82,903
edits
Template:M intro design org chart: Difference between revisions
Template:M intro design org chart (view source)
Revision as of 13:55, 28 October 2023
, 28 October 2023no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
{{desire lines capsule}} | {{desire lines capsule}} | ||
}} | }} | ||
[[File:Desirelines.jpg| | [[File:Desirelines.jpg|500px|thumb|right|[[Desire lines]], yesterday. {{copyright|2014}} Steve Bates]]We should not underestimate the importance of the “want” in that calculus, by the way: there is always a choice ''whom'' to 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? | ||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
The org chart doesn’t say what should happen if Dan from risk needs to speak quickly to [[Janice Henderson|Janice]] in legal. The organogram says Dan must escalate up three [[Spans and layers|layers]] to the [[Chief risk officer|Chief Risk Officer]] who will then speak to the [[General counsel|General Counsel]], who will “cascade” his thoughts down to [[Janice Henderson|Janice]]. Of course, that is not how it works, ever: Dan just picks up the phone to Janice, or ''vice versa''. This is a [[desire line]], worn by decades of communal habit. | The org chart doesn’t say what should happen if Dan from risk needs to speak quickly to [[Janice Henderson|Janice]] in legal. The organogram says Dan must escalate up three [[Spans and layers|layers]] to the [[Chief risk officer|Chief Risk Officer]] who will then speak to the [[General counsel|General Counsel]], who will “cascade” his thoughts down to [[Janice Henderson|Janice]]. Of course, that is not how it works, ever: Dan just picks up the phone to Janice, or ''vice versa''. This is a [[desire line]], worn by decades of communal habit. | ||
These desire lines are pervasive across the organisation. It is ''in'' these interactions that things happen: it is here that tensions manifest themselves, problems emerge and opportunities arise, and here that these things are resolved. | These desire lines are pervasive across the organisation. It is ''in'' these interactions that things happen: it is here that tensions manifest themselves, problems emerge and opportunities arise, and here that these things are resolved. | ||
The Dan Grades and [[Janice Henderson]]s are the ''[[ad hoc]]'' mechanics who keep the eighteen-wheeler on the road. They are the “super-nodes”: they know histories, have networks and understand intuitively how the organisation works, what you must do and to whom you must speak to get things done. They may not be especially “senior” — they are too busy to be senior — and they don’t derive their significance from their ''formal status'', but from their ''in''formal ''function''. | |||
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? | ||