Cadres decide everything or about the scourge of modern companies

I would like to talk a little about the mistakes that are very dangerous to make especially now, especially in countries or cities of the golden billion. I think everyone who works or is confronted with the activities of a large or not very company (or state structure), as I wonder how much everything is not effective and is affected by how much the gears are still working on this pofigizme.

Of course it is obvious that the division of labor is more efficient than individual labor. Typically, Taylor theories and the production of paper clips are an example. But on the other hand, what is happening now in large and small companies is striking in its senselessness. As it seemed to me before the second trip to this country: some Japanese corporations were the exception (and one would like to hope that they still are), as well as their psychology and approach to business.

The second anti factor is the fact that 95-99% of people in modern society are engaged in not their own / beloved work. This is especially true for employees of large companies, but is also present in small / beginners and tends to increase with company growth. Moreover, they (plankton) also try not to do this, not their own business, but to mow and score in every possible way ...
')
Habr is mostly seen by the community of the remaining 1-5%, or at least aware and aware of their position and reality.

It would seem a paradox: in a small company it is closely and difficult to find application to a narrow but ingenious specialist, and there is an order of magnitude more opportunities and there will be a place for any gear in one of the complicated and addictive mechanisms. But the reality is the opposite.

For those who are not familiar yet, there is Peter’s remarkable principle. The question becomes even more relevant if we consider all these facts together. In the principles of building processes and companies in Japan, there is a radically different approach. About him from the end of the article. To me, too, at first it seemed that all of this, including lifelong hiring, was specific and worked only in Japan and only with their mentality. But it turns out, for example, such a leader as Toyota, managed to successfully implement (transfer) such a model to other countries, for example the United States. Yes, of course it took them as much as 15 years. But if you set a goal, then maybe because!

Myopia planning (lack of strategic planning 5-50 years ahead) is very detrimental, as we can see from the example of Sony. As soon as they stopped thinking about long-term innovations of development and concentrated on today's consumer products, the ship began to slowly sink . This lack of long-term plans and even desires is especially characteristic of today's Russia and the business strategies in it. Many justify this lack of stability on the part of the state and try to disrupt quickly / now and zanyk far and reliably, which of course works, but very briefly and not effectively in the long term. Duroticism and bureaucracy arise as a result of an increase in the size of a company / organization (without timely compensatory measures), when common sense is supplanted by the need to comply with untimely instructions, rules and initiatives.

Having watched the interview of the next CEO, I realized that they are still not catching up.
Namely all their attention is paid to the outside. While the danger itself comes from within. In developed countries and cities, more and more work, especially in the field of IT, is being outsourced. What are the typical leaders trying to do (like Sony, for example)? They are trying to increase sales and reduce costs. Let's take a look at what this can give.

Increased sales.

There is a mass of traditional and not so methods, such as: advertising, new markets and new products. What happens next?
Advertising and marketing research is shifted onto the shoulders of advertising / marketing agencies (less often departments). This is the same outsourcing, which partially removes responsibility for the result from the most (most often hired) manager / director. Or loafers in their advertising / marketing departments simply perepasovyvayut work in the agency and, in turn, remove most of the responsibility for the result from themselves (and having more kickbacks from this). Of course, it gives results but not very effective. It resembles a child's game when the participants stand in a circle and the first lights a match and pass it around in a circle until the loser burns.

New markets

especially in the field of IT, it is practically impossible to find, and especially with an office filled with plankton not interested in the result. And do not forget that the concept of country Limonia can now be applied to almost any country. Of course, this applies to Russia to a greater extent, but the crisis of liberal capitalism, in turn, has already hit most of the countries.

New products

- this is a real field of activity. But one should not forget that innovations are very difficult to obtain in a company affected by pofigism and without initiative. And even if it was possible to get them, then it becomes completely unreal to introduce them. The system becomes very inert, and fluctuations in the activity of its individual atoms gradually fade out. What can the company really do in this direction? One option is having a spun flywheel and capital to become a monopolist in a particular market. At the same time, it is not necessarily 90%; it is enough to have a market share far exceeding any nearest competitor. This will allow to transfer the costs of its inefficiency to the wallets of end consumers and customers. This can work for a long time, especially if the closest competitors have the same not efficient companies.

