Nội dung

Getting into work possibly yet another, each abandoned before the plans have been fully implemented, presumably because they weren’t going anywhere. With each one, employees ask: “why”? And, when it’s over, they say: “nothing has changed.” While a restructuring is in progress, they wait anxiously to see whether they’ll have their jobs at the end of it. After experiencing the ups-and-downs, not surprisingly they are deeply prejudiced against “change management,” which seems to achieve nothing more than a pervasive mood of resignation and apathy combined with the fear that those who survived will “get it” in the next round. Most of the breakdowns associated with dysfunctional teams fall into this category too. They occur frequently and are usually, but not always, on quite a small scale. As a rule, knowledge workers interact and cooperate to get things done and, more and more, are organized in teams: sales teams, project teams, design teams, customer service teams, and planning teams, as well as “red” and “blue” teams, or “alpha” and “beta” teams (the kinds of names given to groups of administrative staff set up to handle particular functions, such as “accounts receivable” or “benefits”). Usually, these are teams only in name.7 “My project group never functions as a real team” is a common complaint, which is hardly surprising, as competition is the prevailing ethos at work and people are rewarded for competing, not for collaborating. Moreover, they are seldom accountable to each other, especially when they belong to separate departments or divisions and report to different bosses who manage their units like private fiefdoms and expect “their” employees to follow their own, separate, sometimes personal, agendas and meet their particular goals and requirements.8 Breakdowns with tragic consequences Breakdowns can have tragic consequences. Astonishingly, the United States government spends more on its military than virtually all other governments in the rest of the world combined. You might expect, therefore, that the U.S. military would be very good at supplying soldiers in the field with whatever they need, when they need it.9 After the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, however, there were reports of serious deficiencies in organizing: Soldiers and Marines on the ground soon found themselves short of even water and food. According to the GAO,10 the military lacked more than 1 million cases of Meals Ready to Eat. Soldiers ran short of the non-rechargeable lithium batteries needed to operate 60 different communications and electronic systems, systems that are critical to 11 12 Beyond Management tracking targets or allowing soldiers under fire to talk to one another. Many soldiers and Marines not only didn’t have armor on trucks or Humvees, they didn’t even have spare tires. The tire shortage was so severe that . . . [they] were forced to strip and abandon expensive, and otherwise perfectly good, vehicles because they had no way to replace flats.11 While shortages of any kind can be dire for soldiers, the failure to get them items like batteries and tires is especially puzzling. After all, some of these aren’t highly specialized, made-to-order products. It might be possible to pick them up at a local store if there was one nearby. It’s easy to understand why soldiers in the field would want their comrades in logistics units to do their jobs carefully and conscientiously, to stay focused on what they’re doing, and to check to see that others down the line have responded to everything they’ve initiated or requested. In other words, that those who are responsible for organizing, recognize their responsibilities and take them seriously and organize well. If they did this, wouldn’t there be fewer breakdowns? And, isn’t good organizing what we all wish for? Isn’t good organizing integral to what we consider good work? Shouldn’t we expect that anyone organizing anything does the best he or she can? If we are organizers, shouldn’t we take responsibility for doing it well? And, shouldn’t we be prepared to hold one other to account and have them do the same to us if this is what it takes to make sure we do it well? Systematic disorganization If we know what it takes to do a good job, why do efforts to organize work often fall woefully short? As you see, writing about breakdowns almost inevitably brings up the twin questions of what causes them and what you can do to tackle them or, ideally, to prevent them. A standard response is that organizations are complicated, lots can go wrong, and to avoid breakdowns you should learn the lessons of management books and follow the advice of consultants. You should work at getting the structure right; coming up with a better strategy; improving processes; enhancing communications; paying more attention to plans; and using new tools. Charting work processes will help you to reengineer your workplace; while information technologies, which enable you to move data around, will make everyone more efficient. Whatever the advice, however, two things don’t change. One is the basic belief that management will see to it that everything gets done properly. The other Getting into work is the touching faith that, whatever goes wrong, management will find a way to put it right.12 Like the whole story of management told in business books, these assumptions don’t ring true. Clearly, they