ScottGould.me: The Reason Why Companies Don’t ‘Get It’
Ruud Hein
· 1 month ago
I think a company wants to manage the processes, not the people.
If you break actions and projects up in processes of the right size, the company works with processes and not people.
Scott Gould
· 1 month ago
Sure - some companies do. But starbucks, for instance, wants to manage people regardless of their skill set. There is no acknowledgement of the individual - they are managed along with the rest of the processes
That's retail life, and a large part of office life
Jim Anning
· 1 month ago
It does seem that traditional companies are struggling with the 'new world'.
I guess in the days when things didn't change so quickly, the 'factory' model worked. Companies had the time to set up regimented processes, governed by command and control management which reliably churned out 'static' products & services into largely 'static' markets.
Now, aided by the speed at which people can communicate, it seems the world is starting to change faster than the 'dumb' processes can 'learn' to adapt. As you point out, enlightened organisations know that developing a quick-reacting, empowered workforce where everyone can be a leader is the route to thriving in a rapidly changing environment.
Meanwhile the old-guard continue to throw more process and more command and control at the 'problem'. It worked before....not so sure it will work now.
Scott Gould
· 1 month ago
Hey Jim,
"Meanwhile the old-guard continue to throw more process and more command and control at the 'problem'." - so good. The answer is not in a change in process but a change in culture. That's tomorrow's blog post :-)
I really enjoyed that - I'm listening again and making notes!
eaon pritchard
· 1 month ago
some good points. businesses still have to make money, however I'm with you on the 'meaning' part. Just read a book you may find interesting about this topic. Meaning Inc by Gurnek Bains, check it out. I'm down with Guy Kawasaki on this point. The great companies have always looked to make meaning first, then the money will follow. thats the ROI. (his examples include Apple, Google et al) nice to meet you last friday, albeit briefly. E
Scott Gould
· 1 month ago
Of course they have to make money - but they can do so with a knowledge mindset as opposed to a factory mindset.
I'll give Meaning Inc a look - thanks for the tip. And yes, twas great to meet last week - thanks the comment mate :)
limenoodle
· 1 month ago
Scott,
Good post. I agree with the basic premise although I think it's more than just a holdover from our manufacturing days - it's also a function of size and trust (maybe trust is a subsection of size). That is, size informs corporate culture in a significant way, effecting trust and humanness and the personality of the business.
For example, I have worked in a few companies that were relaxed and open and allowed, trusted, even encouraged, their employees to be individuals. However, as those companies grew, increasing amounts of structure crept in, putting in place more and more rules, regulations, and restrictions (governance, as you put it).
Ah, I smell my own blog post coming.
Eric
Scott Gould
· 1 month ago
Agreed - although size does not equal inability to function in 'People2People', as we're calling it.
There are the companies that are large, and mostly doing it: Apple, Google, Microsoft - the younger companies.
limenoodle
· 1 month ago
Well, I also agree that the younger companies are better at it, though I'm not sure I would put Apple in there, at least from a P2P point of view. I think they are still fairly restrictive when it comes to allowing employees the freedom of the social networks.
"this kind of talk is controversial" Not really but then I've been reading for a while and am with you on this, it makes sense! Good stuff, no criticism from here!
All Comments
If you break actions and projects up in processes of the right size, the company works with processes and not people.
That's retail life, and a large part of office life
I guess in the days when things didn't change so quickly, the 'factory' model worked. Companies had the time to set up regimented processes, governed by command and control management which reliably churned out 'static' products & services into largely 'static' markets.
Now, aided by the speed at which people can communicate, it seems the world is starting to change faster than the 'dumb' processes can 'learn' to adapt. As you point out, enlightened organisations know that developing a quick-reacting, empowered workforce where everyone can be a leader is the route to thriving in a rapidly changing environment.
Meanwhile the old-guard continue to throw more process and more command and control at the 'problem'. It worked before....not so sure it will work now.
"Meanwhile the old-guard continue to throw more process and more command and control at the 'problem'." - so good. The answer is not in a change in process but a change in culture. That's tomorrow's blog post :-)
great stuff I think...
I'm down with Guy Kawasaki on this point.
The great companies have always looked to make meaning first, then the money will follow. thats the ROI. (his examples include Apple, Google et al)
nice to meet you last friday, albeit briefly. E
I'll give Meaning Inc a look - thanks for the tip. And yes, twas great to meet last week - thanks the comment mate :)
Good post. I agree with the basic premise although I think it's more than just a holdover from our manufacturing days - it's also a function of size and trust (maybe trust is a subsection of size). That is, size informs corporate culture in a significant way, effecting trust and humanness and the personality of the business.
For example, I have worked in a few companies that were relaxed and open and allowed, trusted, even encouraged, their employees to be individuals. However, as those companies grew, increasing amounts of structure crept in, putting in place more and more rules, regulations, and restrictions (governance, as you put it).
Ah, I smell my own blog post coming.
Eric
There are the companies that are large, and mostly doing it: Apple, Google, Microsoft - the younger companies.
http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/opinion-how...
E
Not really but then I've been reading for a while and am with you on this, it makes sense!
Good stuff, no criticism from here!