Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 19,20 (click to see context) from:
NO!!! Because the existence of processes and standards, frees up high level managers from constant fighting of fires, to now engage in office politics.
to:
NO!!! Because the existence of processes and standards, standards frees up high level managers from constant fighting of fires, fires to now engage in office politics.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 39 (click to see context) from:
Become [[MyMasterRightOrWrong an enthusiastic toadie to whoever happens to be your boss at the present]]. While this may seem like a good option, it has its own risks. Your new boss may just oust you for being the old boss’s toadie. Or he may see through your attempts at sycophancy and not take you seriously and oust you in favor of his own true believer. Or you will become a stark staring raving schizophrenic.
to:
Become [[MyMasterRightOrWrong an enthusiastic toadie to whoever happens to be your boss at the present]]. While this may seem like a good option, it has its own risks. Your new boss may just oust you for being the old boss’s toadie. Or he may see through your attempts at sycophancy and not take you seriously and oust you in favor of his own true believer. Or you will become a stark staring raving schizophrenic.schizophrenic who may burn out and leave just to preserve your sanity.
Or you realize that the same processes and standards that freed up upper level managers to play politics also becomes your impregnable refuge! As long as you diligently follow the processes and adhere to the set standards, none of the political managers above you can get rid if you. Because if they want to fault you for slavishly following the process, they have to find fault with the process. And if they want to find faults with the process, they may have to fight the ''entire organization''. Because ripping up a process could cause the entire organization to fail and crash. So, most if not all political managers will choose wisely to not fight this battle. And so, you have a well documented codified method to surviving any and all political machinations at the top. Just follow procedure, don’t make waves and you can have a long and stable if not so illustrious a career.
But if the process initially helped an organization, isn’t it inherently effective? Why would following it diligently make you one of those despised obstructionists who create nothing but bureaucratic inertia? Because most processes were created to solve specific issues and are not a panacea.
Or you realize that the same processes and standards that freed up upper level managers to play politics also becomes your impregnable refuge! As long as you diligently follow the processes and adhere to the set standards, none of the political managers above you can get rid if you. Because if they want to fault you for slavishly following the process, they have to find fault with the process. And if they want to find faults with the process, they may have to fight the ''entire organization''. Because ripping up a process could cause the entire organization to fail and crash. So, most if not all political managers will choose wisely to not fight this battle. And so, you have a well documented codified method to surviving any and all political machinations at the top. Just follow procedure, don’t make waves and you can have a long and stable if not so illustrious a career.
But if the process initially helped an organization, isn’t it inherently effective? Why would following it diligently make you one of those despised obstructionists who create nothing but bureaucratic inertia? Because most processes were created to solve specific issues and are not a panacea.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 33 (click to see context) from:
With either the democratic process, political instability, or just politicking causing a revolving door of upper level managers, the mid level people find themselves in exactly the situation described in the above quote - having to fervently serve changing and often contradictory directives from above.
to:
With either the democratic process, political instability, or just politicking causing a revolving door of upper level managers, the mid level people find themselves in exactly the situation described in the above quote - having to fervently serve changing and often contradictory directives from above. So what does someone who just wants a career and livelihood do?
You can just join in the political game yourself, but this adds the risk of ''losing and getting ousted.'' A risk avoidant person will definitely avoid this.
You become a true believer in one goal/vision that really inspires you. However, true believers are dangerous enemies to those who oppose that vision, so you have to be prepared to die on that hill. If you want job stability, you won’t go this route.
Become [[MyMasterRightOrWrong an enthusiastic toadie to whoever happens to be your boss at the present]]. While this may seem like a good option, it has its own risks. Your new boss may just oust you for being the old boss’s toadie. Or he may see through your attempts at sycophancy and not take you seriously and oust you in favor of his own true believer. Or you will become a stark staring raving schizophrenic.
You can just join in the political game yourself, but this adds the risk of ''losing and getting ousted.'' A risk avoidant person will definitely avoid this.