rule out the possibility, which is precisely the one I want you to consider, that, whether the problem is, say, team members not cooperating or employees of intelligence agencies not sharing what they know, management itself—the practices—are a primary source of work breakdowns. When deep-seated beliefs give rise to practices that are wrong for the work at hand, they lead to systemic breakdowns. Three examples are competition, bureaucracy, and hierarchy. These are believed to be necessary for efficiency; but all are obstacles to sharing knowledge and to collaboration. When cooperation is high on your agenda, as it must be for knowledge workers, you don’t want any of them. Systematic breakdowns, though related, are a little different. These are caused by misguided actions, or poorly designed tools and structures, which are considered “sound management,” but prevent knowledge workers from doing a good job and/or solving their problems. Examples include: structures intended to make large organizations manageable that contribute to a “silo mentality”; a dependence on data, even when “numbers” can shed little light on the issues at hand; long, convoluted chains of command that make it difficult to reach the right people when you need to talk to them; frequent changes in personnel, who take their experience and tacit knowledge with them when they are promoted or rotated through the organization; and the use of consultants and other outside “experts” who don’t know enough about what is going on to offer sensible advice. You’ll find these practices in organization after organization, which makes the breakdowns they cause systematic. “Systematic disorganization” may sound like a contradiction, because one word suggests order and the other the absence of it, but this is exactly what you get when you organize knowledge-work using principles and practices that originated in factories, when work was mechanical. By preventing knowledge workers from organizing effectively, standard management practices are a primary source of disorganization, contributing to both kinds of breakdowns. But, they are also ubiquitous, hence the expression “systematic disorganization”. Being saddled with practices that are wrong for the work you are doing is a bit like being on a manned mission to Mars that is heading in the wrong direction under a remote-guidance system that is malfunctioning. Everything seemed fine until the craft was on its way and someone discovered that the experts had programmed the coordinates of the craft’s trajectory incorrectly. A sensible solution would be for the astronauts onboard to 13 14 Beyond Management fly the craft; but ground control refuses to let them, claiming they have a better picture from the control room, they are sure it isn’t a major problem, they have the tools to sort it out, and, besides, astronauts can’t be relied on to make the right decisions. They haven’t been trained for this. It is not their job. How is this analogous to organizational breakdowns? It has to do with the high-control mindset: the idea that you leave everything to “the top” (to “mission control”), even though they aren’t doing a good job and the people on hand are probably able to do a better one because they know what is happening. Management isn’t all tools, like org charts or strategic plans, and titles, like “senior supervisor,” “deputy assistant director,” or—one of my favorites—“chief knowledge officer.” These tools and titles, which seem to shout “control,” are emblematic of a paradigm: a set of ideas and deeply held beliefs, attitudes, and values about how to run organizations, plus a language, which I’ll call “management-speak.” Together, these shape what people say and do at work.13 The paradigm is to blame for the kinds of breakdowns I’ve described and, unfortunately, is much harder to change than tools and titles. Pioneers in management include Frederick Taylor, who launched data-driven “scientific management,” and Henri Fayol, who argued for an unambiguous chain of command along with well-defined roles and responsibilities. They didn’t invent the management paradigm but simply took ideas about science, knowledge, and the way the world works (now known, collectively, as “modernism”), widely shared by intellectuals of the time, and built these into their prescriptions for organizing factorywork.14 The ideas had been around for centuries. They coalesced in the Enlightenment, when scholars started shifting allegiances, placing their faith in empirical (i.e. data-based) science, rather than scripture, as the means to unlock the mysteries of the universe.15 We are a hundred years beyond the contributions of Taylor and his early disciples, yet the pillars of Enlightenment thinking are still propping up our work places; only now, when most of us are knowledge workers, those ideas are dead wrong. For, as Tim Hindle puts it, “the way people work has changed dramatically, but the way their companies are organised lags far behind.”16 Looking the wrong way, at the wrong things To the Enlightened mind the universe is a giant clockwork mechanism, with the earth and everything in and on it governed by universal laws like the Law of Gravity, the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the Newtonian Laws of Motion. The machine world isn’t perfect but, Getting into work fortunately, is inhabited by “rational man.” A tiny