Thanks for the link to Beyond Budgeting - I had never heard of that org or their vision, but it seems really compelling. Do you have any thoughts on whether the model they propose is a good candidate for the kind of paradigm shift you’re advocating?
To your question, yes, I do believe so. My key takeaway from "This is Beyond Budgeting" is that typical company budgets conflate target setting, forecasting, and resource allocation. As explained in the book, this creates pervasive incentives that lead to behaviors like sandbagging, resource hoarding, etc. All of this is antithetical to company success.
The Beyond Budgeting philosophy decouples all of those, and with that removes the twisted incentives, focusing instead of creating customer value. I think that's 100% part of the paradigm shift we need at all levels of the organization.
This is an excellent article with some fascinating observations!
I've been sensing this "brokenness" in processes for quite some time now, and it's safe to say that you've touched on a sore spot - and it's clearly not just mine. Thank you for addressing this, by the way. It gives me more confidence that I'm not alone in grappling with this "bipolarity."
If I may, I'd like to share some thoughts on how I perceive this situation:
It appears that we're on the cusp of the metamodern era, having nearly left postmodernity behind (finally). In a nutshell, while postmodernity entailed decentralization from essence to "what" it personally meant for a specific entity, along with the denial and ignorance of any principles and authorities, we are now gradually shifting towards questioning "why" things are the way they are for a specific entity. In other words, we're starting to look inward, which, in my opinion, is a positive development.
Consequently, I'm incredibly eager to read more of your thoughts on how we can "fix what's broken."
And the example with General Motors in the context of different eras makes perfect sense. For addressing the specific problems of that time, command-and-control management was indeed the only viable solution. However, it later fell out of favor, and instead of revitalization, it was completely distorted and transformed into what we currently have by the postmodern era. Now, I hope, there will be a chance for genuine reevaluation and "refactoring."
I'm optimistic that we're moving in the right direction, although I sense that, for now, we've only scratched the surface.
Dmytro - thank you for the very thoughtful comment! Gives me joy each time someone engages this deeply with the content here on the Hagakure. 🙂
Very interesting how you put it in terms of postmodernity and "metamodernity". I want to believe that we are indeed shifting towards questioning "why" things are the way they are. But I'm never sure if it's really gaining momentum in the industry or it's just my availability bias (e.g. the circles I move in talk a lot about it).
I should say I'm not sure we can "fix what's broken". I think we can ameliorate the symptoms through better leadership that understands change and emotions, and by asking different questions. But ultimately a paradigm shift is required.
For example, is this *really* a question about developer productivity? Or is it more about trying to understand the value of an engineering function?
And does it even make sense to ask that outside of the capitalistic, winner-takes-all, more is more mentality that is part of the fabric of most companies still today? What if we went beyond command and control, and focused on what creates customer value instead of all the non-value added work (read: waste) we created for ourselves by virtue of treating the organization as a machine?
In any event, these are big questions I alone don't have clear answers for. The Hagakure is my humble attempt at discourse, and seeking truth. In the short term, I believe we can take steps to clarify "what healthy uses of data in engineering management" looks like, in ways that satisfy everyone's needs. And I also believe that data is but a part of the story, the other simply being great leadership that is complexity-conscious and people-positive.
Sometimes I feel like a dreamer and imagine that certain events can occur and change such global processes, and then I eagerly anticipate them.
Regarding the topic, I believe that Large Language Models can be helpful here. If the process is solely about hard numbers and metrics, people tend to work solely for those numbers. However, if the process is more complex or involves too many variables, people will start searching for ways to achieve the desired results.
And, of course, in a combination of such systems, there should be a human element, someone who is a blend of an expert in these LLM systems, a teacher, and a psychologist. They could understand the system's outcomes, interpret them to the employees, and guide them in development directions.
Just dreams, right?
Certainly, because for such a role, there should be a will and a system for training such specialists.
If you want to change the world, start by changing the education system.
Although there is another option as well! - just to have more coaches like you at all levels of the organization. :)
I wholeheartedly agree with you on changing the education system. Not just changing the existing one, but rebuilding it from scratch. It's where the problem starts. I'm optimistic about this in the long run.
Coaches can help create "islands of sanity" by helping leaders lead from a different source, a different power. Margaret Wheatley calls this "warriors of the human spirit". Unfortunately, organizations still don't see coaching—at best—beyond what I call the "plug 'n play" model. Meaning: we offer coaching to some of our people, but are divorced from the process and outcomes. It's a perk, not a tool to increase organizational learning. I find it's a missed opportunity, but time will tell if we can change this.
And btw, Dmytro, it's not "just dreams". George Bernard Shaw said “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
I’m a kind of middle manager in a massive org (50,000 people) and the part about treating organizations as a machine with gears and levers to be optimized really rings true. Very curious to read the next issue about your thoughts on a better way.
WIP it is, Lesleigh. I'm so glad to hear there are more and more people out there starting to see this question in a different light—and acting on it. :)
Thanks for the link to Beyond Budgeting - I had never heard of that org or their vision, but it seems really compelling. Do you have any thoughts on whether the model they propose is a good candidate for the kind of paradigm shift you’re advocating?
Hi Igor and thanks for your comment!
