Satan should chair your meetings: A literature lover’s guide to office politics(economist.com)
economist.com
Satan should chair your meetings: A literature lover’s guide to office politics
https://www.economist.com/1843/2021/08/03/why-satan-should-chair-your-meetings
44 comments
As higher your rank is, usually it's less important to really understand the technical side. When now a product even does include several divisions, the people who talk and make key decisions, don't really understand all the problems. Later the (lower) people who do do work have to tell the higher people again it does not work. So a lot of time I guess is wasted because of such things.
So how do you convince other leadership and the people you lead that this attitude is better?
I've had folks on both sides of the fence who feel strongly that hierarchies should be absolute and following top down decisions is more effective.
This article isn't about how to structure your organization, it's targeted at people who are thinking about how to be more effective leaders.
If the leaders in your org are crap, then your org is lost no matter whether it seems to have a flat or top-down structure; but if you're already in charge and thinking about how to make things work better, the lesson of the article is to be clever about it, rather than defaulting to the dictatorial mode.
If the leaders in your org are crap, then your org is lost no matter whether it seems to have a flat or top-down structure; but if you're already in charge and thinking about how to make things work better, the lesson of the article is to be clever about it, rather than defaulting to the dictatorial mode.
I think the Paradise Lost analogy is about effectuating top-down decisions while making them appear to be consensual. A contemporary version can be found in the Hegelian Dialectic.
Bob Gurr, a famous Imagineer, said of his boss Walt Disney, "Walt was the greatest dictator ever. People went along with him because he was always right."
Whether actually right or not, Steve Jobs and Elon Musk can be said to have had this effect.
Bob Gurr, a famous Imagineer, said of his boss Walt Disney, "Walt was the greatest dictator ever. People went along with him because he was always right."
Whether actually right or not, Steve Jobs and Elon Musk can be said to have had this effect.
moreso, a strong hierarchy can work when constructed meritocratically (the benevolent dictator concept). the (very) hard part is figuring out what's the most meritocratic and how to encourage that construction. most hierarchies end up unmeritocratic due to endless political machinations to subvert that definition and construction.
and to be right, you can slap the puck to where you want to go, or skate to where the puck will be. good leaders do both, and much more, like communicating early and often and using various commitment devices (e.g., cutting off retreat). there's really no trite summation of good leadership.
and to be right, you can slap the puck to where you want to go, or skate to where the puck will be. good leaders do both, and much more, like communicating early and often and using various commitment devices (e.g., cutting off retreat). there's really no trite summation of good leadership.
I would like to attend a meeting organized by Satan from Master & Margarita. Everyone’s wishes are simultaneously realized and all hell breaks loose.
“There is no second-grade product-market fit. Product-market fit only comes in one grade: first. Either a product fits the market… or it does not.”
Wonderful book!
I love seeing those M & M words!
I do not expect this to be a popular opinion, but I am slightly entertained reading this from more of a Marxist perspective.
> We used to make things. Now we have meetings.
Well, of course. This is what happens when the purpose of a corporation isn't production but profit, and if the workers, the people who by definition exist in the company to make things, were to own their means of production, this would look very differently. But anyway, I digress.
> We used to make things. Now we have meetings.
Well, of course. This is what happens when the purpose of a corporation isn't production but profit, and if the workers, the people who by definition exist in the company to make things, were to own their means of production, this would look very differently. But anyway, I digress.
Ah, if only there were still 'workers' left in the Marxist sense. But automation has eliminated them (in the West anyway). So all that's left is managers, engineers and other professionals.
[deleted]
Yes and no, there are still workers per se but I don't think they exist with the conception of themselves as that (as much). During the 20th century when the labor movement was strong class consciousness existed and there was an appetite for a conception of the self as a worker in relation to capital and society. I think it still exists but in a pretty inconsequential way. Technology has definitely played a factor in atomizing workers and automating away for labor intensive tasks.
So under Marxism, people don't need to discuss how to coordinate their work? That does save a lot of time. No wonder the Soviet economy was so efficient.
I grew up working on a farm. The person in charge was a foreman, and his job was to coordinate how the work was accomplished on the ground by a crew of 5-7 people.
At most fortune 50 employers today, you’d have a director 1000 miles away, a local manager, a supervisor, an auditor and compliance person reviewing the payroll records, and recommending to the director that the 2 workers utilize less overtime. The local manager would eliminate the OT and hire McKinsey to recommend outsourcing the 2 workers, and retain McKinsey to monitor compliance.
At most fortune 50 employers today, you’d have a director 1000 miles away, a local manager, a supervisor, an auditor and compliance person reviewing the payroll records, and recommending to the director that the 2 workers utilize less overtime. The local manager would eliminate the OT and hire McKinsey to recommend outsourcing the 2 workers, and retain McKinsey to monitor compliance.
