My latest gigantic post (of course with shoddy formatting)...anyway make sure you make some coffee, this is a long one...and perhaps even some toast
12 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 44 previous comments
- Re: Money.
The way money is dished out as salaries and boni (that sure sounds weird, doesn't it?) is directly related to and based on position in a traditional hierarchy, and as some of you know, my position is that (due to the now-networked environment) until the methodologies underneath the process of assigning boxes on the org chart changes (somehow) then money and the practices of 'scientific' management will remain in place and continue to cause much dissonance and (mostly) needless resistance to change.
Re: money, again. I am really very surprised that no one (well, except me once, in a tweet) has ever brought up the concept of "gainsharing", an old-ish remuneration philosophy and methodology that had some experimentation back in the day when there were still some viable unions.
I'd argue that it at least in concept is tailor-made for a networked world where will perforce see more self-directed work groupings, a massive change in the role of middle management, and a diminution in the more-or-less automatic attribution of positional power and status that we see in traditional hierarchies.
Just think of it .. more of the money paid to people based on what happens as a result of sharing information and knowledge in relevant and pertinent ways, and the distribution of that money paid made on the gains (from a baseline) accomplished by carrying out work.
Gainsharing as a productivity-development and remuneration concept began to go dormant around the year 2000 .. which may coincide with a range of factors .. less unions, more "back to basics" in business after 9/11, and so on.
As I said, I really wonder why no one has brought it up before.
Could it also be that a decent proportion of the people who have been the standard-bearers for Enterprise 2.0 and Social Business are tech-oriented people who are (in all fairness) basically starting to learn about organizational sociology as they go ? < /teasing >Oct 8, 2011
- Great stuff http://johntropea.tumblr.com/post/1687934492sounds like you need to do a post on this topic to get more exposure on this thinking...here's what said on one of your posts a while back on the denatured role of managementOct 9, 2011
- Yeah .. the shorthand for what Olivier (a very very smart fellow IMO) wrote about is <b>"managerial capitalism"</b> .. managing the business so as to earn as much, as quickly as possible, from increasing share prices and the accomplishment of short-term performance objectives approved by a friendly Board and compensation committee.Oct 9, 2011
- re: managerial capitalism
"After years of stress and long hours to get the partnership, why would I be interested in the long-term future of the business? I have earned my reward, and nobody is going to take that from me until I retire. As an MBA student said to me in a class last night, becoming a partner is like a pie-eating competition and the prize is that you get to eat more pie"
- John Steen
http://johntropea.tumblr.com/post/5621700715 "This creates the management culture of forcing efficiency changes to the point where you are gambling that no external “knock” will topple you. And with today’s high executive rewards, it is better to go for a few years of high profits and risk being kicked out as a result of lack of resilience than creating a long term viable operation. Trouble is, you are gambling with lives (mining) and shareholder value (recent derivative scandals) as well as climate (fossil emissions)."
- Steve Hinton
http://johntropea.tumblr.com/post/5622292983 "As a manager organizing work you need to make strategic decisions about the capabilities of the organization. One of them is the level of resilience against external challenges verses operational efficiency...resilience describes an organization’s rebound capability...At the opposite end of the scale is efficiency. The more a network can specialize and streamline, the better it can get at doing one or a few tasks effectively. Of course, the trade off is that it cannot withstand a wide range of challenges, especially if these challenges are not factored in when designing and putting together the network...Process streamlining is another tactic, especially using automated IT systems and machines. Here again, the process will work well until an external challenge upsets the whole thing. And that is what Corporate Management is all about: it is a gamble that the unlikely outer challenges your organisation faces will not affect profits for the year you are responsible. And after all, if the awareness of any external challenges is not present, a manager cannot be blamed for not factoring it in.The recent Icelandic volcano ash surge is a good example. No one could have been expected to factor it in, and therefore the European transport network is unable to cope with an air traffic ban. Companies go bust, people get forced to take paid leave, and huge debts mount up. But there is no blame on management.If international oil companies no longer have any fields to explore and open up, thus reducing their output, it will not be blamed on management if they had only a short-term profit goal to maintain."
- Steve Hinton
Like you say it all comes down to the fundamentals of capitalism:
Reward long-term thinking and punish short-term selfishness
Sustainable value as opposed to shareholder value
From thin to thick value
http://johntropea.tumblr.com/post/3284285524Oct 10, 2011
- re: But soon you guys are 120 people and no single room can hold you anymore, offices are rented and walls are cropping up - so now you turn to the classic solution to make the work flows flow - you establish management positions
Some related information:
Altruistic drives weaken with distance whether genetic, geographic or cultural
http://johntropea.tumblr.com/post/928618536 "With scale these decision processes require hierarchical structures and compartmentalization since if each individual were expected to participate in every decision we’d all soon starve with lack of time for anything other than “deciding” group issues.However, hierarchies with scale become increasingly problematic because the relationship of proximity to altruism tends to narrow the focus of the Deciders.This is because WITH SCALE THE SELF-INTEREST MOTIVATION OF THE DECIDER REMAINS CONSTANT BUT THE FOCUS AND INTENSITY OF THE ALTRUISTIC DRIVE DOES NOT NECESSARILY EXPAND TO MATCH THE LARGER GROUP.Especially where the hierarchical structure erodes proximity.”
The Ground that Nurtured the Social Network
The Social Organism outgrew the Fundamental Social Network
http://johntropea.tumblr.com/post/1010663739Oct 10, 2011
- A very enlightening discussion. It might interest the participants here to check out www.bettermeans.com, who are working on a software and business system that might just be able to do the things listed here.Nov 17, 2011