When times are good, companies develop a mix of good habits and bad habits. When times get tough, they can no longer get by with bad habits. And in many cases, the habits that were a good fit for boom times are no longer a good fit for leaner times.
For every valuable thing we’ve learned about organizations, how distributed empowerment benefits that which is created and how culture and sustainability win the day, we are always one (bad) day away from old-style command and control dynamics (though likely minus the red-facedness, Marlboros and polyester).
Predictability is demanded but rarely provided and asymmetry reigns.
One of the reasons I am drawn to Toyota ways of working is exactly that mentality of what matters at the end is the global result, not how good I am in my little station of work... The current obsession with (small) teams in Agile that can do pretty much whatever they want to, seems to be at least in contradiction to that. So to me is easy to answer that question towards the end - I prefer the "one company".
“One company positions productivity as a collectivist effort at doing more with less but doing so by focusing more, working more sustainably, making the hard decisions, having more open conversations, and empowering front-line employees to call out inefficiencies and opportunities. Another company positions productivity as a game of metrics, measurement, accountability, commitment, ownership, "managing performance," agency, managing up, and top-down calls to eliminate meetings. These are two drastically different approaches to the task at hand.“
As you correctly pointed out, the reality is that these approaches & belief systems are often coexisting within the same company or organization. Which is what is leading to the so-called “clash”. I think your advice to first understand your leaning, and then work patiently/empathetically with those who have different styles, is most rational. Even if it may not be fully satisfying for many readers.
If you’re in a position of leadership, I think it’s really critical to understand your bias and its tradeoffs. And either find common ground where possible or do a good job acknowledge divergences as you make decisions. From my personal & anecdotal experience - many leaders (esp. mid-level managers) are finding this balancing act incredibly challenging and draining.
Power. And stress. And survivor syndrome.
For every valuable thing we’ve learned about organizations, how distributed empowerment benefits that which is created and how culture and sustainability win the day, we are always one (bad) day away from old-style command and control dynamics (though likely minus the red-facedness, Marlboros and polyester).
Predictability is demanded but rarely provided and asymmetry reigns.
Ah well. More to work on.
One of the reasons I am drawn to Toyota ways of working is exactly that mentality of what matters at the end is the global result, not how good I am in my little station of work... The current obsession with (small) teams in Agile that can do pretty much whatever they want to, seems to be at least in contradiction to that. So to me is easy to answer that question towards the end - I prefer the "one company".
“One company positions productivity as a collectivist effort at doing more with less but doing so by focusing more, working more sustainably, making the hard decisions, having more open conversations, and empowering front-line employees to call out inefficiencies and opportunities. Another company positions productivity as a game of metrics, measurement, accountability, commitment, ownership, "managing performance," agency, managing up, and top-down calls to eliminate meetings. These are two drastically different approaches to the task at hand.“
As you correctly pointed out, the reality is that these approaches & belief systems are often coexisting within the same company or organization. Which is what is leading to the so-called “clash”. I think your advice to first understand your leaning, and then work patiently/empathetically with those who have different styles, is most rational. Even if it may not be fully satisfying for many readers.
If you’re in a position of leadership, I think it’s really critical to understand your bias and its tradeoffs. And either find common ground where possible or do a good job acknowledge divergences as you make decisions. From my personal & anecdotal experience - many leaders (esp. mid-level managers) are finding this balancing act incredibly challenging and draining.