To your question, yes, I do believe so. My key takeaway from "This is Beyond Budgeting" is that typical company budgets conflate target setting, forecasting, and resource allocation. As explained in the book, this creates pervasive incentives that lead to behaviors like sandbagging, resource hoarding, etc. All of this is antithetical to company success.
The Beyond Budgeting philosophy decouples all of those, and with that removes the twisted incentives, focusing instead of creating customer value. I think that's 100% part of the paradigm shift we need at all levels of the organization.
This is an excellent article with some fascinating observations!
I've been sensing this "brokenness" in processes for quite some time now, and it's safe to say that you've touched on a sore spot - and it's clearly not just mine. Thank you for addressing this, by the way. It gives me more confidence that I'm not alone in grappling with this "bipolarity."
If I may, I'd like to share some thoughts on how I perceive this situation:
It appears that we're on the cusp of the metamodern era, having nearly left postmodernity behind (finally). In a nutshell, while postmodernity entailed decentralization from essence to "what" it personally meant for a specific entity, along with the denial and ignorance of any principles and authorities, we are now gradually shifting towards questioning "why" things are the way they are for a specific entity. In other words, we're starting to look inward, which, in my opinion, is a positive development.
Consequently, I'm incredibly eager to read more of your thoughts on how we can "fix what's broken."
And the example with General Motors in the context of different eras makes perfect sense. For addressing the specific problems of that time, command-and-control management was indeed the only viable solution. However, it later fell out of favor, and instead of revitalization, it was completely distorted and transformed into what we currently have by the postmodern era. Now, I hope, there will be a chance for genuine reevaluation and "refactoring."
I'm optimistic that we're moving in the right direction, although I sense that, for now, we've only scratched the surface.
Dmytro - thank you for the very thoughtful comment! Gives me joy each time someone engages this deeply with the content here on the Hagakure. 🙂
Very interesting how you put it in terms of postmodernity and "metamodernity". I want to believe that we are indeed shifting towards questioning "why" things are the way they are. But I'm never sure if it's really gaining momentum in the industry or it's just my availability bias (e.g. the circles I move in talk a lot about it).
I should say I'm not sure we can "fix what's broken". I think we can ameliorate the symptoms through better leadership that understands change and emotions, and by asking different questions. But ultimately a paradigm shift is required.
For example, is this *really* a question about developer productivity? Or is it more about trying to understand the value of an engineering function?
And does it even make sense to ask that outside of the capitalistic, winner-takes-all, more is more mentality that is part of the fabric of most companies still today? What if we went beyond command and control, and focused on what creates customer value instead of all the non-value added work (read: waste) we created for ourselves by virtue of treating the organization as a machine?
In any event, these are big questions I alone don't have clear answers for. The Hagakure is my humble attempt at discourse, and seeking truth. In the short term, I believe we can take steps to clarify "what healthy uses of data in engineering management" looks like, in ways that satisfy everyone's needs. And I also believe that data is but a part of the story, the other simply being great leadership that is complexity-conscious and people-positive.
Thanks again for your comment!
Sometimes I feel like a dreamer and imagine that certain events can occur and change such global processes, and then I eagerly anticipate them.
Regarding the topic, I believe that Large Language Models can be helpful here. If the process is solely about hard numbers and metrics, people tend to work solely for those numbers. However, if the process is more complex or involves too many variables, people will start searching for ways to achieve the desired results.
And, of course, in a combination of such systems, there should be a human element, someone who is a blend of an expert in these LLM systems, a teacher, and a psychologist. They could understand the system's outcomes, interpret them to the employees, and guide them in development directions.
Just dreams, right?
Certainly, because for such a role, there should be a will and a system for training such specialists.
If you want to change the world, start by changing the education system.
Although there is another option as well! - just to have more coaches like you at all levels of the organization. :)
I wholeheartedly agree with you on changing the education system. Not just changing the existing one, but rebuilding it from scratch. It's where the problem starts. I'm optimistic about this in the long run.
Coaches can help create "islands of sanity" by helping leaders lead from a different source, a different power. Margaret Wheatley calls this "warriors of the human spirit". Unfortunately, organizations still don't see coaching—at best—beyond what I call the "plug 'n play" model. Meaning: we offer coaching to some of our people, but are divorced from the process and outcomes. It's a perk, not a tool to increase organizational learning. I find it's a missed opportunity, but time will tell if we can change this.
And btw, Dmytro, it's not "just dreams". George Bernard Shaw said “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
Thank you for these words too.
Sometimes I forget that dreaming is good, but taking action is what actually moves the needle.
I’m a kind of middle manager in a massive org (50,000 people) and the part about treating organizations as a machine with gears and levers to be optimized really rings true. Very curious to read the next issue about your thoughts on a better way.
Wonderful article Paulo!
Having never worked at such a massive org, I can only imagine that feeling to be magnified. Thanks, Alex!
The great divide! It is very true, it does take two to tango! My job as a culture coach is to be the bridge, it is very much a WIP!
WIP it is, Lesleigh. I'm so glad to hear there are more and more people out there starting to see this question in a different light—and acting on it. :)
this is awesome :) so honest . so clear
Awww, Anemari. Thank you so much. Simple words, but they really mean a lot to me. Appreciate you. 🙏