Check out the “DIC in the box” below. The DICbox is drawn around the DICster because that’s the way BMs dehumanize the person behind the DIC label. They do this, of course, in order to make their so-called job easier and to preclude getting their hands dirty with unimportant people. In a BM’s mechanistic mind, all DICs are the same and they’re interchangeable.
In a corpricracy, DICs are given work to do and, if they’re competent and self-motivated, they create high quality work products that increase the wealth of the corpricracy – in spite of the management chicanery that takes place.
The figure below shows an expanded DICbox model with a BM integrated into the system. Since the dude is part Bozo, he doesn’t:
- have a clue (or care) what the work is,
- know (or care) what it takes to do the work,
- know (or care) what the work products are, or how to evaluate them.
That’s why there are no connections in the picture traversing from the work products or work definition flows to the BM. Of course, the BM feigns it as best he can and knows some generic technical buzzwords like “requirements”, “analysis”, “design”, etc. To a BM, all technical projects, from web site development to space shuttle development, are the same – a linear, sequential, unchangeable schedule of requirements, design, coding, testing, and delivery.
Since the BM is in over his head, he must justify his highly compensated existence. He does this via the only option available: behavior watching. Thus, all he essentially does is intently watch for non-conformance of DIC behavior to a set of unwritten and arbitrarily made up corpo rules. He really shines when he detects a transgression and issues the boiler plate “get with the program” speech (a.k.a peek a boo visit) to coerce the DIC back into the box. If that fails, he calls in the big guns – his fellow overhead management dudes in the HR silo. But that’s another story.
OK, OK. So you want to arse me on my own turf and say: “It’s easy to whine and complain about bad management. I’m as good as you are at it.” You follow that up with “How should it be, smarty pants?“. Well here’s one model:
I don’t think the above model needs to be accompanied with much explanation. However, I do think these caveats should be pointed out:
- The DICbox is gone.
- The “BM” label has been replaced by “Leader”.
- The work is co-defined by the leader and the doer.
- The leader knows what the work products should be (work products = “expected outcomes” in management lingo).
- The leader still watches behavior, not as an end in itself, but as a means to help the doer grow, develop, and succeed.
- The leader does what some people (like me) may consider – real work.