Replied to Remaining unmanaged by Doug Belshaw (dougbelshaw.com)

The reason traditional organisations have people managers is to prevent failure. They exist to prevent employees:

  1. Doing the wrong thing (misdirect effort)
  2. Doing the thing wrong (make mistakes)
  3. Cutting corners and do poor work out of laziness
  4. Working too slowly, creating delays
  5. Gaming incentives and work to minimal standards
  6. Acting maliciously due to unresolved resentments
  7. Acting unreliably due to personal life issues
  8. Lying or cheating in reporting on work
  9. Failing to resolve conflict with other employees
  10. Becoming unable to work due to illness
  11. Failing due to lack the right resources to succeed
  12. Failing due to essential tools or systems failing
Thank you Doug. Always food for thought.

I am still left thinking about Sean Blanda’s discussion of the spectre of remote as the first step to offshoring.

Bookmarked How (and why) to roll your own frameworks in consulting engagements (tomcritchlow.com)
  • Frameworks are simple tools for thinking that can create a shared world view and be easily referenced
  • The first instinct of many consultants is to grab a framework that you’ve heard of but this causes problems in three ways:
    • They’re too complex
    • They’re not relevant enough
    • You didn’t make it so there’s little attachment
  • Instead I believe you should be making your own frameworks and they you should focus on:
    • Simple frameworks (even a simple categorization is a framework)
    • True frameworks that say something about the client’s business
    • Co-creating them with clients so you get the IKEA effect
  • I’m still figuring it out but I believe doodling, sketching, notebook diagrams and visual thinking can help you get better at making frameworks
  • And, finally, for maximum effectiveness you need to focus on memorable names – compress to impress.
Tom Critchlow reflects on the use of frameworks to inform decision making. He touches on the failure of pre-existing framework and instead suggests we should focus on co-creating:

  • Firstly you avoid almost-true frameworks. The client almost certainly knows more than you do and has an awareness for the corporate memory so can help you avoid evolutionary dead ends that might not be immediately obvious.
  • Secondly by co-creating with the client you get at least one senior member of the organization fully immersed in the theory, not just the summary of the framework. Remember frameworks are abstractions – by design – but you want at least someone who understands the whole system not just the abstraction
  • Thirdly, because the client co-created it with you they are proud of their work and far more likely to use, reference and share the framework than if you hand it to them fully formed.

This process stems from ‘client-ethnographies’ that is a part of ongoing work:

Every time you’re on-site with a client’s organization you’re studying the people, the behaviours, the motivations. You’re asking questions of as many people as you can.

Activities such as doodling and refining the name can help with with the process.