|
|
|
|
|
by Bartweiss
2976 days ago
|
|
> The bigger the organization, the more muddy the waters. Cryptic territorial fights, all up and down the chain, become a shade coloring a great many decisions. I heard a story recently of a fairly simple decision that put two territorial groups in conflict. It escalated to the person at the split between branches, who made the decision. Which is fine, except that the arguing parties didn't overlap one or two levels up. A question of "who wins over this one task at one site" landed on the desk of a senior VP overseeing dozens of sites after wasting the time of a half dozen managers who escalated it and fought with each other. At a conservative guess, it cost $2,000 in salary just to decide who would do the task. I think people undervalue how much benefit startups get just from having fewer disagreements that Need An Adult. Passing decisions down from the top is fine, but pushing conflicts up and back down is ridiculously expensive in time, money, and goodwill. |
|
Not necessarily advocating for a coin flip approach, just, you know your company is unhealthy when decisions can be made equally well if not better via random chance as by allowing your process to handle them.