Unfortunately, Good To Great is 300 pages of survivorship bias. It picks a group of companies that succeeded, and a group that failed, and then after the fact looks back to try to find what the survivors had in common. I don't know how you come out of that with any prescriptive steps on how to succeed.
It's like having a classroom stand up and flip a coin, ask everyone who flipped tails to sit down, repeat the process until there's only a few people standing, and then interview them to try to understand what makes them good heads-flippers.
I can appreciate the thinking here, but it not ideal. Different details are relevant to different people. And async is inefficient for many situations. Yes publish findings/results, but overcommunicating has a cost.
Better to create different channels (sync, async, 1:1, broadcast), provide guidance and trust workers.
It's not necessary about trust, or relevancy. I believe motivation is contagious, and making communications hearable/visible for all most of the time can be beneficial because of this.
... and soon with this type of setting you will arrive at siloing the information. Having all communication public in the channels comes with its cost but everything is as transparent as it can be. Important distinction is that you get to choose if the detail is relevant for your work or not. And not your manager or whoever.
Regular group discussions (not standup) are important. My team meets 30-60 minutes four days a week to discuss technical details and long term strategy.
It plays two important roles
1. establish rapport between team members
2. gives known space for issues. Leads to Better balance of focus time and group convo
This is the most important meeting of the day. Create doc to people can add things to the agenda. Managers job is to keep the meeting relevant, efficient.
Outside of that. Devs encouraged to pair together separately for troubleshooting.
1:1s are critical early on. DO NOT CANCEL THEM. And keep them relevant
> My team meets 30-60 minutes four days a week to discuss technical details and long term strategy.
Long term strategy needs to be decided on four times a week? Each instance taking ~10% of the working day's time? I expect I'm misunderstanding you but I'm not sure in what way
If only there was a way for, let's say, the most powerful money printer in the world to grant / loan money to Intel so that they could onshore state-of-the art chip production in the interest of national security.
A serious government would extract concessions for any grants (shares of profit), an seriousness one would just give the money over and be like "Trickle down baby".
Being subjected to a financial panopticon is something that Brett Scott discusses in "Cloud Money".
CDBC's have an advantage over bank money (checking accounts, credit cards, etc.) in that it is actual state issued currency, rather than a promise. However, they raise the same privacy and coercive concerns.
A promise of not recording transactions is ... not reliable. You don't have to see the CCP as nefarious in order to see that the incentives and ease of recording all transactions would inevitably lead that outcome. This is true for global capital as well.
Hard currency remains the best medium for transactions that remain beyond full surveillance. It's difficult for me to imagine something digital replacing that at scale that doesn't also make financing large scale criminal or terrorist activity much more difficult to stop.
Actually yes. Buses are driven by professional drivers who have to pass through a much more aggressive filter than your average SUV drive does.
When I'm out driving, walking or biking in Seattle I worry much much less about bus drivers doing something unpredictable than I do about light vehicle drivers.
Good to Great. Built to Last, etc.
Focuses on how the organizations are constructed and tries to divine principles that are true across time.