Modern companies are intensive responsibility-laundering engines. It's practically their primary function. That's always been a little true, but it's gotten a lot worse (at least in the US). It's a bunch of box-ticking so you can say "look, I did something!" if anything goes wrong—some of which box-ticking may require creating and hiring for new roles—and it's a downright miracle if the box-ticking activity provides any amount of useful value to anyone, aside from its value for responsibility-deflection.
IIRC, NPR ran a piece some years back covering how something similar happened to US military command (and, relatedly, its relationship to civilian oversight), some time between WWII and Vietnam, getting worse over time after that. Which, if that was accurate, is... worrisome. But that explains how you get a directionless and constantly-failing war in Afghanistan for nearly two decades, with non-stop reports of "yep, we accomplished the mission!" from every local command at the end of every deployment, and everyone in the command hierarchy just pretends everything's fine even though they know it isn't, and they are all allowed to do that with no consequences. Gotta evade, and launder, responsibility. That's job number one. Everything else is just a nice-to-have.
IIRC, NPR ran a piece some years back covering how something similar happened to US military command (and, relatedly, its relationship to civilian oversight), some time between WWII and Vietnam, getting worse over time after that. Which, if that was accurate, is... worrisome. But that explains how you get a directionless and constantly-failing war in Afghanistan for nearly two decades, with non-stop reports of "yep, we accomplished the mission!" from every local command at the end of every deployment, and everyone in the command hierarchy just pretends everything's fine even though they know it isn't, and they are all allowed to do that with no consequences. Gotta evade, and launder, responsibility. That's job number one. Everything else is just a nice-to-have.
That's a great comment, but I disagree that the trend is ...worrisome.
The purpose of the military is to fight. And in the local sense, it is only increasing in effectiveness at its primary task.
But the primary task of a 20 year "war", is not fighting. It is the building a nation state.
That is something the military is not designed to do. It's absolutely insane we didn't have an entirely different branch of government whose job was to build a lasting system of compromises and coordination between local people. Even if the military did have that skillset and training, which they don't, the resentment from the local populace against the group of people they just fought against would be enough to compromise any mission.
It's like if we asked the same police officer to arrest a drug addict, then be the judge in the case, then be their parole officer, and finally help them find a job after their time served. It's a nice idea in a Utopian kind of way, but there are so many opportunities along that chain for the relationship to sour.
The purpose of the military is to fight. And in the local sense, it is only increasing in effectiveness at its primary task.
But the primary task of a 20 year "war", is not fighting. It is the building a nation state.
That is something the military is not designed to do. It's absolutely insane we didn't have an entirely different branch of government whose job was to build a lasting system of compromises and coordination between local people. Even if the military did have that skillset and training, which they don't, the resentment from the local populace against the group of people they just fought against would be enough to compromise any mission.
It's like if we asked the same police officer to arrest a drug addict, then be the judge in the case, then be their parole officer, and finally help them find a job after their time served. It's a nice idea in a Utopian kind of way, but there are so many opportunities along that chain for the relationship to sour.
Oh, sure, the "winability" of what they were asked to do is also a problem. Lots of things were wrong with the entire enterprise, only one of which was the military's comfort with their own entire reporting structure openly lying constantly for years on end.
Just like ask to a service to protect the people from IT attacks and at the same the same service like to have backdoors to everybodys phones, cameras, alexas and computers.
Robert McNamara was secretary of defense for JFK and LBJ during the Vietnam War. Before that he was the president of Ford Motor Company. He's the one who introduced the charts that they used to show on TV with the number of enemy killed, clearly showing that the US was winning since the graphs always went up and to the right.
He was fighting the last war. The practice of killing everyone was a successful strategy that won WW2 in the Pacific.
Vietnam wasn’t the type of war that was supposed to happen — the real action was in Europe before we nuked each other.
Vietnam wasn’t the type of war that was supposed to happen — the real action was in Europe before we nuked each other.
Ah, I see how I communicated that poorly - it's not that the meetings aren't there, it's that they're oriented towards production.
Please stop and think about what you are saying. The Soviets were never Marxist.
In 99.99999% cases it could have been email or an IM chat. Except maybe sales and customer meetings because clients love to talk to real people.
That's the trouble. Our boss loves talking to real people and hates reading.
I'm thinking about cargo-culting Amazon's "Everyone has to read this before the meeting" or maybe just preparing a statement like, "This is my status update, plus type your questions out and don't interrupt me, this will take exactly 90 seconds..."
I'm thinking about cargo-culting Amazon's "Everyone has to read this before the meeting" or maybe just preparing a statement like, "This is my status update, plus type your questions out and don't interrupt me, this will take exactly 90 seconds..."
