AA262 - HBR Says Consensus Is Dead (And Proved It With Consensus)

The Harvard Business Review ran an article on April 7th[UM] that we need to talk about. And its main thesis was was I'm going I'm try to be clean with this thesis possible. Companies that survive next decade will not be those with the best algorithms or the most data. They'll be those that have the courage to abandon how decisions get made Bold, right? Bold claim. That is bold claim. Wow. OK, OK. Hang on. Hang on before you. Yeah, not along in because I do the same thing. I'm not nodding along in a in a polite yet tacitly approving way without knowing any details. So the two guys that get paid every day to come into companies replace their decision making apparatus were ones that wrote this article. Interesting. So you're telling me that Harvard Business Review is now a sales channel for private equity always has been. So this is just the .A. flavored edition Welcome back to Arguing Angel. If this your first time, welcome. I'm host product manager Brian Orlando and this is my co -ho, enterprise business agility leader and the admiral of alignment himself, Mr. Ombatale. Admiral alignment. Wow. Love it. That's right. So the HBR piece that was talking about in the intro, it's titled Decision Making by Consensus. Doesn't work in the [UH] era. It's one the cleanest examples of the pattern that we keep talking about and running round of on the podcast And we're to, we're talk about today. So we're to, we're talk about it. We're going to dig into it. We're get all up in its business and carefully read through the article. OK, let's talk about what's true, what's not true. We're going to name moves, the and we're do all heavy lifting. So I see some critical analysis forthcoming. That's right. That's right. By the end of this. So by end this conversation, you, the viewer or listener, depending on medium, whatever you prefer. Listen, hey, I'm not, I'm not listen. I'm not held hostage by Spotify requiring me to subscribe to, to, to do more development against their platform. There may may not been a pre podcast discussion that got cut out here. But you'll able spot the four letter four letter. You didn't know was going with when I started saying four letter. will spot a four letter decision framework that is dressed up as the future work. You'll be able to. Number two, you'll able name who profits by making this a layer middle management into the villain, which we've had another podcast that one recently. And then number three, you'll able notice when [UH] I urgency when that line being used to import decision making from 2002 bankruptcy. Okay, looking forward this. Just listen, I know when I, I know I'm not framing it as well the articles writers the articles authors frame OK. there's reason that because I, I'm not big fancy bcg consultant. No, I'm just a simple man trying simple man with conscience trying podcast on the on the old Internet. was So before we begin, I think think a great start to this podcast before start digging into good bad of the article and the bad and bad article. says read through it. I will definitely drop link the comments this of this podcast people can read through themselves when they want to. It's not that long of an article But what is I'm going pull it up screen for us. I will read through some key some key phrases for us just so that we have read the entire article together. OK. And through the use of judicious editing then I like his little poker dice here. the slipped in little casino dice up here. Lots of this Yeah. his stock, his stock role playing dice Yeah, these dice dices, these dice may or may not loaded. Rosenthal and Zuckerman argue that A .I. is forcing an organizational reckoning and the casualty has be the management orthodoxy last 50 years consensus. So consensus consensus made sense in a pre digital globally distributed world. But carries two fatal weaknesses in the air. It's slow decisions get passed through gaggles lawyers, marketing teams, PR, investor relations, risk management and compliance, each of whom is incented to migrate oh sorry, each whom is incentivized to mitigate personal and organizational risk. so they're basically saying as these decisions travel down through corporate middle management. Right? The edges get smoothed off and gets turned into what call success theater. OK, and then the other one here, the second one says distorts information. So that's other one here result is what call success theater weekly dashboards solid reports crafted middle managers whose career depend on protecting the status quo. Yeah, I pushes us into rougher waters and turns both weakness into critical turn and turns both weaknesses into critical liabilities. The first because rapidly accelerates the speed at which companies can and must operate. second, because the more A .I. accelerates decision cycles, the more working from filtered degraded information, the kind of distortions consensus management creates turns into a critical liability. OK, that's