Another option that again requires the presence of a certain fat from the company is the purchase of another company with a new product idea or simply more efficiently working. And such a reception will also make it possible to stay afloat for a while. Previously (in the industrial era) they acted in a similar way with patents and often simply put them in a drawer so as not to disturb their swampy structure and customers. It is here that we see the ground for today's boom and the demand for start-ups.

Startups:

The top management of the monsters / dinosaurs understood and, in general, officially recognized that within their own companies nothing new could be obtained, it was impossible to grow and in order not to be bent quickly, it was necessary to urgently search for and buy ready-made seedlings (startups) and transfer them to their clayey ones. soil. Therefore, this idea is so popular (sometimes even to fanaticism) that a huge market has been created for startups. Of course, such a boom cannot do without soap bubbles, aferism and speculation in this fashion. We can recall the recent "successful" IPO Facebook. From the other side of Twitter, who know everything, but how to spread it on bread does not know someone.

Cost Reduction - Outsourcing.

Here, of course, the main and most popular idea is direct outsourcing. What has not been transferred (especially in the field of IT) on the shoulders of the long-suffering mainly Indian people. At first it was really very promising and fun, but when everything was done, the competitive advantage was lost again. This, combined with the short-sightedness and thirst for momentary profit , had a negative effect on the events of a decade, almost of a demographic order. I mean IT guest workers from India who came in large numbers and filled large American (and not only) IT and telecom companies. Their share has already greatly exceeded the Chinese.

China, of course, also participates, but due to the mentality of its inhabitants, their migration is not so destructively dangerous for the companies themselves and the industry as a whole. Hindus are wonderful and intelligent people. The point here is that as a result of globalization, the world turns into a Babylonian pandemonium. Every nation, nation has its own culture, mentality and customs, which evolved over the centuries and the problem is not that everyone should have equal rights, but that it is claimed that everyone is the same. All are VERY different and the differences between the cultures of the east and the west, as well as those of Africa and the west are huge. About this and about many other unusual things are interestingly written in Phryconomics .

If people exist in the context of their culture and customs, everything is great, but when they fall into another culture, difficulties begin. Moreover, these difficulties arise on both sides. And to say that “local” is better (smarter, more honest), and those are worse, dumber, lazier, and so on incorrectly. It is like comparing what is better warm or soft. They are just different. The globalization agitator is trying to mix everyone up and bring it under one standard of assessment. Conflict occurs when people with the same culture, mentality and habits enter the country of other (sometimes diametrically opposed) attitudes and act as they are used to. In turn, the actions of the Indians and the Chinese are logical. They receive a good education in their own country and have gained little experience in local work houses (opened in the wake of outsourcing, directly or indirectly, by Western companies). They are ready to leave their home country and work for a small salary by local standards. They are ready to live in the same flat for several people / families (we called it a hostel / communal apartment) and work to the best of their abilities, but a lot, just to make it all happen in the camp of the golden billion (for example, America). And of course it is logical that with such zeal unprecedented by local standards, sooner or later they move up the career ladder and reach the level of decent wages.

Further, more often than not from some kind of direct greed, collusion or fraternity, it turns out that they are pulling more and more of their own. And what begins only with purely technical employees and engineers translates into Project Managers (PM) and even managers with multi-million sales and working with key customers. All anything, but here comes the conflict of mentalities. The Chinese in the bulk are very tudogolic and without much ambition, both in their careers and in their own business. He rose to a well-paid position, doing what you know and know how well and good. Became the owner of the grocery stall, and he works there as a seller, that's great.

The Indian mentality is different. Yes, they can work a lot and hard, but as soon as the slightest opportunity to not do it appears, they immediately slaughter. You did not think that the population of India (in quantity) is close enough to the Chinese, but they produce crumbs (even when recalculating the GDP per capita) compared to China? Even the people of the caste system simply blows the roof when there is a chance to manage someone at least sideways. The overwhelming mass of the population came from the lower castes, who were not even allowed to command even members of the lower castes. The tangle is very large and you can write books about this phenomenon. The bottom line is that with them it turns out completely on the principle of Peter. In the career ladder, they jump over their level of competence higher and get to a level where they are not at all competent and they hang out and thrive there, hitting the company's vital activity as cancer tumors. They are also promoted by the Asian secrecy (I think one thing, I say something else and do the third) and the readiness to lick, which is not used to in the west. As soon as they get into a warm place, they love to do nothing themselves and only delegate and kick others. Once again I would like to say: do not misunderstand me, I am not a racist at all. I just describe what I see and it hurts me when very promising companies and projects are bent.