You become a true believer in one goal/vision that really inspires you. However, true believers are dangerous enemies to those who oppose that vision, so you have to be prepared to die on that hill. If you want job stability, you won’t go this route.
Become [[MyMasterRightOrWrong an enthusiastic toadie to whoever happens to be your boss at the present]]. While this may seem like a good option, it has its own risks. Your new boss may just oust you for being the old boss’s toadie. Or he may see through your attempts at sycophancy and not take you seriously and oust you in favor of his own true believer. Or you will become a stark staring raving schizophrenic.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 31,32 (click to see context) from:
—> ''' Sir Humphrey ''' ''Series/YesMinister ''
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 29,31 (click to see context) from:
''” Bernard, I have served eleven governments in the past thirty years. If I had believed in all their policies, I would have been passionately committed to keeping out of the Common Market, and passionately committed to going into it. I would have been utterly convinced of the rightness of nationalising steel. And of denationalising it and renationalising it. On capital punishment, I'd have been a fervent retentionist and an ardent abolitionist. I would've been a Keynesian and a Friedmanite, a grammar school preserver and destroyer, a nationalisation freak and a privatisation maniac; but above all, I would have been a stark, staring, raving schizophrenic!” ''
-> ''' Sir Humphrey ''' ''Series/YesMinister ''
-> ''' Sir Humphrey ''' ''Series/YesMinister ''
to:
-> ''” Bernard, I have served eleven governments in the past thirty years. If I had believed in all their policies, I would have been passionately committed to keeping out of the Common Market, and passionately committed to going into it. I would have been utterly convinced of the rightness of nationalising steel. And of denationalising it and renationalising it. On capital punishment, I'd have been a fervent retentionist and an ardent abolitionist. I would've been a Keynesian and a Friedmanite, a grammar school preserver and destroyer, a nationalisation freak and a privatisation maniac; but above all, I would have been a stark, staring, raving schizophrenic!” ''
-> —> ''' Sir Humphrey ''' ''Series/YesMinister ''
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 29,30 (click to see context) from:
''”I would have been staunchly for the death penalty before I became staunchly anti-death penalty. I would have been fervently against nationalization before I was fervently against it. But above all, I would have become a stark raving schizophrenic!” ''
-> ''' Sir Humphrey ''' ''Series/YesMinister ''
-> ''' Sir Humphrey ''' ''Series/YesMinister ''
to:
-> ''' Sir Humphrey ''' ''Series/YesMinister
With either the democratic process, political instability, or just politicking causing a revolving door of upper level managers, the mid level people find themselves in exactly the situation described in the above quote - having to fervently serve changing and often contradictory directives from above.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 29 (click to see context) from:
''”I would have been staunchly for the death penalty before I became staunchly anti-death penalty. I would have been fervently against nationalization before I was fervently against it. But above all, I would have become a stark raving schizophrenic!”
to:
''”I would have been staunchly for the death penalty before I became staunchly anti-death penalty. I would have been fervently against nationalization before I was fervently against it. But above all, I would have become a stark raving schizophrenic!”schizophrenic!” ''
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 27 (click to see context) from:
'''Dot the “i”s, Cross the “t”s and Pass the Buck'''
to:
'''Dot the “i”s, Cross the “t”s and Pass the Buck'''Buck'''
''”I would have been staunchly for the death penalty before I became staunchly anti-death penalty. I would have been fervently against nationalization before I was fervently against it. But above all, I would have become a stark raving schizophrenic!”
-> ''' Sir Humphrey ''' ''Series/YesMinister ''
''”I would have been staunchly for the death penalty before I became staunchly anti-death penalty. I would have been fervently against nationalization before I was fervently against it. But above all, I would have become a stark raving schizophrenic!”