sort his that's sort his treatise on this. And let me an organization that is both slow and blind, a dangerous combination in any era but fatal post[UH] know, there's a quote I'm on right now screen right there. And then they introduced the OVIS framework So the OVIS framework meaning one person owns two three people veto or influence and everyone else supports the outcome. That's the OVIS framework they they introduce here which talk about later. So we're not go super deep right now. It's a filtered committee approved reports. They say this helps you stop writing those and then demand unfiltered signals directly. So trust signals over instinct. and then they argue that boards must demand unfiltered access to real time signals that bypass the executive summary And if zip all way the end we find they're, they're, they're big they're, they're great. idea is like buried here end. They buried the lead here end. says, you know, we'll demand a world continuous feedback loops recognize that the greatest sin is not making the wrong call but making new call at all. Wow. There's a lot in this [UH] Yeah. Right there. Yeah You know, on the face it, the thesis they have that information gets diluted the further up chain goes, speak. Yeah, problem that. right, people, we've known this be true for long time The deeper the flaky pastry is, the worse quality of the information that goes bubbling up because at every layer people are vested in protecting their own behind. So yeah, so you know what turns out be a grade one critical risk gets watered down little bit at the next level and the level above it. know, we've got this. Yeah. the level above is everything's green. It's so -called watermelon report. No, no debate there. Right. No debate. Absolutely not. let's move on to we'll move on. I'm interested in the four character framework speak that they've introduced with all this. right. right. you're going to, you're going hold horses there for second because oh oh my we'll get the framework second. But before touch framework, we need to look at the argument. And order that, we need to, but before that, we need look at how the HBR article credentials these authors. And need look people writing this report. That's why this this article. OK, [UH] here's how HBR credentials one the authors. So I'm to read byline. Says Jonathan Rosenthal, chairman and CEO of Saybrook, a 30 year private equity firm. So he's, he's his claim to fame was he's been part of several high profile bankruptcies Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Kmart, and United Airlines were the three big ones from his career, particularly as a as rescue operator. so what he does like I dug way into this probably more than is not considered creepy. But so does is he shows up when companies are financially dead or dying and he advises the people who get to pick bones from the company that's dying and and also what believe his current firm does is they they buy control of distressed companies outright. So now he's writing an HBR article touting that he knows how to restructure healthy companies in in way that he restructures the bankrupt ones. So he's bone collector. dug into each one these individually. I'm not bring up here because it's probably boring for lot of people. But in the Kmart one for example he was the adviser retained by the creditors who were coming in to the bankruptcy of Kmart. So he's sort like the have like demon, angel on the shoulder the person making decision. Like consider the people making decisions were the creditors, like the bankers for Kmart, the people putting up money and like he's the devil on shoulder of those folks. So case thought was like just talking Kmart people, that wasn't his job. Right? Yeah, right. authors. The other one is [UH] Neil Zuckerman who is managing director and senior partner at Boston Consulting Group. That's right, that's, that's one BCG. He was the former head of the firm's global media practice as far understand it. So going into this podcast, you have to kind frame everything that we are about talk about under the consideration that one the authors is advises people. One the authors advises the people putting out money for dead dying companies. And the other one is a 30 year consulting that who is, know it's one thing that I took from consulting is you've constantly be pitching your next client. Otherwise you're out of job. So you know. Yeah. Constantly pitching the next client is the job. Yeah. So with that being said, So let's talk about steelman here because I, I feel like I don't bash on authors too much. They're, they're doing what they think is best from their financial perspective. Sure. Okay and I feel on steelman side, you're have the most cynical steelman take. We could point out is listen Brian like that's HBR. Everybody that writes for HBR has some kind incentive. They're all here sell something. And everybody reads HBR knows it. So [UH] get off lawn. Yeah, that never used be case. remember you know, some time ago, HBR