Amazon’s policy is even better than that (IMO). They know that no one reads things before meetings, so it’s accepted that everyone will quietly read for the first part of the meeting (as much as half the total meeting duration). Then (and only then) when everyone has finished reading the same material does anyone speak up to ask questions or share input. Saves a lot of time in meetings, although it adds a lot of time in preparing documents. I suspect it probably nets out to positive time savings and am confident it results in more informed decision-making.
Source: I’m an Amazon employee
Source: I’m an Amazon employee
> Saves a lot of time in meetings, although it adds a lot of time in preparing documents. I suspect it probably nets out to positive time savings
I pretty much won't take a meeting without some kind of prep work from the organizer.
Otherwise, the meeting is just a form of procrastination.
I pretty much won't take a meeting without some kind of prep work from the organizer.
Otherwise, the meeting is just a form of procrastination.
An interesting perspective on meetings that I was once told is:
"Meetings are for ratification of an already-made decision"
This sounds like some of the 'bad management' examples mentioned in the article. However, this was further explained:
"The hard work in getting agreement is in prior discussion with, and feedback from, individual decision makers".
This is essentially having multiple smaller lead-up meetings to discuss the ins and outs and work out the kinks, and then the "big" meeting is primarily theatrical in explaining the end result and ratifying the decision. This won't work in all contexts, but the methodology could be an overall time saver and allow for more well-thought-out compromises or changes, as it's done over a larger span of time. It also means quieter and more thoughtful decision-makers are given equal standing.
Creative solutions can often come out of the blue, and it's unlikely that it'll strike conveniently during the X-minute meeting window whilst trying to listen to and process a whole bunch of other peoples' opinions. Give them some time to come to the boil.
"Meetings are for ratification of an already-made decision"
This sounds like some of the 'bad management' examples mentioned in the article. However, this was further explained:
"The hard work in getting agreement is in prior discussion with, and feedback from, individual decision makers".
This is essentially having multiple smaller lead-up meetings to discuss the ins and outs and work out the kinks, and then the "big" meeting is primarily theatrical in explaining the end result and ratifying the decision. This won't work in all contexts, but the methodology could be an overall time saver and allow for more well-thought-out compromises or changes, as it's done over a larger span of time. It also means quieter and more thoughtful decision-makers are given equal standing.
Creative solutions can often come out of the blue, and it's unlikely that it'll strike conveniently during the X-minute meeting window whilst trying to listen to and process a whole bunch of other peoples' opinions. Give them some time to come to the boil.
THere is a particular term for when a group of people all know that everyone else in the group know somehting.
I have forgotten the word but to me this is what meetings are about in a way. go one to one first, get all the feedback, make all the changes. then get everyone in a room and say "everyone knows this diagram/document/decision point, right and we all agree on it" - then everyone looks round the room and somethign animal happens.. a new word may have entered their vocaulary, or a new imaginary hill top to strive for exists.
That common agreement is like a wedding or something.. it sort of means nothing.. but now we can all use this shorthand "married" and certain expectations will commonly align.. not only that you can ask just about anyone who knows the couple and they will have a very clear memory that, yes that definately happened, yes i will testify as a witness (i cannot lie about it as there were lots of people at that wedding).
wedding analogy is probably terrible, sorry.
I have forgotten the word but to me this is what meetings are about in a way. go one to one first, get all the feedback, make all the changes. then get everyone in a room and say "everyone knows this diagram/document/decision point, right and we all agree on it" - then everyone looks round the room and somethign animal happens.. a new word may have entered their vocaulary, or a new imaginary hill top to strive for exists.
That common agreement is like a wedding or something.. it sort of means nothing.. but now we can all use this shorthand "married" and certain expectations will commonly align.. not only that you can ask just about anyone who knows the couple and they will have a very clear memory that, yes that definately happened, yes i will testify as a witness (i cannot lie about it as there were lots of people at that wedding).
wedding analogy is probably terrible, sorry.
I think the term you're looking for is... "common knowledge"[0].
And indeed, there are peculiar things that happen once you cross the thresholds between knowing something, knowing that others know it too, and knowing that everyone knows everyone knows it.
Related to this, and I'm guessing where you were going with your wedding analogy, is the concept of intersubjectivity[1].
Intersubjectivity happens when you have people sharing subjective states or beliefs, and are aware they're sharing it. Pretty much all critical social infrastructure - all of modern life - depends on it. For example:
- Money is an intersubjective phenomenon. It holds value only because - and only for as long as - everyone knows that everyone else in the community will accept it as a means of payment. This shared belief is usually bootstrapped and maintained by a government declaring they'll accept a given form of money for purposes of taxation - but on smaller scales, can also start in many other ways.
