I see you there, sneaking in the framework that starts with C!
The ontological battle you outline seems to be one we’re destined to keep cycling - perhaps because there are situations where the messaging model can work and when it does, it seems so efficient.
I’m intrigued. Across all the companies you’re working with, how many use different ways of working for different kinds of work? Vs those who are pushing for a universal process?
There’s the official org Seeing Like a Software Company, pushing for legibility and uniformity; and there’s the ever growing and mutating shadow organisation, getting shit done in weird ways while radiating just enough legibility.
As I read, I get an association of leaders "setting up the context and letting people run" in the name of empowerment, autonomy and genuine intention for growing their people.
But what I more often than not observed was the problem of leaders not being engaged with on the work on the ground (also as not walking the Gemba) sufficiently for people to grasp the intended context. If I throw in that "the more senior person needs to be able to run org of more people", that context is not emerging in so many places because leaders are incentivized to keep their distance.
It’s like we are recognising the need to learn anthropologic communication all over again with AI while pretending that we do not need to.
I see you there, sneaking in the framework that starts with C!
The ontological battle you outline seems to be one we’re destined to keep cycling - perhaps because there are situations where the messaging model can work and when it does, it seems so efficient.
I’m intrigued. Across all the companies you’re working with, how many use different ways of working for different kinds of work? Vs those who are pushing for a universal process?
I have a sense that work is always local, it is just the degree to which people have to pretend, lol.
I think you’re right.
There’s the official org Seeing Like a Software Company, pushing for legibility and uniformity; and there’s the ever growing and mutating shadow organisation, getting shit done in weird ways while radiating just enough legibility.
Day
F
As I read, I get an association of leaders "setting up the context and letting people run" in the name of empowerment, autonomy and genuine intention for growing their people.
But what I more often than not observed was the problem of leaders not being engaged with on the work on the ground (also as not walking the Gemba) sufficiently for people to grasp the intended context. If I throw in that "the more senior person needs to be able to run org of more people", that context is not emerging in so many places because leaders are incentivized to keep their distance.
I just had a moment of real PTSD because... remember when during the Social Media Web 2.0 craze folks started to say:
> CONTENT IS KING!!
... and then after the internet was flooded with shit content:
> CONTEXT IS KING!!
... does history repeat itself or what.