tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post7330263458551444464..comments2024-03-23T04:01:39.348-04:00Comments on Understanding Society: What the boss wants to hear ...Dan Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-10678989485315913142018-05-17T16:30:03.784-04:002018-05-17T16:30:03.784-04:00"And yet the knowledge of higher-level execut..."And yet the knowledge of higher-level executives depends upon the truthful and full reporting of subordinates, who sometimes have career incentives that work against honesty."<br /><br />Executives have greater incentives to dishonesty than the lower orders. Organizational culture is top down not bottom up. A person's organizational success does not depend on knowledge (of product, service, market, technology, etc.) but on being liked by the persons with more power, especially the person one reports to. At a minimum this requires cheerful obedience. Almost all organizations work this way (private, public, non-profit) ...even in a crisis that threatens the organization's existence. There are exceptions such as IBM under Gerstner: the firm had to pay attention to reality. Numerous books and journal articles have been written about how to overcome this seemingly ineluctable phenomenon. None seems to have changed how human organizations work. Indeed, in today's organization getting along (being a "team player") is explicitly specified in job descriptions and trumps any knowledge.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04584940673094523744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-82837754161323875072018-05-17T13:45:18.326-04:002018-05-17T13:45:18.326-04:00"A culture of honesty and transparency is a p..."A culture of honesty and transparency is a powerful antidote to the disease of fabrications to please the boss." <br /><br />I don't think it's nearly so simple. There are personalities types out there who truly enjoy being challenged, being forced to debate, who relish cut and thrust. But that's not most people. Most people prefer success to failure, enjoy seeing their desires come to fruition, don't like having their authority challenged and prefer enthusiastic and willing followers to foot-dragging, doubt-sowing Eyores. So in a situation in which the truth is uncertain, the risks great, and much perseverance and dedication is needed to ensure success, who will a leader believe? The underling who stands up and says, based on what we know, I think our plan is flawed, our methods aren't working, and we're likely to fail? Or the one who says, the basic idea is sounds, some adjustments need to be made, and with a little more effort we'll be alright? Especially in a case such as Vietnam, in which admitting defeat in the war was likely to ruin the political career of the politician involved, one doesn't need subordinates to consciously deceive their leaders to end in ruin and folly. 9 times out of 10, everyone's unconsciously deceiving themselves. Hope may have been stuck to the bottom, but it was still an necessary component when assembling Pandora's Box. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-34788533519336410632018-05-17T07:14:12.208-04:002018-05-17T07:14:12.208-04:00One of the toughest things in organization honesty...One of the toughest things in organization honesty is dealing with whistleblowers and people who jump the chain of command. These people tend to be fools or jerks, and regarded as such ex ante. Organizational honesty entails the very strange act of honoring the organization's fools and jerks when they get something significant right. Which, of course, encourages useless noise from the other fools and jerks.<br />Well, nobody ever said that management is easy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-12217164347509893832018-05-14T05:33:57.686-04:002018-05-14T05:33:57.686-04:00While it's a good point in general, I think it...While it's a good point in general, I think it is a little simplistic. Small start ups can function close to a traditional hierarchy but modern multi nationals tend to function much more like interleaved social and political networks with a large amount of legacy baggage. <br /><br />You need to factor in perverse incentives, limited time in any one role and selection effects at the least (One example: people who are fully transparent about problems in their departments, look from the outside that they have many more issues than those who aren't, so seem less successful, so are less likely to get promoted).<br /><br />It's a good topic for book, but I haven't really found a good one on the subject.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-68302227534644247042018-05-10T10:33:28.811-04:002018-05-10T10:33:28.811-04:00I recall in Barbara Tuchman's book, Stilwell a...I recall in Barbara Tuchman's book, Stilwell and the American Experience in China, she noted that one of the first things Vinegar Joe did when he arrived in a new place was to tell the personnel who were going to be his subordinates that he loved getting bad news. He liked bad news much more than good news, and he would have much higher regard for people who brought him bad news than those who brought him good news. It seems to be the same everywhere, in every time.Procopiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17554355440319405363noreply@blogger.com