subgroup of the species homo sapiens (literally, “wise man” or “knowing man”) is trained in the methods of science. The duty of experts of every persuasion, from accountants to zoologists, is to make the world a better place by applying data produced by scientific analysis and discovering more laws (economists, for example, claim to have found some new ones, like the law of supply and demand, in the last century or so). In the process of practicing their craft, when gathering and using data, experts must obey one cardinal rule: never bring your own feelings, beliefs, values, or personal relationships into your work. Subjective feelings, beliefs, values, and relationships have no place in objective science.17 Rolling these and a few other principles together, into a theory and practice for organizing work, what you get is management science as we know it: a picture of organizations and work from the “outside,” framed by a view from the top. The top in this instance isn’t a place or position. The view from the top is a mindset born of a belief in empiricism and the idea that numerical data is king. To understand the mindset, just pick up a management book. There is very little that is not written from this standpoint. Now, coming back to the reasons for breakdowns and systematic disorganization at work, things fall apart because, with a view from the top, you can’t see what knowledge workers are doing and you can’t tell what it takes to do knowledge-work well. Relationships and meaning-making as well as attitudes and beliefs are just a few of the important ingredients of knowledge-work, but the combination of objectivity and empiricism hides these. What is the result? The view from the top has everyone thinking about the wrong things and looking the wrong way: at rules, structures, and data, rather than what matters to people when they’re organizing (or how they see things) and how they share knowledge. With the substance of knowledge-work hidden or invisible, it is impossible to see that standard management practices prevent knowledge workers from doing their work properly and to tell why the practices do this. As you can’t see the limits of your paradigm when you are embedded in it, when you are thinking and practicing management you don’t know what you don’t know about work or organizing it. Going “inside” work Looking at work through a management lens today, what you see are the six Ds: documentation, data, deliverables, directives, deadlines, and dollars. The fact that this is an “outside” view of work, which tells you nothing about what, how, or why people are doing it, matters much more 15 16 Beyond Management with knowledge-work than it does with old style factory-work. Data can reveal a lot about production-line work, including its quality; for example, by measuring how much was produced and what percentage failed to meet your quality control standards. On the other hand, to see the quality of knowledge-work and to appreciate, for instance, that it is highly social and people’s relationships and attitudes to one another affect the quality of their work, you have to be “inside” work. As knowledge-work is what I’m interested in, it is time to go “inside”: • To find out more about what knowledge workers do and how they do it; • To shed light on both the problems I’ve lumped together as “breakdowns” and the management practices responsible for them. In later chapters I’ll look inside work for the seeds of organizing practices that enable people to do better work. By then, you will understand why, even though management methods are obsolete, it isn’t going to be easy to discard them. Getting into a building or an office is one thing, but how do you get inside work? For some reason this question brings to mind the film Fantastic Voyage. Its premise—and this was before anyone had heard of nanotechnology—is that scientists have the means to miniaturize machines and humans for short periods. They inject a submarine, complete with crew, into the body of one of their own, to navigate through his arteries and remove a brain clot.18 On the upside, getting inside work only takes imagination, to see from a different angle what you already know. You’ll quickly discover that this means looking below the surface of work as we normally see it (those six Ds, etc.), which may be why I think of submarines. But, when you work with new ideas, new possibilities for action often come to light and, as this is what we’ll be doing beneath the surface, among the things we can expect to find are clues to new work practices. “Inside” or “outside” is a matter of involvement Being inside or outside work is a figure of speech; a metaphor that has to do with how involved you are in the work and of how much the work itself means to you. As knowledge workers interact and cooperate to do their work, being inside or outside is really a matter of how intimately engaged you are with others when you are doing something. Unlike factory-work, knowledge-work isn’t limited to a particular workplace, like a workshop or the factory floor. You are just as likely to find knowledge workers, even Getting into work the same ones at different times, in a room the size of a football field that is separated into a rabbit warren of small, identical-looking cubicles, or sitting together round a table in a conference room that is a dozen feet long, or, singly, in an airport