> As a leader we could start by making the currency a positive thing?
Maybe. I personally feel it lacks sufficient grounding in reality and is prone to bias. How do you value work in a virtual currency that has no external tether outside of the company?
> I get my tea from the main canteen on the other side of the campus
It seems like we're in different geos which may be a factor. I can tell you in US corporate IT organizations where I have worked, there's very little cross-mingling. Leaders may be sent on visits to other orgs that are often planned/staged rather than spontaneous. I'm glad you take an interest. Good leaders often do. In my personal experience, that behavior is atypical. Myself I have never had to more than 1 layer between me and individual contributors and prefer it that way. When I do speak to middle managers, their goals are to avoid causing waves while finding their niche, mostly by ingratiating themselves to some person two levels up and gain enough aforementioned "currency" to advance to the next level. They produce headlines and nothing much of measurable and durable value. A few companies have elaborate internal accounting and review org P/L that way. IBM did in the 90's (not sure if now). AMZN may have some kind of internal recharge model from what I've heard. Most companies just have "budgets" though the allocations rarely have any bearing on any actual or perceived fiscal benefit.
Disclaimer: This is an N=1 opinion. Feel free to take it with as much salt as you like.
>> will compete in whatever internal currency the company culture has
>You seem to be agreeing with me.
I'm saying this is a bad thing. The "currency" is often based on perception of what the leader likes. My suggestion here is instead focus on actual dollars and cents. Does the sub-org bring in more than they spend? It will change the way you think about organizations. If the group has no source for income, you have to wonder why it exists.
I have been mostly in tech but also in companies that are not solely tech companies. For you, it seems like "senior management" means you talk to VPs. I have been a "senior manager" but it speaks mostly to my depth of experience. I talk to VPs and directors when I need to, but mostly I'm speaking to folks that are doing the work. I think this is why our perspectives are different. When you're two or more levels away from the point of execution it's very easy to be out of touch.
This is an interesting idea. Have you considered this in the context of arbitration? For example, if you integrate your favorite LLM and reference the relevant legal code, you can obtain a consensus outcome? Kinda like robo-arbitration.
edit: Another application - arbitrating divorce settlement without lawyers. I admit this is a little dark.
> Firstly, I have met very few malicious people in my career.
Few people are openly malicious. That doesn't mean they are altruistic or motivated by some concept of "greater good". Most people will go along with the general sentiment though their actions are typically focused on their own benefit. This makes a lot of sense.
Honestly, your perspective feels a little out of touch. If you had some private conversations with individual contributors at multiple levels of your organization, you may get a different perspective. In my experience, most "leadership" is about maximizing the leader's personal gain. They are running their own company within the company and will compete in whatever internal currency the company culture has. This is why incentives are difficult.
Perhaps the simplest way to manage is to a P/L and employee retention. So long as those are healthy, the group is healthy.
This makes sense. With interest rates rising I would guess this affects car loans faster than say home loans so consumer demand may go down. Fleet companies like car rentals could purchase additional inventory to meet the Summer demand since their fleets are simpler configurations. Last time I rented a larger vehicle was 2019 and the price then was $104/day. The SUV we got looked like it had been used on a construction site. Now prices are closer to $200/day.
You're not doing it for them. You're doing it for you. Following your own philosophy (whatever it is) takes an unshakable faith that it is the "right thing to do" even when nobody is watching. Like religion or sobriety, it is a daily struggle to follow what you believe. This is what leaders do.
Published 10yrs after I graduated. Harvey was a great lecturer for intro classes. Really a shame they didn't give him a prof seat in recognition of his years of service.
Maybe. I personally feel it lacks sufficient grounding in reality and is prone to bias. How do you value work in a virtual currency that has no external tether outside of the company?
> I get my tea from the main canteen on the other side of the campus
It seems like we're in different geos which may be a factor. I can tell you in US corporate IT organizations where I have worked, there's very little cross-mingling. Leaders may be sent on visits to other orgs that are often planned/staged rather than spontaneous. I'm glad you take an interest. Good leaders often do. In my personal experience, that behavior is atypical. Myself I have never had to more than 1 layer between me and individual contributors and prefer it that way. When I do speak to middle managers, their goals are to avoid causing waves while finding their niche, mostly by ingratiating themselves to some person two levels up and gain enough aforementioned "currency" to advance to the next level. They produce headlines and nothing much of measurable and durable value. A few companies have elaborate internal accounting and review org P/L that way. IBM did in the 90's (not sure if now). AMZN may have some kind of internal recharge model from what I've heard. Most companies just have "budgets" though the allocations rarely have any bearing on any actual or perceived fiscal benefit.
Disclaimer: This is an N=1 opinion. Feel free to take it with as much salt as you like.