was that [UH] stalwart of truth where you could look forward to really looking at stuff that you know was real that mattered for that for that matter. Look HBR is favorably by far actually the source for case studies[UH] that are taught in most business schools, at least reputable ones. Yes, I remember going through that years ago lately. I don't know. may have to question that, but we'll see. I mean, other, the other thing that would expect someone throw out is to say, know, it's a PE or consulting experience like that's, that's, that's PE and consulting expertize. That's like, yeah, it might have bias or might have like a slanted worldview, but like that is expertize. It's not expertize of the practitioner, but is valid [UH] not great. mean, wouldn't take my claim on that one, but if you're theoretician, it's valid. But you're looking for, know, practical advice, I don't know you'd stop there. Yeah, yeah, And then the other one, diagnosis that they're saying of the decisions by consensus are, you know, usually weak. one is this And we want, we want single threaded leaders that just make choice move along like that. That's see field. That's I see out the Amazons world. That's see all these people writing books. So as practitioner, just a regular person off street working product manager whatever, like that's what see. So you're telling me that's not right. Is that what you're know? Yeah, that's interesting There's two sides to that though. Really quick. Right? Yeah, it's it matches what you see every day. But does that make it legit Thanks for. Thanks for going of transitioning to the our stance side of the world this one because the pattern recognition not being that. So you're that's you just said is because can recognize pattern of like this seems like the world around me all does this all day long. That doesn't mean it's good. the fact know pattern all time happening that you've recognized that doesn't mean good pattern. Right? diagnosis being done there's no deeper here to say that the prescription that they're writing for you, know, use this framework what things we're going to talk about little later podcast that to say any those valid. Right? again like don't give away much for future categories. So the other thing here is that the, the shirky principle that we talk about all time like the people selling the medications cancer meds are not going invest in like curing cancer all time because they're like people selling selling know, it's that sort of like that. That's shirky principle which we run against all time. So each HBR is, you know, listen, they're, they're mashed head. They're not clean room. know, they're selling cancer drugs. They're not curing cancer. All right. So like get off my back I get it. But also can we can we like slow down second say yeah, but yes. And yes, exactly But your, Your whole site is geared at supposedly being the voice of executives and you know that the elites and companies and institutions and stuff. So you're willing print something like this, like understand you're saying, well we're, we're just massive, we're just direct compass. We're not, you know, the authority where everything's been vetted truth. Yeah. Yeah. And so if if any of these publications are close to whatever might call direct authority, HBR is it? Yeah, I would have say. And then and then one thing that the authors saying this paper is occasionally the authors will go through and they'll they'll kind out themselves little bit here. There's few things here that we're going talk about today where the authors out themselves. They say while CEO and her management team must execute these changes, it's unlikely to happen without a board of true believers devoid of the discomfort of radical mandates. So they already say in here like, yeah, you, if like your board doesn't support the CEO with these kind of wild ideas, it's not get done. So even in here, they're these are these ideas are little you know, they need a board that basically swallows them and believes the ideology. You know, psychopaths. Sorry, I couldn't resist. I'm sorry. That's not cool. That's own point. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So he restructures bankrupt companies for for living. And wants you to, he wants to restructure your not bankrupt company. Yeah, I'm sure he's doing fine for himself. He is doing fine we had this kind harkens back to arguing Agile 246 the Spotify model in that the model was never like was like a theoretical thing in time that never really existed. And it has shades that is, know, where we come this idea of how can structure company that never actually been put into practice. That's has shades of nice. Where can I sign up for this work? know can sign for but we have some takeaways in section one So stop reading HBR if the byline is truth and start reading HBR as if the byline is just like a disclosure. So and start asking know who is the author who who has the author been paid by? In this case, that this pays their own