I’m continuing to read an Elegant Puzzle and chapter 5 discusses organizational culture. I think it provides some good actionable and concrete ways to think about culture, and most discussion I’ve seen about culture suggests that it is some mostly ineffable quality.
Inclusiveness
Will also thinks culture is difficult to reason about, but suggests two major components for fostering an inclusive organization: opportunity and membership. An inclusive organization is one in which individuals have access to professional success and development.
If Mark hadn’t decided on these OKRs, what would you all have planned to do next quarter?
While Mark’s vision was inspiring, [one team member] felt it was unrealistic. […] They would be working 85 hours per week. […] He had badly underestimated the lag time in a system that made work less efficient than it should be.
While Mark’s proposed goals made sense in theory, his team knew there were major obstacles that made his plan impracticable.
I’m continuing to read an Elegant Puzzle and chapter 3 had some good considerations regarding defining teams and groups during a reorg that I think are good guidelines for building teams more generally:
Consider team sizes and management spread.
Can you write a crisp mission statement for each team?
Can you define clear interfaces for each team?
Can you list the areas of ownership for each team?
Is each responsibility owned by a team?
Would you personally be excited to be a member of each team, as well as to be the manager?
Put teams that work together close. Especially if they work poorly. This minimizes distance for escalation, and reduces info gaps.
Are there compelling candidate pitches for each team?
Are you over-optimizing on individuals, vs establishing a sensible structure?
I’m reading An Elegant Puzzle: Systems of Engineering Management, by Will Larson, at the recommendation of a good friend, and wanted to take some notes on it.
First, the book is gorgeous. I’ve got a hardcover copy via inter-library loan (thank you Meridian Library District, near Boise, ID, and thank you San Antonio Public Library), and the cover is bright white rough linen with black text and printing, and a black line drawing of a bush on the front cover reminiscent of an organizational structure, data structure, or actual organic bush. The back has only the printer’s logo and name in black print. The chapters are nicely printed on full pages, which makes them easy to locate in the book. Also easy to locate are the figures, which are on bright yellow/orange pages, while the other pages are bright white and slightly thicker than book pages I’m used to. The references section in the back is broken out by chapter, and instead of the usual bibliographic BS there are URLs with QR codes. I’ve long felt it’s time to move away from standard bibliographic formats, especially ones where URLs are optional, and to something that emphasizes easily accessing the relevant data digitally. (Although, URLs break, so I would include some information with the URL, and for a book I might have a separate website with the full information…) So I’m enjoying just holding this book. It also seems informative.
Reviewing some of my notes from the Leader Development Course I noticed something I’d written regarding communication plans. My take on “approachability” is something I need to explain to my folks early, actually.
Weapon school grads want to be, “humble, approachable, credible”, and this has always been what I’ve sought to be too. I don’t always succeed I’m certain.
Approachability can be quantified by how my team interacts with me. I need to let them know that to me approachability really is important.
I just recently finished the book Turn the Ship Around, and I don’t have anything insightful to say but I did want to recall some points from it. I found the book to be fantastic and insightful - I agree completely with Captain Marquet’s leader-leader style, and hope in future positions I can remain as committed and mindful as he was to creating environments like the one in the book. I think the practices in the book are very similar to those adopted by agile software teams and mission command leadership styles.
During this leadership development course one of the instructors quoted one of his previous mentors saying that leaders should have stories ready about:
mission, discipline, loyalty, and safety
This is in line with what one of my former mentors told me more briefly, “you need stories”. Ok - I thought, but stories about what? I have stories… I can tell a story… Typically I’m coming up with something appropriate on the spot. There are pros and cons to that approach.
What I liked about this article is that by describing instances where the topic got steered wrong, and the author’s feedback about what got missed when that happened, the article provides a roadmap to steer conversations back in the right direction. I feel like these examples really resonate with me - as if I’ve been a part of conversations like this.
They asked us to reflect on some of our results from a personality quiz - the one at 16personalities.com. I got an INFJ, but normally I’m INTJ and think I probably still am, really.
How will we apply what we know about our personalities to our interactions with our teams?
I’ll try to be more conscious about how I react to “perceiving” teammates. They may wait a while and not set a plan - that can be ok. It often feels wrong to me, though, in large part because it’s not how I’ve learned to work. As reflected by my personality.