As a result, it turns out that completely non-nationalistic people who recently advocated cost cutting through outsourcing, who grew up in a country of immigrants, speak with horror about this Eastern expansion specifically indicating their nationality (which is considered not very politically correct). They are very worried about preserving jobs at all levels in the organization.

Let's go back to outsourcing and look at the competition of Russian IT development teams with similar ones in India and China. It seems to me not so bad. Rather, it is necessary to properly positioned and not try to compete with them in what the results of labor will be the same and they will be cheaper. Take programming for example. It is programming and not coding of ready-made algorithms, procedures and functions. Domestic programmers really have a rich history and fame. There was also dominance in this specialty. What happened to this? Where did the former glory go? Why have they ceased to be appreciated all over the world? Why did they stop chasing them and taking them out of Russia by all available means?

Of course, many have left and are leaving. But the general advantage remained: when at the dawn and turbulent bloom of programming it was creativity and really extraordinary talent, ingenuity and so on were needed, then we were on horseback, and as soon as we made a conveyor from this and turned it into a craft, we painted everything, divided it into roles, functions, blocks, put on stream, then the Indians and, and now even the Chinese, just took their diligence and number. Well, as a result, the quality, optimality, reliability and other characteristics of the product have changed.

So, we need to tackle the unique tasks where it is required that the rest, in principle, be done or cheaper and faster cannot. You can not rely only on new methods of automation and software development. Sometimes it is comical to be implemented in huge Agile or XP organizations. Managers hear the ringing and try to pretend that they keep up with the times and do everything possible to increase efficiency. Also, the organization sometimes makes attempts to introduce some kind of new performance indicator and force employees to innovate . But the first one is very difficult to apply to intellectual work, and the second one is stuck. Once again, I would like to draw attention to the fact that all of this, like the attention of top management, is turned to the outside. Probably, they have already resigned themselves and do not even try to create and maintain an effective OWN department of development, advertising, sales, and to organize the normal work of the entire organization as a whole.

Now let us ask ourselves a question: How does all this happen that such inefficient collectives of those who sit out are recruited? Of course, there are a lot of reasons as well as the variants of the development of events in which yesterday, vigorous, active, and common cause people turn into an amorphous mass. Also dangerous is life in the swamp and for the individual employee. The swamp tightens gently and gently. You do not have time to look back: he was active, creative and enterprising, and finally woke up and a year or two had already passed. Became mediocre and lazy, and the world has already gone far (the worst for rapidly changing technologies like IT) new environments, products, protocols, systems, languages, versions, and so on. Here there is a choice either to catch up with the accelerated pace or to go back to sleep. The choice is far from simple and obvious.

Anyway, our fish begins to rot from the head. If the top management loses touch with the wards (and often with reality) and ceases to care about the non-monetary motivation of employees, the long-suffering team spirit , the conscious part of the employees loses interest and wonders whether to remain in the pond that starts to mold or leave. Accordingly, there remain those who, consciously or not, begin to play this game. Next comes the thickening of the mass and the formation of new unspoken rules of the game, already a new structure, and now the structure itself dictates the rules for recruiting its new elements. It has two main objectives (not in any way unrelated to the commercial objectives of the company): enhancing its stability and increasing its size. It does not need outstanding people and need the right in terms of the new structure. This is the moment when individuality is lost. Further the almighty personnel department comes into force.

HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT

As many, I think, were convinced on my own experience, the personnel department is often absolutely not competent in technical details and what is behind the abbreviations in the list of requirements but even in elementary psychology. Accordingly, even a suitable cog for this system must be greatly managed in order to pass through their control and at least to talk with someone who imagines exactly what the work is hiding behind the high slogans of the ad. On this superimposed still such a lemon feature that all lie . Lying arrogantly, believably and much.