-> ''' Sir Humphrey ''' ''Series/YesMinister ''
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 23,24 (click to see context) from:
to:
So, managers who were secure in their niches now have to worry about the security of their jobs. When sheer competence won’t cut it any more, their only recourse is to start politicking by encroaching on their peers’ s turf, maneuver to oust a peer and take over his role too, or gasp! Try to oust their own boss! This changes upper level management from a well oiled machine to a snake pit of backbiting, back scratching, deal making (and breaking) lies, obfuscations, equivocations etc. As people jockey for power, some will win and others will lose. And the underlings have to prepare for a scenario where their boss today may be gone tomorrow. With new managers may come new direction, new priorities, new goals even. And tremendous peril if you get too invested in any one of your boss’s vision. Because if he is ousted, you could also be ousted so that nothing remains of him, his influence and his vision. But shouldn’t the new boss keep you because you have valuable skills and competence? NO!! The process can easily train someone else to replace you! Someone else who wasn’t as enthusiastic about the previous boss’s vision.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 17,18 (click to see context) from:
to:
NO!!! Because the existence of processes and standards, frees up high level managers from constant fighting of fires, to now engage in office politics.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 13,14 (click to see context) from:
Following the successful attainment of the organization’s initial goal, these people think “What next? What other problem(s) can we now tackle? What improvements can we now attempt to make?” Or the powers that be who sponsored them, are impressed with their success and decide to give them more tasks and more resources. And then the organization grows accordingly to take on more challenges. When they solve these new problems, they take on more. And eventually hit two organizational issues - that of [[MovingTheGoalposts mission creep]] and the Over-Dependence on the HypercompetentSidekick.
to:
Following the successful attainment of the organization’s initial goal, these people think “What next? What other problem(s) can we now tackle? What improvements can we now attempt to make?” Or the powers that be who sponsored them, are impressed with their success and decide to give them more tasks and more resources. And then the organization grows accordingly to take on more challenges. When they solve these new problems, they take on more. And eventually hit two organizational issues - that of [[MovingTheGoalposts mission creep]] MissionCreep and the Over-Dependence on the HypercompetentSidekick.
HypercompetentSidekick. As problems stack up, they go from challenging to overwhelming to intractable. Some of the rockstars who loved solving them before, burn out and [[ScrewThisImOuttaHere leave!]] And without them, others now have even more fires to put out but have to figure out from scratch, how to put them out.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 13,14 (click to see context) from:
Following the successful attainment of the organization’s initial goal, these people think “What next? What other problem(s) can we now tackle? What improvements can we now attempt to make?” Or the powers that be who sponsored them, are impressed with their success and decide to give them more tasks and more resources. And then the organization grows accordingly to take on more challenges.
to:
Following the successful attainment of the organization’s initial goal, these people think “What next? What other problem(s) can we now tackle? What improvements can we now attempt to make?” Or the powers that be who sponsored them, are impressed with their success and decide to give them more tasks and more resources. And then the organization grows accordingly to take on more challenges.
challenges. When they solve these new problems, they take on more. And eventually hit two organizational issues - that of [[MovingTheGoalposts mission creep]] and the Over-Dependence on the HypercompetentSidekick.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 11,12 (click to see context) from:
to:
Following the successful attainment of the organization’s initial goal, these people think “What next? What other problem(s) can we now tackle? What improvements can we now attempt to make?” Or the powers that be who sponsored them, are impressed with their success and decide to give them more tasks and more resources. And then the organization grows accordingly to take on more challenges.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 7,8 (click to see context) from:
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 3,4 (click to see context) from:
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 21 (click to see context) from:
'''Dot the “i”s, Cross the “t”s and Pass the Buck
to:
'''Dot the “i”s, Cross the “t”s and Pass the BuckBuck'''
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
! What causes a bloated obstructive bureaucracy to sprout up
to:
! What causes a bloated an obstructive bureaucracy to sprout upup
'''An Inspired Idea'''
'''Challenging Problems to Solve'''
'''The Need for Processes and Standards'''
'''Everyone’s Replaceable'''
'''Dot the “i”s, Cross the “t”s and Pass the Buck
'''An Inspired Idea'''
'''Challenging Problems to Solve'''
'''The Need for Processes and Standards'''
'''Everyone’s Replaceable'''
'''Dot the “i”s, Cross the “t”s and Pass the Buck
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
! What causes a bloated obstructive bureaucracy to sprout up
