We should hope for the collapse of certain large companies.
If we think back to the life expectancy of companies, which has drastically reduced over the past century, we’re still left wanting when we look around us. Because we’re still waiting for old large institutions to collapse. Do their connections with the State make them interlocutors that remain resistant for now?
Why do we wish for their collapse?
Negativism and perfection
Because they would be replaced by modern companies (like the many that fortunately abound today around us) and the administrative aberrations, the aberrations linked to internal politics, the blockage on modernity of an entire aspect of our lives would be lifted. All the more so because many people who inhabit them are suffering. The proof is the difficulty these large and old organizations have in recruiting today. Only power and money (whether to show off or to secure oneself), career, drive a good part of these people, the other part having resigned themselves to taking advantage of this advanced fossilization, even if it means missing out on their lives. Often a system has been created and all these people are trapped within it. I won’t go further into the debate, because the more we advance, the more complex it becomes and the more clear-cut opinions are inadequate.
I wish well for all these people individually. The system of these large and old institutions crushes them, hurts them, just as it does to us.
It’s the system whose downfall I hope for.
I’m always optimistic, even if Jeff Patton just reminded me of a painful debate by mentioning in the school of product 2021 that change would be announced in a sense in the obituary section (expression borrowed from Dragos). He was referring to an Anglo-Saxon expression that says: “change follows the hearse,” which in French had become “the safe doesn’t follow the hearse.” So in French the meaning is: after the person’s death, the money becomes accessible again. In English: after the person’s death, change becomes possible again.
A harsh observation to tell ourselves that in many cases we must wait: either for the end, in the literal sense, of certain organizations, or for their leaders.
No time to have a positive thought, because another person immediately whispers to me: “meh, among young people I also see plenty of people who have picked up the bad habit of old-fashioned management (that of the last century, industrial), and of politics (in the sense of personal interest before that of the group)” (I’m paraphrasing).
In these large institutions, to preserve the established order, power and money, we standardize, we secure, we hide (with organizational layers or a jungle of processes), it becomes hell. The objective is not to move things forward, but to succeed internally, or to secure oneself to ensure that nothing changes.
For this in these companies we abhor uncertainty and insecurity. And this feeds a vicious circle. This feeds an illusory desire for perfection.
In this search for absolutism, for perfection (which would guarantee that nothing changes, that nothing is put in danger), two examples:
The desire of these people in these organizations to have all the scenarios and all the answers before launching. We prepare everything. But you already know that preparing everything, answering everything makes no sense in our uncertain world.
The desire to build teams whose entire skill set is predisposed to perfectly meet the need, but whose functioning has become impossible due to too many people.
Optimism and imperfection
To see the optimistic and positive side of things: yes there are many organizations that are flourishing, modern, and in which it’s good to work.
Their leaders know that imperfection is an essential component of their success.
In this so-called “agile” world it’s known, it’s described, and it’s “equipped,” this way of apprehending imperfection, this reality of a world that requires much more sustained adaptation than before.
Today two ways of doing things (two first steps?) to apprehend this imperfection that seem important to me (in counterpoint to the two examples above):
Real options: knowing how to leave questions unanswered, not constraining ourselves to have answers to everything.
Prioritize the proper functioning of teams, before questioning their response capacity. In other words, knowing how to constrain ourselves to first constitute teams so that the group dynamics work well, even if it means having teams not totally adapted to the need.
Two important efforts, but rewarding.
Real Options
Real options for decision-making. I think a very good source on this matter is Chris Matts, here is one of his articles (in English).
Allow me to translate some excerpts here (well I ask deepl):
For any decision to be made, there are three categories of possible decisions, namely a “good decision,” a “bad decision,” and “no decision.” Most people think there are only two: either you’re right or you’re wrong. Since we normally don’t know what the right or wrong decision is, the optimal decision is actually “no decision,” because it postpones commitment until we have more information to make a more informed decision.
However, if we observe most people’s behavior, we see that an aversion to uncertainty causes people to make decisions early. Real options address this aversion to uncertainty by defining the exact date or conditions to be met before making the decision. Instead of saying “not yet,” the real options approach says “Make the decision when…..” This gives people certainty about when the decision will be made and, consequently, they are more comfortable delaying the decision. Delaying commitments gives decision-makers greater flexibility because they continue to have options. It allows them to manage risk/uncertainty by using their options.
This is the “decide as late as possible” of Lean, “at the last responsible moment.”
Prioritize the proper functioning of teams before functional or technical scope
You want to meet the needs of your subject. You constitute a “custom-made” team. You’re 10. It doesn’t work. Everything falls apart.
You constrain yourself to respect the laws of group dynamics, and not have a team composed of more than 6 or 7 people, or 8 exceptionally. You’re a bit at risk, because the team doesn’t completely cover the scope of your subject. But the team dynamics work well. Your team will be able to deliver things.
This constraint is difficult, but you have to know how to force yourself.
Cultivating imperfection
It’s by cultivating a certain form of imperfection, an imperfection in a sense accepted, reasoned, and therefore controlled that we succeed best today: response postponed to later to respond better, incomplete team, but one that functions well by itself, etc.