bills. Right What service does that party sell and does the article recommend that service? Because I feel in the like there's this like the one two three punch of the funnel here which is very close to another episode that do whole podcast on where somebody sends you McKinsey article or HBR article and to say am I reading this to help me with thing or we being sold something? You know who profits if I follow this advice. Yeah, absolutely. If you can't try it, you know, ask in next strategy meeting. What profits if we follow this advice? That's right who, who profits? Yeah. Who? I hope this is quick category. Find most recent management article you you you got forwarded by your CEO. Scroll the byline. Did the CEO check it before they sent it? Let know comments. again. I'd said I wouldn't do this. That you're your your CEO is your 80 year old grandma seeing things on Facebook and just Facebook [UH] again taking as face value said wouldn't say again but it's here is. It's true again. Don't say it till next time, man. All right. I can definitely make that commitment. So once know wrote it, the next thing is you actually look at what they're selling. So now we're going to open up the Ovis framework. Ooh, know you've been waiting on this one. Oh yeah. For ever. Let's, So now on the actual prescription the thing that you're supposed to walk away wanting from reading this article. Right. So here's the framework. The HBR article wants you to adopt and I'm read it verbatim. This Ovis. One person owns decision. Two or three people veto or influence it. Everyone else supports the outcome. It's not subtle refinement of consensus. It's a deliberate replacement. So here is what they don't tell you in body the article of this HBR article like Ovis is bossing consulting groups pet framework. It's published on BG's public sector practice page So article says quote time and again we have seen power this framework. The Wii is busy. Of course is. Yes. And why that not surprise me that it's one their own offerings? And you're just reading marketing copy at this point. So like there's a if there's a if there's anything going this, it's just a purely spot play like we've talked about before. And we like in the prep for this podcast, we threw here screen whole bunch other like copies of essentially Racy from 70s. I think races from 70s responsible accountable consulted informed like the old Racy matrix Bain has rapid recommend agree perform input decide BG has Ovis I didn't know that Atlassian had DACI driver approver contributor informed. had idea had that until some research of this. anyway, everyone's got their own framework. They sure do. most these synonymous with one another. look terminology, at least when you dig into it, they all formulate the same sort of structure. Yeah, yeah. And they're the Oprah of frameworks. That's, everyone gets framework. gets a framework. So what do when you can't what do when can't teach success? Teach framework. That's what do. So speaking being sassy podcast, let's talk about steel man because listen, you guys just, you guys are just you guys just angry because you know it's good framework. You should use That's, that's the problem is. Ovis clarifies decision rights cleaner than Racy it's a, it's a, it's honing. It's a sharpening of Racy. OK, clarifies decision rights in and diffusion of accountability is a real thing. The single owner default fixes it because in the ovest you have one and one single owner. And also dovetails into modern business like the Amazon, Jeffrey Bezos, Amazon single threaded leader kind thing from the working backwards book that we reviewed on podcast many, many moons ago And then [UH] in pocket, the pocket veto is a real failure mode. Most orgs have it. Oh boy, boy to me when look this. So let's just say at face value this obvious one owner seems like it's leading towards command control dictatorship. Somebody says what I say goes and everybody just basically nods along in agreement. Sounds like not being team player I'm not being team player. never say it's a it's the same authority like the most cynical version this is in corporate America. Like the CEO makes call anyway. It's the same like so slap whatever label on want the product manager like does their roadmap does their interviews then their director product or their CPO comes down says [UM] I think most customers want this. You should build it as topic [UH] I want to ahead and build it. You're do that. You're it. so the cynic here, the just a burnout product manager say the same authority, new initials. I'm just keep doing what I've been doing. Right. Right. Yeah it's cynical. But actually, think that's also what you'll find in practice happens lot that some these organizations, some maybe most. I don't know if I'm put slight slightly softer touch on the cynics point. I would get to what I think practitioner, normal practitioner who's not burnt out probably would say is like look, Racy is useless. Like I've spent many, many, many hours wasted on