the most significant part of management is ''[[performance appraisal]]''. The ethos: ''look after the ''form'' and the substance'' will look after itself''. But this is to look after the pounds and hope the pennies take care of themselves. Well, of ''course'' they will: that’s what pennies do: they need no licence from the boss for that. Theory, therefore: | |||
Performance comes ''despite'' management, not ''because'' of it. | |||
Management focuses on reporting lines — [[formal]] organisational structure — because it | ===What you see is all there is=== | ||
Management focuses on reporting lines — [[formal]] organisational structure — because that is what it ''sees''. Reporting lines are “[[legible]]”. Measurable. [[Audit|Auditable]]. You can count and optimise spans and layers. In this way, those at the top conveniently may credit business success to the formal structure they preside over. | |||
But reporting lines 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 at the expense of better ones, for if they really were the best lines of communication, you wouldn’t ''need'' to formalise. They would just ''happen''. | But reporting lines 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 at the expense of better ones, for if they really were the best lines of communication, you wouldn’t ''need'' to formalise. They would just ''happen''. | ||
| Line 42: | Line 46: | ||
A bottom-up map of functional interactions would disregard the artificial cascade of formal ''authority'' in favour of informal ''credibility''. It would reveal the organisation as a point-to-point multi-nodal network, far richer than the flimsy frame indicated by the org chart. With modern data analytics, it would not even be hard to do: Log the firm’s communication records for data to see where those communications go: who chats with whom? who calls whom? Who emails whom? What is the informal structure of the firm? Who are the major nodes? | A bottom-up map of functional interactions would disregard the artificial cascade of formal ''authority'' in favour of informal ''credibility''. It would reveal the organisation as a point-to-point multi-nodal network, far richer than the flimsy frame indicated by the org chart. With modern data analytics, it would not even be hard to do: Log the firm’s communication records for data to see where those communications go: who chats with whom? who calls whom? Who emails whom? What is the informal structure of the firm? Who are the major nodes? | ||
=== Modernism vs. agilism === | ===Modernism vs. agilism=== | ||
The [[modernist]] sees the firm as a unitary machine that must be centrally managed and controlled from the top: the ''more'' structure the better. | The [[modernist]] sees the firm as a unitary machine that must be centrally managed and controlled from the top: the ''more'' structure the better. | ||