Problem Absolving Position
Imagine you have a perennial problem in your company. You have a couple of choices for solving it. You can work on fostering a company culture of group responsibility and empowerment, such that everyone recognises the problem as their own and naturally come to solve it themselves. This, of course, is the most effective and long-term solution to a problem. What's more, the emergent solution probably will create some opportunities for further development of the company's capabilities and the staff involved. However, this approach is very very difficult, because it requires a company culture change, involving the hearts and minds of the employees. Frankly it takes leadership which may well be either too hard, too much effort, or simply beyond the sort of person who blags their way into leadership of a company.
This is where the Agilistamistalentalist consultant first gets an in-road into the company. The management know their a problem, so they just hand the problem on to some other mug. The consultant, who can only continue to work while there's work to do, gets to come along and stir things up, providing illusory and placebo progress results to management, while simultaneously working hard to maintain the core problem in such a way as it's tangible, thus keeping them in work.
There is a further pattern that management may also use. This need not exclude the Agil-sultant. The pattern is to recognise a problem and then create a job description which equates to "suffer this problem on our behalf". The idea is, metaphorically speaking, to appoint a messiah who the company can follow for a while, ultimately nailing them to the cross of the problem and watching them die slowly and horribly. The problem may not go away, but the fact that it has a figurehead gives people the comfort that it's not their problem, and even the chance to point at the person and say that it's all their fault that the problem still exists.
Of course, some job seekers reading this may be worried that they're currently looking at roles that might be of a "problem absolving" nature. Here are some clues to look out for in interviews and job descriptions.
This is where the Agilistamistalentalist consultant first gets an in-road into the company. The management know their a problem, so they just hand the problem on to some other mug. The consultant, who can only continue to work while there's work to do, gets to come along and stir things up, providing illusory and placebo progress results to management, while simultaneously working hard to maintain the core problem in such a way as it's tangible, thus keeping them in work.
There is a further pattern that management may also use. This need not exclude the Agil-sultant. The pattern is to recognise a problem and then create a job description which equates to "suffer this problem on our behalf". The idea is, metaphorically speaking, to appoint a messiah who the company can follow for a while, ultimately nailing them to the cross of the problem and watching them die slowly and horribly. The problem may not go away, but the fact that it has a figurehead gives people the comfort that it's not their problem, and even the chance to point at the person and say that it's all their fault that the problem still exists.
Of course, some job seekers reading this may be worried that they're currently looking at roles that might be of a "problem absolving" nature. Here are some clues to look out for in interviews and job descriptions.
- There's a look of "please help us" in the eyes of the grass-roots staff you meet at interview
- The role has a lot of varied responsibilities, all of which look like management, but are at a low level
- The role has never existed before
- The management ask you how you would solve certain very specific problems at interview, and the examples don't sound like they've been made up
- They ask you how long you might expect to take to restructure something - this is a trick question, always estimate it as 10 cycles
- They ask you to be "flexible" on the job description
- They seem prepared to offer a bit too much money
- They're looking to improve abstract quantities, like "throughput" without quantifying what that means
- There's talk of some possible future, where the role will change, once the initial phase is complete
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home