contributing to a racing matrix for somebody was asking for it because my boss said just happy. That's what our job. And it was never got used for anything. It was useless to me anyway. In my position. Yeah they'll say race is broken. They'll have same story me. But instead saying race broken and we're also going abandon all artifacts that look like They'll say race broken. Let's give over a chance that the new, the next new shiny thing. mean, whole point of is to avoid the A like hot potato. Right? Yeah So think in OVIS it might actually end up being the same thing end day. You know, avoid the ownership piece and let someone own it. That someone's probably be by default the person top. When consulting firm's partner writes HBR article recommending the consulting firm's framework, what they actually mean is, know call us when need help with this. It's a marketing tool. Clearly, it's marketing what that is. Yeah, right. So let's, let's, let's move into our stance this one. Ovis it's out of place me now understanding what really is saying that it's in this article as like an error replacement for consensus. What is a Racy diagram or Racy chart have to do with [UH] error replacement [UH] like it's because everybody's talking about A .I. So what we're doing is brewing something up and we're just sprinkling in A .I. because have to. I meanthough isn't this what we invented product management for like one person makes decision. Yes, product manager like this is solid thing. Why we need a BCG matrix like don't we just [UH] we Marty Kagan books. We have product operating miles stuff. And also unless you're saying we don't like having share our decision making authority with product managers. you're saying, oh, now you're going somewhere. Somebody else. Yeah lot companies are. They say they doubt that they have the product operating model in place. The product managers are empowered and authorized and all this stuff. But end day, yeah, they all work. However, at end day, whatever the head just says goes. Right. That's And we've talked about this before podcast where somebody, you know, goes conference, comes back says that's what they're doing. We need do that too [UM] the me too. Right. So there's, there's lot truth that sadly you know, other thing is that if you're an organization that is doing this where the CEO or whoever some high level executive is calling the shots, he would likely already know that. So adopting something like OVIS isn't going get you too far anyway. Well structural critique of OVIS is where I start to throw rocks at the glass building over here like the veto circle. Like who decides who is who gets veto? so straight. So like I'm hire my buddies be my partners in crime. My, my, my VPs, my senior VPs. Like if I'm CEO, I'm hire my two buddies from my other companies places worked or just like my golf pals. Doesn't really matter. Yeah. And give them their official position is the VP veto holder. They collect their big salary and then all to do is any time comes veto me, they just don't show that day. Yeah, that's what it's be [UH] Yes, man. end day or women. Yeah, the whole thing seems like charade. That's right, ladies. You also can be. Yes, man That's that's right. You also can cash check and whatever boss tells you. This is equal opportunity. that's right. Equal opportunity And. And you know, the funny thing is like everyone else just supports the outcome. That's that's your role. You support the outcome everybody else is naughty. They don't have power to even like push against that. like they got no choice but to carry that hot potato with It's like disagree and commit except you just commit. You just commit commit. That's right. Yes. Disagree is like shouting into void and commit. Yes. But listen, we can sell books with shouting into the void and commit. That's right. That's right. Exactly. arguing Agile 249 disagree and commit corporate gaslighting question mark and what to do about it. It's a tagline. What to do about it? It covered this authority concentration mechanism a little bit. We didn't go too depth. And don't know what these folks write these articles, don't know what their fixation is with like little micro authoritarianism. Like don't know what their deal is. Like there's been quite few these that we've run across we'd like reject as like that. Not great podcast fodder. And this one just happened take all boxes. It touched me in all right places. decided was to, it was candidate. But like there's so many these people like why, why worship authoritarianism so much? Like what, what's with come couch. Tell me about your problem. Put feet up Tell tell about your mother. Take to call morning. These people really do have I don't know know, they have a longing for a sense control, guess. So being authoritarian, gives them a gives them that power or least sense that that says am the authority. I'm thought leader here follow me but don't push back because I will not tolerate. only follow one thought leader. Are takeaways here? Can