1. Company makes unpopular decision (cuts a benefit, partners with someone unpopular, enforces some tedious process to make management life earlier)
2. Next poll season comes round
3. Shock, results are down
4. Declare an aggregate engagement measure as an action item which incorporates both the happiness metric but others such as understanding of company strategy
5. Declare the problem with this metric are line managers not conveying company direction well enough
6. Declare you're taking action by measuring line management on this metric
7. A bunch of ensuing makework on something execs think is important (at a certain size, a singular company vision is just too generic for line employees to care), yet they sell it as taking action
But once you make a formal structure flat enough, informal structures can start to solidify and dominate (think High School).
I always try to keep this in mind, Valve which famously has a completely flat structure, ended up turning into an environment where things like popularity and ability to dispense resources defined the practiced org structure. Be careful what you wish for.
Did you go to High School with the rampant bullying? Popularity is not linked at all with personality traits that make someone a good leader afaik. Traditional hierarchy at least tries to keep people who are a competent in power.
> Popularity is not linked at all with personality traits that make someone a good leader afaik.
On the contrary! Good personality traits evolved because they make for good leaders.
…which makes me depressed about being on the spectrum because it means I had to accept I could never be a “leader”.
(Well, I am a technical lead, it’s in my job-description, but that’s only because I get -Wpedantic on peoples’ code - and not because I can inspire people)
Do you have a source for this. I wouldn't say from for example actors and musicians(ultimate popularity contests) that most of them would even be remotely good leaders.
High school age is generally 14 to 18. And I wouldn't be so confident adults in unchecked power are better then high schoolers on morality and decency.
I'm not entirely sure what you are expecting me to say. I didn't say every adult will be a bully. But not every teenager in high school is a bully either. The existence of "well adjusted adult" doesn't have anything to do with this. You can have "well adjusted adults" and still have rampant bullying. The point I'm making is that a traditional hierarchy tries to put the "wall adjusted adults" with good leadership skills in leadership positions. In contrast to a flat hierarchy where it's essentially just a popularity contest.
1. Company makes unpopular decision (cuts a benefit, partners with someone unpopular, enforces some tedious process to make management life earlier)
2. Next poll season comes round
3. Shock, results are down
4. Declare an aggregate engagement measure as an action item which incorporates both the happiness metric but others such as understanding of company strategy
5. Declare the problem with this metric are line managers not conveying company direction well enough
6. Declare you're taking action by measuring line management on this metric
7. A bunch of ensuing makework on something execs think is important (at a certain size, a singular company vision is just too generic for line employees to care), yet they sell it as taking action