h a l f b a k e r yAlas, poor spelling!
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Kids, I think, need a solid routine, but they like variety. And I think we're all just big kids really.
So I thought this idea could be applied to business management (if it isn't already !).
At the moment, there's this idea that there's a perfect organisational structure, which, if it could be
sorted out properly, would lead to everything running smoothly and efficiently. This might be true for computer systems, but with people, it hardly ever works - they just get bored, and don't do the things they should do.
So eventually at some point the management sees the stagnation, maybe somebody new is brought in, and big sweeping changes are made in the system. This, of course, is always a mess, and everybody hates it - nobody likes being thrown out of their regular routine. Things are actually worse for a while, then people adapt, and settle into their new system, and things run okay for a while. Then they start to get bored...
So, what I suggest is that the changes, which are refreshing, are predictable, so that people know what's coming, and know how to adapt. This seems fundamentaly natural to me, like the seasons, but then I didn't grow up in the tropics.
As an example of what I have in mind, you might choose to alternate between "flat" and "hierarchical" management structures. This might include a change in offices, or the layout of the booths - or anything. Then you would swap between these two styles every six months say.
I would be tempted to try it here, but I only manage myself.
Well, I had better go and do some work, before I found out...
"Do Magic here"
http://www.fysh.org...g/methodologies.txt
Short rant about relying on process rather than people. [DrBob, Jul 20 2009]
[link]
|
| |
I like this idea, in principle, but in practice I can imagine it's a logistical nightmare, and you'd get loads of people complaining that they prefer one style over the other, et cetera et cetera. |
|
| |
Nonetheless, it certainly seems like a better idea than those big sweeping changes you mention. |
|
| |
If you laid out a concrete system, rather than making vague suggestions, I might be more amenable. |
|
| |
So I'm reserving judgement, no fishbones as of yet. |
|
| |
Perhaps changes in structure should reflect changes in
purpose, mission or problems. |
|
| |
I agree with some of your initial analysis of the problem, but your solution, I think, just imbeds a fundamental problem with management. It seems to be the case that people think that there is some magic process or organisational structure out there somewhere [waves hand vaguely at the horizon] that can make up for the deficiences of people. There isn't and it can't. Good managers manage and good workers find ways to get things done. You can have all the process charts or re-organisations that you like but unless you've got good people in place with good motivation then none of it will work as you want it to. |
|
| |
Well, up to a point, there is. I used to work for a large multinational corporation whose processes were, in my opinion, more intelligent than its average employee... and that's not a criticism of its employees. Of course, this is more likely to be true of an organisation of monstrous size with generations of collective memory to draw on. In small, entrepreneurial places, JFDI rules. |
|
| |
[duh_don] The point is, there _is_ no specific, perfect solution - but to introduce non-disruptive change. I realise this is a pretty woolly idea though. |
|
| |
[21Q] the whole point is to avoid "new" changes, whereby a management scheme is "dumped" onto the staff, and they have to work around it. By making changes between already known, but different systems, people should know how to fit in each time. |
|
| |
I agree with all you say [DrBob]. But you just can't always have good people in the right places. So, this idea is really just another technique a good manager might employ to keep the good, and bad workers motivated. |
|
| |
I currently work at a company that is constantly on the search for that "magic process or organisational structure"[DrBob]
In the past 11 years we have restructured the company a (that I can count) total of 18 times, and at the same time managing to keep the people that that can get the work done the fastest. with the same token we have lost people that were along for the ride. (It helps that the lasting employes have serous cases of ADD. Yes that includes ....... ooh something shiny....) |
|
| |
Counterintuitively, disruptive change is sometimes exactly what is necessary in order to prevent stagnation and drive some creativity. When it is poorly executed it does not bode well, though, as it is stressful. |
|
| |