Rules

A flow requires a framework.

Electricity flows through lines directed by switches. No framework, then no boiled egg for breakfast.

Work in large organisations flows through the organisational structure directed by rules. "If this then do that" is the switch.

If too many fires up their coffee machines at the same time in an unplanned fashion we get outages. If you forget "to complain within 48 hours" about your broken guitar you will not get any compensation. Such worketh the dumb frameworks.

Electrons do not think, so they need a rigid framework. But people think.

People and business deserves better frameworks than those based on rules, budgets, deadlines, meetings and organisational structures.

But that's never mentioned in management training handbooks because "management" is the "science" of work frameworks. Or to put it bluntly; the "science" of rules, budgets, deadlines, meetings and organisational structures.

Make better use of people, make better profits and have a nice day? Start by doubting the concept of "management" and try some other and less ancient framework for people work flows. 

[Disclosure: We do make that kind of framework, a modern replacement for rules-, meetings-, budgets-, deadlines type of thing. Add that we think "management is a waste of time" because people are smarter than that, but that's another story.]

Comments

[David]

Rules are so inherently autocratic and 'top-down' thinking. Very much 'directive', yet static: 'directive' as in being told what to do, and how; while static as in not necessarily being relevant to the current situation - once in place, the static rule is the same for all people/situations regardless of changes that occur.

The reality, as you well know, is that interactions and interdependence is what's important.

In my endeavours in organizational design, I've sought to design a 'parametric' organizational system that is both a result of and itself a dynamical complex adaptive system: a system that facilitate the interdependent interactions of people.

The parameters by/in which people work: parameters as goal or outcome oriented, with guidelines. Rather than a narrow 'do this task, in this way' attitude, it's a more general 'achieve this goal according to these guidelines'.

It seems to me - as far as my understanding allows - that your Thingamy is precisely such a dynamical framework.

I'm keen to learn more about Thingamy in this regard.

Any thoughts on the matter?

David.

[sig]

David,

precisely - the frameworks of yonder having been developed without efficient communication nor IT in general had to be "static" and "directive" like a pipeline.

With new technologies the frameworks should become what they always should have been; dynamic.

But the 'dynamic' might be used by two different parties - the outside (controlling, management, org structure) or inside (participant) - and there's the huge trap: As long as the rest of the old framework exist the dynamics would be (mis)used by the old framework (like in even more efficient outside control) instead of letting participants use the dynamics themselves.

And the latter one should be the only way to go, why else hire people who can think, be creative, act independently?

And yes to your last point, Thingamy is in fact a work "framework" - not in need of any of the old framework components.

[David]

Yes, indeed. A huge trap it is: a new very effective and efficient means for the 'top down' autocrats to gain more control. Not what we want/need.

The 'dynamic participant' model of organizational design, of course, is the goal of course.

And isn't that what Thingamy is/does? - the 'data' itself is a dynamic 'electronic participant' ... a 'data element' carrying all the information it needs, and itself an active participant in the business process (according to the framework or parameters). Adjusting 'itself' according to new inputs or amendments of the information.

Seems to me that only a new organization, designed from scratch to operate in such a way will truly optimize the IT capabilities.

D.

P.S. Great insight in your posts and comments. Thanks.

[sig]

If only "management" (theory and practice) could be seen for what it really is: A framework for work.

Then I think other avenues than adding more behavior theory and off-site gatherings would open up.

Better use of IT say... ;)

[David]

My thinking/beliefs ... though, I don't claim to be the originator of such ideas ... is that we need to think of management in terms of the managing of processes/projects (and their individual tasks), while leading and facilitating people.

Separate people from the processes. (With regards to management.)

Lead people ...

... and allow them to Manage the processes.

Does that make sense? I don't mean to oversimplify.

In doing so, that would allow IT to be used much more effectively, so I think, anyhow.