![]() ![]() ![]() Without that maneuverability, you risk being overly rigid. Because these managers are closer to the ground than senior leaders, they must be able to maneuver within your processes. You need enough structure to enable standard procedures that promote repeatable outcomes, and enough flexibility for product and project managers to take ownership and make necessary pivots. An overly rigid process simply makes the fenced area too small. Imagine a fence surrounding an area in which the leader is able to move freely. In his book, Extreme Ownership, Jocko Willink states, “Discipline equals freedom.” In other words, the right amount of process provides leaders with a measure of discretion. ![]() I would choose chaos over rigidity simply because there are infinite possibilities to improve – but be careful not to overcompensate by shifting too far toward rigidity. As the company grows and more people need to understand what is happening, chaos results. ![]() This is a succinct reference to the extreme end of process.Īt the opposite end is providing little or no structure at all. General Stanley McChrystal writes, “The crew’s attachment to procedure instead of purpose offers a clear example of the dangers of prizing efficiency over adaptability,” in his book, Team of Teams. Are you having meetings for the sake of having meetings? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |