
Alignment - gazzini
https://gazzini.com/essays/posts/alignment/
======
doonesbury
Op - loved the write up. Thanks. I would summarize slightly differently. At
offices the first thing sorted out is inclusion. Who's invited to meetings or
lunch and who's not. And who does the inviting. Next is control. Who's told
what to do and who had to do it i.e. some of what's discussed here. The last
thing that's done --- and in fact almost never is really ever fixed at an
organization is openness. There's a lot of games, bs, withholding, playing at
deception sales and marketing BS and the like. As the Op rightly says ... Its
not consequence free because there's a reckoning eventually. From smarter
people than I .. I learned the pca (primary component analysis) of most
behavior is inclusion, control, openness. I've found it quite useful. The main
reason openness is tough is self defense. Because of office politics and
numerous other factors being honest early and often is seen as too risky. Its
a greedy form of self protection.

~~~
gazzini
Inclusion, control, and openness seem like a very interesting lens through
which to examine office politics. It seems like inclusion & control are
decided intentionally, while openness is more of a culture thing that depends
on the people more than anything else.

To try & combine the 2 frameworks... sometimes there are complex incentives
for intentional mis-alignment.

I guess that some information is assumed to be private — sensitive personal
info, or tentative strategic shifts (“we’re probably laying off X department
next quarter”). But this ever-present masking of underlying intent is
something else entirely.

It does seem generally selfish — it’s one of these locally optimal,
holistically disastrous behaviors. It seems like openness will inevitably
slide away from any organization — it’s generally dangerous to be more open
than your peers.

But, anecdotally, I’ve noticed that my assumptions about how “open” my team is
become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I generally have better luck when I do the
“risky” thing of acting more openly.

Or, to frame the last point differently: static analysis only goes so far,
this is a dynamic system, and we ourselves are an important variable.

~~~
doonesbury
You seem to really have a nice way of seeing things, plus being self-aware
which is a great combo. I learned about teamwork after being let-go from a
consulting job many years ago. At that point in my life I really needed the
help, and I've been drawing on it ever since. I can add a few more things, but
again, this is what I learned from Dr. Schutz ("Human Element " & "FIRO
Theory"). Unfortunately he passed away but his son took over. A few tid-bits
not necessarily well-ordered:

\- Schutz's insights into teamwork, individuals, organizations arose after
WWII. The Navy (pretty sure that branch) overhauled its officer training
because too many problems occurred when the command crew could't work as a
team under duress. They redid the whole thing stem-to-stern, got better
candidates etc. etc. etc. Long story short under testing the results were
essentially random: sometimes things rocked and sometimes same-old issues. And
worse they couldn't predict which team was which. They reached out for
consulting which culminated in FIRO which became "Human Element" and carried
into commercial organizations thereafter.

\- Inclusion then control then openness (ex. there's always a guy or gal at
the office we'll be completely candid with certainly few in number) is because
as a general rule each step involves more and more risk. I can blow you off
for lunch but I can less afford a control issue with you over work. Openness
is the last frontier.

\- One of the central tenants of the work is that teamwork is busted when
individuals become rigid in their framing of issues and behavior. Stuck
individuals is the biggest contributor to failing teams. FIRO eschews more
breezy theories that teams work great when ( _) there 's a uniting vision (_)
strong leader ( _) etc. the kinds of things in "the 10 things I wish I knew as
a manager 10 years ago" posts we run across.

\- The rigidity is a function of several things but the core insight is the
individual's self-identity is threatened and they don't have the self
awareness or tools to copy better. Such people remain fixed hiding behind one
or more defense behaviors which attempts to deflect from that internal
conflict. Eg: you talk to me about a problem. I'm afraid I'm not competent and
therefore cannot exercise better control. Plus that might cost me a job,
bonus, or good review. So what are two classic reactions? (_) Play it off: I
disagree with you about quantity or quality of issue and pitch it like nothing
to see here. Message: I'm fine; your perspective wrong (*) Blame: I put all
the blame on others e.g. dumb ask, crappy code to start with etc.. What's
common to all this: as long as we're not talking about my feelings nobody will
see the truth. So I keep the focus elsewhere.

Consequently your last sentence is quite smart by referencing dynamics. It's
the pair-wise interaction which engenders problems but also good repoire and
respect.

FIRO to me is just some much more grounded in how people work. You're not
going to roll into a situation with a Deloitte Consulting top-10 team fix list
and do well. If I (or others in my team) are not too self-aware etc. etc. the
outcomes are like with the Navy: messy and random. FIRO does much better.