Applicable to our case, employers are lying overstating requirements and describing their organization as an ideal place of work and generally white and fluffy. Accordingly, workers are lying to meet the excessive demands of ads. They lie triple to pass the barrier of HR and the same competing competitors. And what is obtained from this? At best, each side overestimates the bar by about the same value and as a result they find each other in terms of technical requirements and compliance with them. In the worst case, a person breaks off and shoves himself into a certain position without having any real experience in the performance of basic duties. This is mainly characteristic and dangerous for managerial and not technical positions. And there, if he is not quite an outspoken moron and freezer, somehow he will fall in love, be patient. Sometimes even direct subordinates who are sometimes involved in the selection to receive their immediate superior (funny yes?) Are chosen from the principle: "The dumber the better." Stupid or not well-versed in your area boss is easier to manipulate. A lazy boss will not touch and shake employees in warm places with restructuring (this is especially useful in the swamp).

But with the organizational component all the more difficult. Without being in the company at a particular place, even according to insider stories, it is almost impossible to understand in advance what kind of swamp you will enter.

Recruitment agencies

There is also an otherworldly force, namely recruiting agencies and recruiters intermediaries. Today they are not trying to find a company for a company that pays them a round sum, an employee who is ideally suited for a given company, department, position, etc. Instead, they attract for the ears of all even a little bit like Job Description candidates. For this, they are even ready to change their resume. Of course, this is done in an unobtrusive manner. As soon as they talk, they understand that you do not have a key skill or experience in a certain direction for the customer (company) and therefore there is no mention of it in the resume, but you basically understand what it is (somewhere you heard from the neighbor that her daughter’s husband is doing just that), they offer “You see, you know what it is! Let's reflect this on your resume. ”

Of course it is clear that all the real skills and experiences in one page will not fit. In confusion, the candidate thinks that he has found an ally, but in fact they also inflate him. Distort, customize your company details. The simplest psychological portrait, no one is interested. But after all, companies that do not recruit themselves are turning to these agencies in the hope of their professionalism. Companies, in assessing the general and, including, psychological characteristics of a person, rely on the agency, leaving behind only an interview devoted to the technical, technological aspects of the candidate.

Here the recruiters took care of - they are very transparent in hinting that you need to read what to learn before interviewing the company. Also touches the complete technical illiteracy of all the same recruiters. Sometimes it is very difficult to hold a laugh when a special recruiter who only deals with IT jobs in a large agency reads words like Quality Assurance and Transact-SQL with difficulty and confusion. No less funny is the interview with him. With his complete misunderstanding of even the basics of the processes that the candidate must deal with, he formally reads the abbreviations carefully sent to him from the company and puts the pros or cons in front of each of them.

Another world

Can it be different? Yes, of course, there are exceptions to what has been described above, for example, everyone has the notorious Google. But as far as I understood, it has already turned into a quagmire compared to past years and the process does not stop. There are other companies that are not directly related to IT, but that everyone has something to learn, for example Toyota (and many other companies) with their Pull principle instead of Push. I think this is the main thing that is being missed today.

Starting with education, when knowledge is crammed in by force and not pulled by the student with interest. And in management there was an opinion that the stick and gingerbread, especially the stick, is the only means to increase labor productivity, and cash gingerbread is the only possible motivation. Yes, it worked earlier and partly now for primitive types of labor under monopolism. Partially whip and gingerbread works with plankton. But we need an increase in productivity and motivation not by percentages but by several times (compared to the average for the hospital of the world’s swamp) and we are talking about intellectual work. Here, fear only fetters creativity. Such an increase can be achieved only by looking inside yourself, your company and applying radically different methods and, if necessary, for a long time and carefully but still choosing a team of “other” people.

The lack of continuity in management now affects all companies. The general and all managers change as if in a kaleidoscope, and everyone who came to the new position feels it his duty to start some kind of cardinal reorganization and without bringing it to the end having reported the positive effects it goes further down the stairs or to another company. The Japanese can still learn the consistency and continuity of leaders. The same Toyota, when opening a plant in California of 13,000 resumes, employed only 270 people. But at another American plant, where a little more than 1,000 employees, 80,000 rac were registered for the year. proposals from employees to improve the production process itself (not the final product itself). Of which 99% was brought to life. This is almost 40 on average from each employee in a relaxed America, for a process that has already been licked in Japan itself by the Japanese themselves! Can you imagine what's going on in their new product development departments? Watch out Japan!