can we, are we done this podcast? Stop reading framework rollouts as new methods. Read them as rebrandings of existing authority distributions. And look who moves up and look who moves down. And feel I just slapped the sticker on the back side of [UH] Ovi or whatever. It's called Ovis whatever. It's called Beavis Beavis. Yeah, but about it but but you know you've seen this before with like oh we were scrum scaled scrum or whatever and now we're be safe or now we're be whatever. Like you've seen this played out over over many times. Yeah, absolutely. Corporate restructuring does this as well. know, we're first now. Oh, know [UH] [UM] It's been long time since told story cousin and how introduced say. Well, initially when was introduced to agile for first time[UH] the company came and said, well, we're agile now. Everyone's developer. We don't have QA, so we don't need go through QA anymore. We, we just push our stuff out straight into production. Who needs QA when you have customers do QA [UH] The developers do all testings and then start taking money. can go wrong? was, yeah, was, it was this. was exactly this is like, well, you're just, you're rolling framework that you don't even understand. Right? With no experience, not asking help. You know, nothing. You obviously want to do something. And that's what's happening. You want to do something. So know, consolidate power here or want to, you know, make this step faster whatever. don't care gets hurt. Fine, just do that. Just do it. Typically, the prescribers have no skin in the game that's common things you'll see here when people, you know, they say, follow my framework because it's the best thing since sliced bread So sorry, was middle saying who moves up who moves down. So map Ovis or Racy or Dacey, Daisy, whatever is. You map whatever is coming in over your existing process or chart matrix, whatever you have. And and see it's essentially same thing. You want identify the support group who used be consulted, you know, is now being informed see people losing their rights in this swap. obviously like you want do this because to find out, know, who's losing their right to object to things. Yeah. And think flip side it too like who's gaining something out of this like who are the veto people really are they truly independent. Right. Look for those sorts things too. it's almost like need make a declaration of independence. Oh, So has your org ever swapped one decision rights framework for another a meaningfully different outcome. Tell us what that framework was and what actually changed in the comments because we want to see the framework or leader actually did their homework because these folks didn't. It be very telling. So yeah, would definitely appreciate that And speaking of doing your homework, let's talk about the case study that they use here to prove that this article and the suggestions work make it because case study is from a 2002 airline bankruptcy. So all aligns to me. I perfectly perfect the nailed it. OK, so HBR article that made me spit my coffee. OK, oh, I'm I'm read to you verbatim best can. It says this approach builds on agile methodology but departs from it in a critical So here's line the respect. Traditional scrum teams recommend escalate. The autonomous scrum owns outcomes hope you enjoyed that one. My first reaction is Kono. That's my best Spanish What the heck is he talking about? Traditional agile teams or scrum teams don't own outcomes [UH] Oh, you seem confused. Let me, I am very confused. me walk you through it. Oh my goodness. And you can't say oh my goodness without saying oh Remember did the episode on what was it called? Sorry, I'll remember here second. people that are good at one thing Oh, it was agile 48 expertize over each. Why being right once make leaders think they're right about everything. struck me strong, strong arguing agile to 48 vibes of like oh this this person is good when comes toyou know, picking apart dead companies and making maximum profit for, for his people that are retaining him. And now thinks knows scrum is because this is one that genuinely stopped me and had me go, oh, need do an episode on this one because he obviously has no idea he's doing. But also, I, I love that even though has, he has idea what Scrum does he has the wherewithal to do the market segmentation that lot other folks are doing. Traditional Scrum. Right. so he's, he's rebranding Scrum and using his own autonomous Scrum. Right. I think what means by autonomous scrum is means to draw a dividing line between the agile teams that own outcomes and those that do not own outcomes. think that's what means. Yeah. So if you're truly doing scrum, you absolutely own outcomes. Isn't that whole point of having, you know, sprint goals and attaining those? mean, you're actually pushing for outcomes. you're not, you're doing performative scrum anyway. And think that's he's talking Right the, I mean old recommend and escalate is like that's that's barely scrum. It's not scrum. mean