|
|
Post by TBeholder on Jul 10, 2024 5:44:57 GMT
I have seen group decision-making work, but it's very easy to do it wrong and organizational problems can prevent it from ever having a chance. I have seen dancing around a server beating tambourine (literally), with the current problem subsequently going away. It does not work every time, of course. Perhaps it’s very easy to do wrong?  Whoever could make the decision by fiat has to cede the decision-making process while overseeing it adequately and bear responsibility for the decision the group reaches. One hypothetical procedure that could have good results with reasonable reliability and fits this description is: the boss trains the lackeys at guessing his expectations and moving toward them via improvised theatrical performance. Perhaps the most practical implementation is simple random wandering guided by the level of approval communicated non-verbally, much like in the classic “genius dog” stage magician routine. Not sure if there is any other that would equally well. |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Jul 10, 2024 7:40:40 GMT
I have seen group decision-making work, but it's very easy to do it wrong and organizational problems can prevent it from ever having a chance. I have seen dancing around a server beating tambourine (literally), with the current problem subsequently going away. It does not work every time, of course. Perhaps it’s very easy to do wrong? If the problem was people annoying the admin while waiting for a fix to work then yes, I can see that working regularly. Get all the pests musical instruments and have them dance around the server or router or whatever tech isn't working until the elves within are satisfied. I understand your skepticism, though. Group decision making actually working well on the regular in the wild is rare. It's very easy to do badly or use it as a cover for something completely different. In thirty years I've only seen a couple of places get it right and both were smaller organizations in the private sector. Whoever could make the decision by fiat has to cede the decision-making process while overseeing it adequately and bear responsibility for the decision the group reaches. One hypothetical procedure that could have good results with reasonable reliability and fits this description is: the boss trains the lackeys at guessing his expectations and moving toward them via improvised theatrical performance. Perhaps the most practical implementation is simple random wandering guided by the level of approval communicated non-verbally, much like in the classic “genius dog” stage magician routine. Not sure if there is any other that would equally well. Good group decision making does require both good management and mostly good employees. In large organizations that's particularly tough. The common wisdom is that in any large organization the actual work is done by about one third of the people. Another third of the people are just doing their jobs and keeping their heads down. The remaining third is actively working against the organization. In My Humble Opinion the people with competence, good work ethics, and no particular issue are more like 15%. Then there's another 15% who are potentially very good employees but require training and/or experience and/or have some sort of issue that can prevent them from being productive. On the other end of the spectrum there's 20-30% of people who should ideally be fired but are needed to fill seats with bodies; they require constant monitoring and immediate accountability or they will start upscrewing things as fast as they can. I won't go into why because some reasons touch on issues that aren't appropriate for this forum. The middle 40-50% are okay all things held equal, but if morale starts to suffer (say for example, by watching others shirk work and get away with it, or unevenly applied rules, or rampant nepotism) they can slide into wage-thievery. Bad employees can drive out good ones by making a workplace intolerable; people with better options eventually exercise them. Likewise good employees can drive out bad though that impulse needs moderation. Few people start off as a good employee and some people just take time to warm up to people, so there's a tendency even at good workplaces to edge out anybody new unless they're really desperate. |
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Jul 22, 2024 15:49:43 GMT
If the problem was people annoying the admin while waiting for a fix to work then yes, I can see that working regularly. Get all the pests musical instruments and have them dance around the server or router or whatever tech isn't working until the elves within are satisfied. No, admin is the one doing it. Having logos of relevant (or irrelevant) software on the tambourine is unnecessary, but more entertaining. This enacts a joke, but the main value is in having a fun way to vent frustration when dealing with byzantine or intermittent errors. This detail greatly increases my skepticism. Unless the real procedure is “the boss listened as we discussed it, and then based on that he alone decided”. Which obviously works (and worked for Stalin, too). And good weather on Mars wouldn’t be superfluous either? |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Jul 22, 2024 17:57:17 GMT
If the problem was people annoying the admin while waiting for a fix to work then yes, I can see that working regularly. Get all the pests musical instruments and have them dance around the server or router or whatever tech isn't working until the elves within are satisfied. No, admin is the one doing it. Having logos of relevant (or irrelevant) software on the tambourine is unnecessary, but more entertaining. This enacts a joke, but the main value is in having a fun way to vent frustration when dealing with byzantine or intermittent errors. If it works, it works. I've worked with a few people who had creative ways to blow off steam (some took it too far) but most were too worried about looking professional and/or too busy to ever unclench. An executive I once worked with had zen sand gardens in her office, living room and even next to her bed (don't ask) and it turns out she had no idea what they even were, she just bought them because she thought they fit the corpo image. This detail greatly increases my skepticism. Unless the real procedure is “the boss listened as we discussed it, and then based on that he alone decided”. Which obviously works (and worked for Stalin, too). A thing I noticed about humans is that they often say one thing and then do another, sometimes the exact opposite. Most often when people say "group decision making" they mean "spread and defeat accountability." I've seen a boss get input and then decide as you describe, and sometimes it was called a group decision. I've also been places where the group was forced to deliberate until they reached the correct decision according to the boss. One meeting went literally all day and into overtime. The boss never said what the decision he wanted was, he just kept things going until we guessed right. When I was younger I had someone try the old, "Hey the boss told me that I could do whatever I want with the project so just ignore whatever's said in meetings and I'll give you your instructions after" (I told him cool, just get the boss to put that in writing, sign it and give it to me; of course I believe you but gotta follow procedures right?). I've been to countless meetings that were just window dressing on labyrinthine politics from hidden informal powers; there major issues are inconsequential for the discussion but trifles can be earth-shattering (because they disturb the balance) and common sense isn't even a thing. I've also been to places that sometimes actually have groups make decisions. Almost all dysfunctioned to some degree or other, but a couple got it right.  |
|
