Bertrand Duperrin's Library tagged → View Popular, Search in Google
"When Jim Highsmith graciously invited me to give the opening keynote at the inaugural Agile Executive Forum in Salt Lake City this week, I had to really sit down and think about what I’ve been working on the last few years, namely social business, as compared the conference theme, agility and business."
-
And, as it turns out, agility and social business, as two major new ways of connecting and organizing people in directed activity, have plenty in common. Perhaps even more importantly, they have key things to learn from each other.
- 7 more annotation(s)...
-
"One of the most difficult challenges companies face today is how to be more flexible and adaptive in a dynamic, volatile business environment. How do you build a company that can identify and capitalize on opportunities, navigate around risks and other challenges, and respond quickly to changes in the environment? How do you embed that kind of agility into the DNA of your company?
The answer is to distribute control in such a way that decisions can be made as quickly and as close to customers as possible. There is no way for people to respond and adapt quickly if they have to get permission before they can do anything."
-
If you want an adaptive company, you will need to unleash the creative forces in your organization, so people have the freedom to deliver value to customers and respond to their needs more dynamically. One way to do this is by enabling small, autonomous units that can act and react quickly and easily, without fear of disrupting other business activities – pods.
-
A pod is a small, autonomous unit that is enabled and empowered to deliver the things that customers value.
- 10 more annotation(s)...
"Dans l'interview qu'il nous a accordée à l'occasion de la sortie de son livre "Lost in Management", le sociologue François Dupuy explique que "les entreprises s'enfoncent dans un jeu perdant-perdant avec leurs salariés". Un propos en forme d'électrochoc à destination des dirigeants."
-
Pour faire face à la nécessité de garder tous les comportements sous contrôle, surtout avec la crise, les entreprises ont accentué leurs moyens de coercition. Tous ces process, ces systèmes de "reporting", c'est de la coercition destinée à garder les salariés sous contrôle
-
Plus l'entreprise cherche à contrôler et à mettre la pression, plus les salariés, cadres y compris, se réfugient dans des investissements alternatifs, la famille par exemple, qui viennent compenser la dureté du monde du travail
- 6 more annotation(s)...
"Un récent sondage du groupe Cegos auprès des managers européens a montré que 79 % d'entre eux passent moins de la moitié de leur temps à manager leurs équipes "
-
A quoi le passent-ils principalement ? A faire du reporting, c'est-à-dire à alimenter la machine à chiffres destinée aux dirigeants.
-
Pourquoi ont-ils tellement besoin de contrôler ? Parce qu'ils ne font pas confiance à leurs équipes. Pourquoi ne font-ils pas confiance à leurs équipes ? Parce qu'elles ne sont pas ou peu managées. Un cercle vicieux s'installe. Plus on renforce les procédures et les indicateurs de performance, moins les équipes sont engagées et s'approprient les enjeux.
- 3 more annotation(s)...
"Finding structural efficiencies by expanding spans of control has become a necessity in the current economic climate. However, the i4cp study shows that flattening organizational structure doesn't necessarily result in a competitive advantage. While there are advantages, organizational restructuring may lead to greater stress, disengagement and burnout among middle managers."
-
Over 35% of managers in large companies already have 11 to 25 employees reporting to them, and 75% of companies expect those numbers to rise or remain the same in the future.
-
Middle managers are often the hardest hit since expanding spans of control at multiple levels of the organization exponentially enlarges the number of people they are both directly and indirectly accountable for managing. Middle managers, the key players for successful strategy execution, "report dramatically lower levels of contentment than their more senior colleagues do, as well as less of a desire to stay with their current employers," according to a 2009 McKinsey report.
"Here are the major trends that all organizations seeking to become 21st century digital natives should watch closely this year:"
-
The lesson here is that the network will always greatly outnumber you, so you must enlist it to participate in objectives everyone jointly values. The good news: Organizations are starting to listen this year.
- 4 more annotation(s)...
-
"Two separate themes stood out to me during my time at the E2.0 Conference in Boston last week. The first, design for loss of control, came directly out of JP Rangaswami’s top-notch keynote address. The second, how can E2.0 improve process at my company?, was something I picked up more organically from time spent in conversation with E2.0 pundits and practitioners. Separately, these concepts seem opposed but when blended together they create a healthy tension that exists in agile organizations."
-
The first theme strikes the core of a learning organization. A learning organization is in constant flux, continually challenging its assumptions and evaluating wins and losses to glean insights for competitive advantage. Organizations designed for loss of control will not be in balance; their equilibrium will be deliberately and continually challenged. These challenges and pressures are the forces that create learning organizations. Attempts to learn and achieve equilibrium will create a more flexible and agile enterprise better equipped to respond to frequent and unexpected changes in the competitive landscape.
