I may have mentioned, one or two hundred times, that I don't work any more. I won't go into the lugubrious details. But I still like to think about working, and about organizations, because, despite all evidence to the contrary, I still think that organizations can be harmonious and effective places to get marvelous things done. I know that usually, they're not; for every Aha moment, or feeling of Damn, I'm glad that I'm part of that, there's ten The auditors are coming; hide the cheat sheets and pull out the manuals of how we say we do stuff. I don't know why we do things that way, though if I had to guess, I'd say its one of two things: we like the sensation of cognitive dissonance between what we say and what we do, or we really do think we do what we say.... we just like cutting ourselves some slack. A lot of slack. I'm going for the latter, for what thats worth.
But I enjoy thinking about what makes an organization work. I can be startlingly naive in this regard. I think that honest, clear, and frequent communication works. I think that some people are losers, but not most. I believe in the Peter Principle. I like the analogy of the ants on the log. I think it takes so much effort to think about -- really think about -- how we do what we do, that we simply don't have the time to do that. We can think about it, or we can do it. We can't do both.
I used to read the Harvard Business Review, but I gave up on it because their view was pretty much consistently just what the CEO sees -- Big Picture, Broad Concept, Cigars in the Boardroom. Then I switched to the Sloan Management Review, which was more Big Picture, Tactical Concept, Stogies in the Lunchroom. All very nice, better than HBR, but still... Now I tend to read the writings of Tom Davenport, which combine the Big Picture with the occasional insight at the lower levels, and I like that.
But for day to day insights into what motivates people, I tend to read the IttyBiz site. Its not a theory site -- IttyBiz is focused on making it possible to succeed in the nitty-gritty world of Just Me, Incorporated business -- where, when you go to the Kinko's office, you don't get the cheerful, smiling desk clerk, or, when you go to the FedEx office, you don't get the delivery guy with the hat, jacket, shoes, and underwear all emblazoned with the company logo. What you get is people doing their job, sometimes well, sometimes poorly. Its not as grim as it could be, but it can be grim. What IttyBiz sells is answers to the question of how you and your business succeed in that environment.
Like any other opinion site, its not always right (as determined by my own opinion). But its right a great deal of the time, and its honest. There's no vague theory there. This site is aimed at people who work for a living. Its worth reading.
4 comments:
Last year at a University even we had a speaker named Karen Stephenson come and talk. She is an expert in revealing communication connections and increasing efficiency. She was actually asked by the government after 9/11 to help fix some of the communication problems.
It was a fascinating presentation and I think it might even be online soon (it has only taken a year hah).
There is an interesting concept of heterarchy that should google. Yeah, its interesting hah.
Is this her ? Never heard of heterarchy before, and based on what Wikipedia says, my guess would have been pretty far off. Was she into semiotics, or organizational structure, or somethng else entirely?
Just had a whole long comment that I submitted but my internet crapped out and I lost it, so let me try this again.
Yes, I believe that is her, I won't be able to explain exactly what she does well, but I'll give it a shot. She analyzes communication structure in organizations. If you have ever read Malcolm Gladwell's "The Tipping Point" where it identifies certain types of people as key to making things happen or sending information (names like the hub, the maven, etc). She goes into organization and identifies these kinds of people and in doing that helps companies improve communication. She also probably does other things, but that is one thing I remember from her talk.
That article you linked to is an interesting one, and now that I look over it I can remember her talking about that stuff.
Good, mostly because I don't really *get* the concept of semiotics, anyway. Well, at a high level I do. Like, orbital. Or maybe out at a LaGrange point....
I'll put her name on the list of books to read.
Post a Comment