To conclude:

In no case do not despair. It makes sense to look around you and clearly understand exactly where you are, where this ship is sailing and what you need.
Understand what is happening is already half the decision. If you are at the helm, then you have all the cards in hand to prevent your company from bogging. This is primarily not a growth and sales, but your team. The team and each employee individually must be carefully helped to grow in accordance with their wishes and the interests of the company. The process is more reminiscent of the painstaking and continuous art of growing Bonsai (the equivalent of dressing - Ligatures is especially interesting) than of one-year-old bamboo (sown and forgotten, only occasionally watering).

The bamboo approach worked for some time because in reality there was a monopoly (of the Western classical - industrial management) on the labor market. There are many ways, there is no universal approach, the main thing is awareness, the desire to seek and implement ways to develop an effective organization. If you set a goal, you can find a mountain of useful literature describing both theory and practice. There are certainly more theorists, but there are worthy authors describing non-ephemeral models, for example, you can start with Peter Senge and Jeffrey Liker. Imagine how much your competitive advantage increases individually or in the company as a whole if the average productivity increases from 20-30% to at least 80%? This is almost 4 times!

UPD:

After the publication I received a lot of thanks. Thank you all! I, in turn, how nice it was to meet such a number of philologists and fighters for the purity of the Russian language here.

Some ask for advice.

Could you tell the literature on this issue, in the sense of personnel management in IT companies.

- .

. , -. - , . , , , . , , ( ). , : « , ».

. , , . , , , KPI . IT . - Toyota . .

, , . .

I think as a base you need to understand human psychology. This can be very useful and practical not only for the specialty under discussion. Here I would advise to start with the classics. For example, Eric Bern - People who play games. Games People Play. For each person personally, the path of searching, choosing and receiving knowledge goes its own individual way. The main thing is not to enter into the theoretical jungles and sometimes divorced from the practical reality (for example, Freud and Jung).

, . , . (), , . - . , . , , . , . , . . . . .

( ) . , , .. .

Unfortunately, 99% of the personnel management literature seems to be written by lunatics from the moon and for lunar gravity conditions. I used to think that in the west at least partially, as in these wonderful books, but we just have a mess. After working with them and then going to the "West", I realized that everything here is far from being like in books. It was the realization that the topic was completely neglected and inspired me to write this article - the cry of the soul.

I think we should look right at the root. If it is possible to move from what is just how best to manage those who already are, so that they do what they did before and do it the way they always did. Something as a drover of camels or a shepherd who does not choose his team, does not affect in any way where and which route to go. Unfortunately, usually it all comes down to the fact that the system needs exactly such drivers. It is difficult for a developed person to fulfill this role without a vision and sincere faith in the big picture.

Now a little bit of idealism. All organization building must be initially correct. Good drivers will only help to squeeze a little more than the average, but productivity improvements at times, sincere dedication and dedication of employees and the flow of innovation will not work.

Many may argue that the reality is harsh and there are no ideal organizations. But we are not talking about the happiness of all and the World in the whole World. I also oppose attempts to embrace the not immense. You need to find the ONE place that will turn YOUR work into pleasure and celebration at a particular moment in life.

Returning to your question. We should not forget that the personnel department (HR) is a purely bureaucratic body (allegedly accounting department) and its employees have no relation to the direct activity of the company and the effectiveness of employees and teams. Start with the general - about the organization and only then about the staff. See Peter Senge and Jeffrey Liker. Also at Roger Dawson, awesome audio books about Persuasion and negotiation. Radislav Gandapas has very high-quality programs about charisma. I liked the articles of Marine Voskanyan. Unfortunately, she disappeared somewhere.

Ask about a useful theory with good and successful managers, managers of a specific team or projects and sincerely loving their work. It is very important to sincerely love your business, and not just to do something that is good or just pay. ! , . , . , .

PS

, , , , , .