- Organizations like governments and corporations are an intersubjective phenomenon. To borrow an example from Harari[2], a corporation like Porsche doesn't really exist in physical space - it's an abstract entity that exists only because, and for as long as, people believe it exists. It's independent of people employed in or running it - the board could fire all employees, and then the government could forcefully replace the board, and Porsche would still be there, with all the factories and offices and salons it owns.
- Companies are bootstrapped into being by performing certain rituals - offering monetary sacrifices to the government and getting the right priests sign the right legal paperwork. These rituals - and all laws in general - are also intersubjective. They have power only because, and for as long as, people believe they do (and believe everyone else believes it too).
It's kind of mind-blowing if you think about it - all the structure of our civilization is just an enormous pile of interconnected shared delusions. But it works, because intersubjective phenomena are extremely resilient - people can stop believing in them individually, but it doesn't matter for as long as enough other people keep the faith. It takes a critical mass of people to lose confidence in a visible way, or a memetic weapon[3], to shut down such an intersubjective phenomenon.
--
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge_(logic)
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity
[2] - As much as I remember it. I was introduced to the name "intersubjectivity" through his book, Sapiens.
[3] - People don't have to actually lose faith in something - they just need to believe that enough other people believe that enough other people don't believe anymore.
And indeed, there are peculiar things that happen once you cross the thresholds between knowing something, knowing that others know it too, and knowing that everyone knows everyone knows it.
Related to this, and I'm guessing where you were going with your wedding analogy, is the concept of intersubjectivity[1].
Intersubjectivity happens when you have people sharing subjective states or beliefs, and are aware they're sharing it. Pretty much all critical social infrastructure - all of modern life - depends on it. For example:
- Money is an intersubjective phenomenon. It holds value only because - and only for as long as - everyone knows that everyone else in the community will accept it as a means of payment. This shared belief is usually bootstrapped and maintained by a government declaring they'll accept a given form of money for purposes of taxation - but on smaller scales, can also start in many other ways.
- Organizations like governments and corporations are an intersubjective phenomenon. To borrow an example from Harari[2], a corporation like Porsche doesn't really exist in physical space - it's an abstract entity that exists only because, and for as long as, people believe it exists. It's independent of people employed in or running it - the board could fire all employees, and then the government could forcefully replace the board, and Porsche would still be there, with all the factories and offices and salons it owns.
- Companies are bootstrapped into being by performing certain rituals - offering monetary sacrifices to the government and getting the right priests sign the right legal paperwork. These rituals - and all laws in general - are also intersubjective. They have power only because, and for as long as, people believe they do (and believe everyone else believes it too).
It's kind of mind-blowing if you think about it - all the structure of our civilization is just an enormous pile of interconnected shared delusions. But it works, because intersubjective phenomena are extremely resilient - people can stop believing in them individually, but it doesn't matter for as long as enough other people keep the faith. It takes a critical mass of people to lose confidence in a visible way, or a memetic weapon[3], to shut down such an intersubjective phenomenon.
--
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge_(logic)
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity
[2] - As much as I remember it. I was introduced to the name "intersubjectivity" through his book, Sapiens.
[3] - People don't have to actually lose faith in something - they just need to believe that enough other people believe that enough other people don't believe anymore.
Porsche, as self-preserving meme-complex would probably cease to actually exist, unless they have written down very detailed ~indoctrination~ training materials for every relevant position. The legal entity would still be there but another lifeform would wear it's skin.
Reminds me of Nemawashi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemawashi
I think parliamentary politics works a lot like this too. All the important decisions are made in off-the-record, arm-around-shoulder, hallway conversations and horse-trading. Then the plenary sessions and votes are just to formalise what has already been decided.
This, I spend a lot of time going one to one to convince people before going to the larger audience, people knew the expectations and if they had any concerns, I was prepared. The only time it didn't go as planned was when a team-member wanted his hour of fame.
I have had a cross-functional meeting at a large company (12+ attendees) to decide a major strategic question. At the beginning of the meeting I wrote down the result of the meeting and passed it to the person sitting next to me. A couple hours later what I wrote down was decided upon by the group. There was no way some new idea was going to come up during the meeting and the answer was obvious.
I’ve seen this. It gives me so much heartache when discussion isn’t thorough, pre-considered and sufficiently conflicted. I know the right answer is to let it roll off and focus on what I can control, but I keep wanting to persuade people to examine options more thoroughly and it makes me sad when of course they don’t get it or respond with the successful-career-appropriate cynical unconcern.
> or respond with the successful-career-appropriate cynical unconcern.
If what you want people to do is punished, people won't do it.
If what you want people to do is punished, people won't do it.
That’s certainly how it’s perceived, but there’s a career benefit to being part of a massive improvement in execution and access to better clients. I just can’t communicate it’s worth learning to think and talk better in the short term.
"Satan should chair your meetings"
...
She already does.
...
She already does.