Alignment | Hacker News Reader

Alignment

gazzini.com

27 pointsgazzini3 comments

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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com