-
addressing the process issue starts to become more clear. When (re)designing process, assume and design for loss of control. Build in an evolutionary mechanism for the process itself.
"In my travels from organization to organization, I talk with thousands of people every year who want to be treated as "partners" rather than as employees. They want information to flow up as well as down. But, oftentimes, leaders do not want to give up control. "
-
Your employees understand their jobs. They know their tasks, roles, and functions within the organization, and it's time for you to let them do what they need to do to get the job done. But there is a critical point that is often missed: It isn't possible for a leader to "empower" someone to be accountable and make good decisions. People have to empower themselves.
"Have you ever noticed that organizations are great at creating controls and policies to prevent incidents that have already happened? Once the proverbial cow escapes the barn, they adeptly make sure it won't happen again by, say, authorizing only certain people to man the exit and constructing barn-door status reports.
While this kind of organizational response does indeed prevent the recurrence of the exact same negative instance (they won't lose the same cow in the same way again), the accumulation of these "reactive" controls often creates complexity, confusion, and unnecessary cost. Even worse, the new controls usually don't prevent future incidents of a different kind from occurring. "
-
Do Your Controls Create Complexity?
-
1. Static controls for dynamic issues.
- 2 more annotation(s)...
"Un peu à la manière de la problématique de la représentation des minorités, cette expérience Londonienne a fait que depuis lors je garde une distance particulière avec les méthodes de management de mon pays.
Je me demande si ce management est adapté à notre siècle où le travail est mobile, connecté, complexifié par les multiples ramifications des réseaux. En croisant une étude de management interculturel avec une étude récente du Centre d’Analyse Stratégique et un rapport de Cisco, cette question se révèle particulièrement pertinente …"
"The reason I bring that up is that in looking at better ways that an organization can operate, we often look at the current service delivery model. How are services shared, delivered and managed? Which functions and resources are centralized and which are distributed? Does centralization mean less flexibility? Does distribution mean less reliability? We look at services inside the organization through the lenses of People, Process and Technology.
This is a long way of saying: I’ve been thinking about “shared services” and how that concept is going to change very soon."
-
It couldn’t be more obvious these days. People are literally carrying two laptops and two cellphones with them. Sit down in any meeting (although I notice this trend far more in the US than in Canada right now) and you can be sure that a handful of the people there will reach in one pocket for their Blackberry, and then they will reach in to another pocket for their iPhone.
-
The Personal Enterprise (or the Facebookisation of it) is not about picking and choosing which services get opened up and which have controlled delivery, instead it is about opening up as much data as possible and creating an ecosystem that allows personalization to be developed.
- 1 more annotation(s)...
"So what I have been trying to do in a new book is say what that looks like, and yes, I have incorporated certainly some of the things that we did in Management 1.0 and Management 2.0. I think it really has to have a different philosophy and a different orientation with respect to both organizational design, how we treat the work force, how we think about the work force and basically how we lead in this kind of economy and in this kind of competitive environment."
-
It seems to me that, if you are going to have a valid, viable 3.0, it has to include the right blend of leadership behaviours. Yes, where you inspire people by a sense of mission, sustainability, accountability – but also have a valid management approach which deals with fundamentals like goal setting and work specifications and product evaluation produced by employees.
-
I think it depends substantially on what business you are in, how sophisticated the business is, and how complex it is, but I see much more self organizing, much more use of information technology, social networks, and perhaps even internal markets to create the forum and allocate financial resources within organizations, and that’s an area where there would be enormous differences.
"En cela, le mouvement Open Source rejoint le credo déjà partagé par un grand nombre : nous quittons le monde de l’organisation hiérarchique – command and control - pour entrer dans un nouveau monde plus foisonnant, plus créatif, plus riche humainement. En cela aussi, le mouvement Open Source décline à sa manière les mots : participatif, collaboratif, 2 ou 3.0, communautés, crowdsourcing... "
-
La proposition de valeur organisationnelle de l'Open Source est d’avoir su répondre à la croissance du couple complexité-temps (toujours plus complexe, plus rapidement), par une intelligence répartie dans l’organisation.
-
La proposition de valeur d’une organisation collaborative à un dirigeant devient : "dans un monde toujours plus complexe et rapide, pour ne rien perdre en pouvoir, je répartie la responsabilité".
Those trying to read the tea leaves about Enterprise 2.0 these days can see that the software at least has arrived in a bare majority of companies, even if it’s just Facebook or Twitter across the firewall. Genuine adoption and meaningful integration into business processes has certainly happened in a number of organizations, but is still the edge case today rather than the rule. That’s not to say the current case studies aren’t reporting gains, they generally are. But the message here is that many enterprises are now actively in full contact with the social computing world, whether they want to or not, and now it’s time to understand how to deal with the benefits and issues.
Quand une organisation croît en taille, constate Netflix, son fonctionnement devient plus complexe. La direction tend souvent à réagir de la même façon: plus l’organisation grandit, plus elle resserre le contrôle sur ses employés, via Netflixslide des procédures sans cesse plus strictes. Le but: éviter le chaos.
En optant pour cette voie, le management pave toutefois le chemin d’une nouvelle difficulté. Les talents fuient les procédures rigides qui laissent peu de place à la créativité. Soit ils se détournent de l’entreprise. Soit ils passent en mode passif et ne s’investissent plus qu’un minimum.
Sur le court terme, le resserrement des processus peut avoir un impact positif sur le résultat. L’effet, toutefois, n’est pas de longue durée. L’organisation génère des foyers d’inertie. Les employés, valorisés par rapport à l’application des processus actuels, résistent au changement.
Or, l’environnement économique est mouvant. De nouvelles technologies et de nouveaux concurrents apparaissent sans cesse. L’entreprise ne parvient plus à s’adapter assez vite aux nouvelles circonstances de marché.
IT projects need define a combine the engineering work to be done and the results that they create. Doing so requires more than giving the project a business based name. Here are a few steps for an alternative way to define an IT project.
Combining these three ideas, when companies pay to execute a project, it’s not the project they want, it’s the result. They want more revenue generating customer relationships, not processes around a CRM system or even the capability to look up customer names. What they want is the result.
-
First, companies don’t pay for activities, they pay for results. As explains in the blog post http://blogs.gartner.com/mark_mcdonald/2009/06/30/activities-vs-results—the-difference-makes-all-the-difference/From this post.
Second, those results come from changing capabilities which are a more powerful definition of the business. So it’s the capability people want. http://blogs.gartner.com/mark_mcdonald/2009/07/02/capability-is-more-powerful-than-process/
-
Results can be defined in the following ways:
This increasing distance between these two worlds creates a gap — a disconnect, even — that increasingly cuts organizations off from their most valuable assets (their people) and also exerts a subversive force on organizations as their workers help themselves to the tools of their own volition, bring their (and arguably better) new behaviors and processes to work, and try to get things done with them, whether that’s crowdsourcing, Enterprise 2.0, online customer communities, etc.
The bad news, from the same post, is that there is just as much compelling evidence that these newfound tools are highly fragmented in their usage. As he puts it, “few enterprises are taking a ‘holistic’ approach and are using them in a more targeted and/or fragmented manner.”
That’s a real pity, because we know that when a single, unifying community platform is available and done well, it can successfully knit all of the communities together so that none have to be islands.
-
Organizations need policies that set expectations for how social tools will be used. For example, who can and cannot engage directly with a customer in the community.
-
I’ll boil down controls to mechanisms that the technology affords to help enforce and automate the policies. This is an area where a lot of social business software could use some work.
What really disturbs surviving employees about downsizings is that they cannot control or rationalize the events. If I have a co-worker who frequently arrives late and does low quality work, I can rationalize her layoff by saying to myself, “She didn’t carry her weight and deserved to be let go.” If, instead, my co-worker seems to work as hard and as well as I do and then, through no fault of her own, happens to be the victim of a “reduction in force,” I cannot rationalize that. More important, I fear that I cannot control my situation: in the first scenario, I have a sense of control over my fate by continuing to do high-quality work. In the second scenario, working hard or working well doesn’t seem to help me retain my job.
-
: If six people are left covering the work of 10, no one has time to think up new and better approaches to work. Invariably, people work harder and not smarter after a downsizing.
-
Adding to the problem is that people take fewer risks and become less creative. Creativity requires trial and error, and no one knows what happens to those who experiment with a new approach and then fail
- 2 more annotation(s)...
# The “millennials” will expect to use technology at work as freely as they do in their personal lives. They will also be ready to collaborate.
# Senior management will have a clearer understanding of IT capabilities than is the case today.
# Social networks will be a fixture in the 2013 workplace, despite executives’ ambivalence on their role.
# The use of collaborative technologies will help cut through geographical and organisational barriers, and will give wings to virtual team-working.
# Digital tools will give employees greater control over the information they can access, which means less control for managers.
Selected Tags
Related Tags
Top Contributors
Groups interested in control
-
Russia Nato America
World peace is important as ...
Items: 1 | Visits: 67
Created by: liveinfreedom .
-
Interactive Controls
A place to put interesting i...
Items: 83 | Visits: 74
Created by: Hass Murphy
Diigo is about better ways to research, share and collaborate on information. Learn more »
Join Diigo
