This is the key quote. Most large, successful organisations are stable (which is different to being optimal). This means that it’s hard to fatally break them and also that it’s hard to materially improve them.
Missed your question on Cynefin yesterday! As with any framework, they work when you use them and they work best when you don't forcefit everything into them. It's a great way to teach how to ascertain the environment and then execute a proper path.
For instance, Act First, or a bias for action sounds great. But it only works in Chaos (and then only with the other steps to bring the chaos to order) Applying act first in the other three quadrants will actually create chaos.
There are two types of people who work for others. Type one is the person who genuinely wants to do some things, to be productive and innovative, and to legitimately solve problems.
The other type of person gets promoted. That type of person focuses not on doing the right things, but instead on jumping through the right hoops. It's a code you can crack if you really want to, the way to get away with being a lazy pile of dookie.
That being said, the very best performers in the corporate world are those who are able to navigate between both areas. I do think you will find some successful folks who only pretend (the 2nd type of person), but I don't think the majority of the VERY successful folks (let's just say VP level or above at an average big company) aren't faking anything, they just have that 2nd skill set as well.
I see this all the time. One of the things that seems to be connected to the behavior is the concept of what I would call "The Potemkin Organization". This is where the operating model is based on a fake aspirational architecture that can only be measured from one perspective that is carefully controlled. It is rigging the system so that compliance is the only measure and unaccountability IS the design goal.
I've never understood how successfully unsuccessful people get any job satisfaction. Imagine failing to achieve anything every single day
I agree. Yet they manage to do just fine.
Some links that might be interesting:
https://profilebooks.com/work/the-stupidity-paradox/
https://podcast.livetilesglobal.com/podcast/the-unintelligent-organisation/
https://youtu.be/oCw47L4tWok
“We were successful in spite of ourselves.”
This is the key quote. Most large, successful organisations are stable (which is different to being optimal). This means that it’s hard to fatally break them and also that it’s hard to materially improve them.
What do you think of the Cynefin framework?
Love these reads!
Missed your question on Cynefin yesterday! As with any framework, they work when you use them and they work best when you don't forcefit everything into them. It's a great way to teach how to ascertain the environment and then execute a proper path.
For instance, Act First, or a bias for action sounds great. But it only works in Chaos (and then only with the other steps to bring the chaos to order) Applying act first in the other three quadrants will actually create chaos.
There are two types of people who work for others. Type one is the person who genuinely wants to do some things, to be productive and innovative, and to legitimately solve problems.
The other type of person gets promoted. That type of person focuses not on doing the right things, but instead on jumping through the right hoops. It's a code you can crack if you really want to, the way to get away with being a lazy pile of dookie.
That being said, the very best performers in the corporate world are those who are able to navigate between both areas. I do think you will find some successful folks who only pretend (the 2nd type of person), but I don't think the majority of the VERY successful folks (let's just say VP level or above at an average big company) aren't faking anything, they just have that 2nd skill set as well.
I see this all the time. One of the things that seems to be connected to the behavior is the concept of what I would call "The Potemkin Organization". This is where the operating model is based on a fake aspirational architecture that can only be measured from one perspective that is carefully controlled. It is rigging the system so that compliance is the only measure and unaccountability IS the design goal.
I totally see that. Great description.
Show me the incentive structures and I will have a reasonable explanation for human behavior and foibles.