|
> but I'm often intrigued when people don't just apply the natural human instinct of talking about something and doing what needs to be done. A few people might do that informally, sure, even as part of something bigger, but there’s no escaping the needs to 1) coordinate over shared resources and 2) organise around shared commitments. And where do those commitments come from? Implies some kind of strategising, and if that’s not a collective thing, then you’re relying on someone doing the telling. And of the options that are strategised, what’s acceptable and what’s outside our purpose, identity, etc? There are theoretical limits on what formal organisational systems can achieve in terms of information flow (so managers shouldn’t over-depend on them), but nevertheless, the above activities are fundamental. Take any of them away and you no longer have a viable system, one capable of ensuring it’s ability to maintain itself, to act independently, and to increase possibility in a changing and perhaps hostile environment. Disclosure: I have a book coming out on this stuff shortly, bringing some decades-old, well-tested, and well-regarded theory up to date. FWIW I also wrote one of the leading books on Kanban (2014), not that this changes any of the above, apart from that Kanban is among other things an effective coordination system (though incomplete in the above terms, but then so are all the others). |
Well put. There's just too much going on in some organisations for leadership to make meaningful decisions. Your comment reminds me of the Viable Systems model, which was a welcome gem hidden away in (the other) Michael Jackson's systems thinking slab of a textbook.
My go to means of ensuring that executive (including me) can keep their finger on the pulse is to encourage people to be open in large and informal chat platforms like Teams and Discord.