departure lounge, checking emails on their smart phones, while waiting for a connecting flight. If you are working with them, anywhere, especially if you are participating in their conversations—you could even be miles away, but on the phone or responding to an email—you are part of the work and on the inside. If you aren’t directly involved, however, even if you happen to be nearby, in the same room, you’re on the outside. The same applies, of course, if you are in another building, or on a different continent, where all you know about what they’re doing is from updates like performance reports, which could be second-, third-, or fourth-hand. Looking over the tops of cubicles you see people on computers while others are on their phones or are busy writing. Through the glass panels of a conference room you notice a bunch of people inside. Someone is writing on a flipchart and a few are obviously talking, though you can’t hear what they’re saying. In both cases your view of work would be limited and very different to what you’d know, hear, and feel on the inside, if you were working with those people, engaged with them in the work. With factorywork, the difference isn’t that significant. You can get a good sense of what people are doing by watching them, which is what supervisors do. With knowledge-work, however, the difference between being inside or outside is crucial. Their work depends on them sharing knowledge by talking to each other. So, to understand what they are doing as well as why and how they’re doing it, you need to be on the inside.19 In management-speak, work is about “requirements,” “outcomes,” “progress reports,” and so on. This is an outside view and, normally, feelings don’t enter the picture, but on the inside they do. You’re aware of them all the time—your own and others’—as you are of relationships. Both have a bearing on your work. Intimately involved in one another’s work, knowledge workers are also personally connected and think about the people they work with in the same way they do about their work: it is “my work” (even though others contribute to it) and they are “my colleagues, clients, or contacts.” Feeling that what they’re doing isn’t right yet and that they’ve got some way to go, they’ll wonder whether their colleagues will be satisfied and worry that the others won’t appreciate how much effort they’ve put into it. When organizing—assigning tasks or trying to pinpoint the source of a problem—your collective experience is invaluable in getting things done and you share knowledge with associates or clients that you don’t share with others. In fact, you use that collective experience and 17 Beyond Management 18 shared knowledge all the time: when reminding one another about your commitments; when looking for examples of how to handle a particular problem and of what worked and what didn’t; or when you are “catching up,” telling one another about what has been happening.20 Being on the outside of work is such a contrast that it is almost like being in a different universe. You won’t, for example, have an insider’s knowledge of how and how well things are going. No matter that you are keen to know everything that is going on, you can’t. You never see things the way insiders do, because you don’t have their intimacy with issues, or their feelings about the people they are working with and what is happening. Ask people what they’re doing, why, or how, and you get a second-hand perspective, which means an outsider will surely come to a different conclusion, have a different opinion, or make a different decision. This might be okay. It is a matter of whether an insider or outsider’s perspective is called for. Organizing work, when deciding what to do next, more often than not an insider’s intimacy with people and problems is what is needed. As an outsider, if there is a problem, it isn’t your problem. You don’t have the same motivation and aren’t under the same obligation to deal with it as a participant in the work, on the inside; and you may not know how to. If the problem concerns a client, it is their client, someone with expectations of them, to whom they have commitments (expectations and commitments imply a relationship). If the problem has to do, say, with the integration of computer systems, an insider will probably know whether it is the people he or she is working with—who are so attached to their legacy systems that they don’t want to give them up—or whether it is a technical matter involving incompatible datasets. And, if it happens to be the former, it is quite possible that he or she will have a sense of who, or what, is behind it and, perhaps, of whether or not it is going to be hard to get their buy-in. Call this instinct, intuition, insight, or experience; it is the kind of knowing-about-work that comes from being in the work and part of it—when you have relationships of some sort with those with whom you work and with the work itself—which plays a big part in organizing work.21 Work from the top Only on the inside, with a view from practice, do you realize that knowledge workers spend most of their work time organizing. To explain why, I want to contrast the two views of work. I’ll start with an outside view, and Getting into work this is where I want to change metaphors. Because I want to emphasize that this is the way you look at work when wearing a management hat, from