WhatWeHaveHereIsAFailureToCommunicate

Obvious beforehand - in rough order from the top

• Top level management superrational (this is not a compliment)
  • Founder can't communicate with any degree of emotional intelligence
  • His deputy (and CEO) can't either, although the problems manifest differently
  • Management one level further down (CTO, DHoR) are better but I've seen almost all of them misapply quantitative arguments where qualitative would be way more effective
  • Below that things are more normal
• Organisation in general
  • lots of highly sub-optimal internal security barriers
  • very bad at documentation on a number of fronts

And now

• Ditching a lot of staff
• Handling it badly on the day (going down the pub? please! And the all-hands meeting was a disaster)
• Execrable subsequent communication on rationales
  • consequences were foreseen by at least some levels of senior management but have been ignored
  • I have personally raised this with a number of people below SMT level to no apparent effect
  • result is that the majority of ICs are convinved upper management wants a lot more people to leave in March and is trying to unsettle them to that effect

What's the explanation?

• Clearly PdP has X
• Then the SMT either have X or are sufficiently influenced by him that they may as well have X
• And the influence of X diffuses outwards from there - attenuating, but still having its effect on the wider organisation

I think I already knew this on some level, but thought it could be ignored as the positive aspects of the X view were doing so well.

What's changed?

• Has the X at the top level has got more intense?
• Or is it just a random mis-step that they are really cocking up?
• Is it an outcome of a heuristic I've noticed - to take things that already work to extremes?

What does that mean?

• If it's got worse then I need to leave
• If they're over-reaching they need this conveyed to them somehow