This is an amazing episode. Many things Gene mentioned resonated with me.
One thing that I had a question though is how to keep applying small and incremental changes to the organisational structure. We has humans like to be belonged to a team and not being moved around every now and then. Also like to have clear idea of what is expected out us and be able to work towards those expected results.
If things keep changing every now and then, no matter how minuscule they are, wouldn't that create a significant level of disruption to the other two layers - product and processes as teams will be moved back their less productive Forming and Storming stages?
Perhaps, I misunderstood what Gene articulated there. So, I would love to hear more on this.
Really interesting 30 minutes, thank you! This sounds a bit like the idea of 'boundary spanners' with added insight into desirable personal attributes.
Love the interview and the very interesting insights. I'm really looking forward to read the book. I think of the challenge of many businesses is to embrace diversity of methods, related to the diversity of situations a company, or even a team, can be at the same time. The same as a team shouldn't necessarily treated building a feature the same as fixing a bug, or a company managed its R&D department the same as its Finance Security.
IMO, a company is more like a caravan of independent entities, connecting with each other more or less freely, rather than a ship manoeuvring uniformly. I'm really looking forward for new methods that help a company to better oriented themselves, like Teams Topology or Wardley Maps. Overall, I hope the era of one size fits all solution, aka Silver Bullet, will soon came to an end. Given that it was mentioned by Brooks almost 50 years ago, my hope isn't very high.
This is an amazing episode. Many things Gene mentioned resonated with me.
One thing that I had a question though is how to keep applying small and incremental changes to the organisational structure. We has humans like to be belonged to a team and not being moved around every now and then. Also like to have clear idea of what is expected out us and be able to work towards those expected results.
If things keep changing every now and then, no matter how minuscule they are, wouldn't that create a significant level of disruption to the other two layers - product and processes as teams will be moved back their less productive Forming and Storming stages?
Perhaps, I misunderstood what Gene articulated there. So, I would love to hear more on this.
Thanks again John.
Really interesting 30 minutes, thank you! This sounds a bit like the idea of 'boundary spanners' with added insight into desirable personal attributes.
I first heard about that from relational coordination, which people might find interesting : https://heller.brandeis.edu/relational-coordination/about-rc/index.html
Love the interview and the very interesting insights. I'm really looking forward to read the book. I think of the challenge of many businesses is to embrace diversity of methods, related to the diversity of situations a company, or even a team, can be at the same time. The same as a team shouldn't necessarily treated building a feature the same as fixing a bug, or a company managed its R&D department the same as its Finance Security.
IMO, a company is more like a caravan of independent entities, connecting with each other more or less freely, rather than a ship manoeuvring uniformly. I'm really looking forward for new methods that help a company to better oriented themselves, like Teams Topology or Wardley Maps. Overall, I hope the era of one size fits all solution, aka Silver Bullet, will soon came to an end. Given that it was mentioned by Brooks almost 50 years ago, my hope isn't very high.