now on I’ll refer to the “outside” view as the “view from the top.”22 As far as a project team is concerned, their project manager, whose main responsibilities are to schedule, assign, and supervise their work, is an outsider unless he also happens to work on the projects, participating with them in their work. (In the work of managing, or organizing, however, he is an insider, when working with others on scheduling, assigning, supervising, and advising). As their manager, except for what they tell him, he probably knows little and doesn’t want to know about their individual circumstances and day-to-day interactions with one another and their client. In managing projects he is interested mainly in their reports and in what he gleans from various metrics, in spreadsheets and databases, about their progress and performance. His work talk, which has an industrial-era ring to it, is of action items, benchmarks, budgets, communications, core competencies, deliverables, efficiency, data, financials, goals, job descriptions, metrics, productivity, incentives, procedures, requirements, results, regulations, schedules, standards, and work flows. This is what work looks like, and sounds like, from the top. It appears to be comprised largely of object-like things (lists of requirements, budgets, and so on), so getting work done is a bit like assembling a box of furniture from IKEA; making sure all the pieces are there and that they go in the right places. Workers have clearly identifiable tasks and do defined activities, like the ones you might see in a job description, such as “analyzing problems” or “writing reports.” Each task has a deadline, which means a team is going to achieve specific, clearly defined outcomes by a certain date and, while busy with a task, will make continual progress toward a definite goal. Teams need resources and tools (data, consultants, surveys, and perhaps travel and training) to do the work, and they need to know what to do. To function efficiently they need managers, at various levels, to plan, coordinate, and control their activities. Managers see their teams as bunches of individuals, possibly pulled together from various places on their org chart, whose experience and qualifications vary (they’ve seen their profiles in a personnel database). They have a contract, plans, deliverables, a budget, and deadlines and, through the managers’ lenses, are engaged in a “process,” which has a starting and finishing point, with an outcome, and various activities in between. Managers are mainly concerned about whether they are within their budget and on schedule, fully utilized from day-to-day, and at the end, whether they’ve made the deadline and delivered on the contract.23 19 Beyond Management 20 With your view from the top, it’s unlikely that you’d be able to just step in and take over a team member’s work, or, if you did, that you’d be able to do it well. What you don’t have, in particular, is the wealth of tacit knowledge of people and circumstances, including knowledge of the client and his or her expectations and of anyone who has been working on a project, which gives a context to their work and the problems they have to deal with. Nor do you have the shared experiences of people who’ve been working together and their collective knowledge that helps them to connect more easily to get things done together. Work in practice Work even sounds different when viewed from practice. Participants don’t use much management jargon (e.g. “deadlines,” “deliverables”). They tend to have rather ordinary-sounding conversations: “What do you think is going on? I’m concerned about Jay’s response. Do you think we can get her onboard? Do we need to? We seem to agree on priorities, so what is the next step? I see two or three different ways that we could deal with this.” The differences in what they talk about and how they say it have to do with what people see as their work. From the top, when you are directing, coordinating, and supervising, you are thinking about those six Ds—documentation, data, directives, deliverables, deadlines, and dollars—and your job is to have everyone’s attention on these. In practice, the language you usually use to talk to other people is fine for working with colleagues—because you work, organize, by talking together (talk is your work). It’s not about things like deadlines and deliverables, but about finding out where people stand and getting their agreement. To see what people do in practice, we’ll look in on a meeting where software developers are discussing a client’s complaints that were relayed to them by their manager. They set up this meeting at the last moment after a flurry of emails in which some team members said they wanted to hear from their client as well. All knew a problem was brewing. Now they have to deal with it and the question is how. Deciding what to do is typical of the work that knowledge workers do. They have to work out what the problem is and how big it is (i.e. frame the problem) and decide what to do about it. When they’re doing this, they are organizing. What is their work? A few of them who spoke to the client feel their discussion wasn’t very helpful, especially since he has changed his position on several occasions in the past. They are going to have to explain this to the others, then, together, make sense of it and their problem.24 What does he actually