that was. Yeah, I that's what came before anyway. That was the 2000s chaos development. wait all time decision. And the idea of agile is we'll go straight customers. We'll have authority and we can with customer just make all decisions. Exactly. That is mean like if don't believe that you don't believe the agile manifesto or whatever and you don't believe the entire literature body work of Marty Kagan. I'm going guess that you didn't read any of it or you never worked in a scrum before. Yeah. Yeah. Or maybe you're out of element and out your depth, out your expertize. And maybe you should get educated before speaking on these things in authoritative manner that other executives and CEOs to pick up. Absolutely. Yeah. And also, it's too early podcast because we have section later to point this out. also shame on editors of HVR for not catching this We're definitely double click on that. bit later Yes, indeed that this works, meaning his autonomous scrumming. We know this works because during the United Airlines bankruptcy from 2002 to 2006 he says didn't call them scrums. They're not called scrums, but we didn't scrums. called them working groups. But the structure is identical cross disciplinary teams of six to 10 people So he says we know drawn from creator I'm sorry. Drawn from creditors management labor and outside professionals each assigned discrete and consequential task. One group was charged with renegotiating 660 aircraft leases. Another tackled and least 600 aircrafts. They didn't own their aircraft. Yeah. Oh another tackle on labor contracts. didn't know that. I had no idea they lease them from Boeing and stuff and they just lease and then Boeing gets aircraft back after time. No, they. So there's companies that lease them from Boeing then they release companies at end their at end the tether. They sell them Nigeria. Wow. didn't know that. Or some other African countries. Yeah. Yeah. Wow Helios there. You know, you're those planes when the door doesn't quite shut and you know, flight lieutenant winds a figure eight piece rope. Listen, listen, it's like it's like riding back truck. Am I getting destination? Yes, I am. right. Quick, banged up little bit. you're fine. Maybe there with oxygen. Listen, yeah, you're fine. OK, quit being baby I'm all the six groups total, each meeting twice a month, each given substantial latitude with the default presumption that their recommendations would be adopted. Leisure's role was to monitor, guide, and create conditions success, not to second guess every decision. What made work was not the structure alone but the shared understanding of stakes. And then they give some other things. It been impossible in a traditionally managed organization the great thing about the the section I just read you is him rebranding traditional Scrum Autonomous Scrum then then then describing the method that was used to help negotiate through their bankruptcy over four years something that is that like the title article bashes consensus driven. And then he describes using consensus driven decision making groups to drive a consensus. So ironic. Yeah, absolutely And other thing see that sort somewhat contradictory here is you know he's saying that his definition of what used be called scrum team. What they call them? He called them something different, didn't He said didn't call them scrums. We call them working working groups. Yeah. So he said that from what I surmise he's saying that they chased outcomes. Traditional scrum teams did not. And yet in the second paragraph says what they were doing is basically making recommendations. Right. So isn't that contradictory? Shouldn't they be owning the outcomes of their actions instead of just recommending? Isn't that the same as just escalating things you know, or not actually doing the work? I don't know. I find that very confusing. don't I'm move us into steelman. I feel I'm be little softer on on his side steelman here. So in many enterprises, Scrum has been corrupted into a recommend and escalate ritual, especially the larger frameworks. I'm not naming any them. Could could be. It would very unsafe do that. No, it absolutely would be like I would never save less that. I can't, I can't imagine having less of that, especially where they have one product manager in 87 teams. I would never recommend something like that anyway the audience for article and likely the writers article have only ever dealt with the scrum teams who are operating this like corrupted that manner. matter. So don't even know that there's successful teams out there That's that's again that I kind feel that's cynical take. I don't looking at the article. For me personally, it's abundantly clear that they don't really know what true scrum looks like. Yeah. So I'm not afraid say that way. yeah, I don't think these people have experience. What you say? do you, what you mean these people? So the other one the one that I point out here before move on is what he's outlining, working groups like he's describing empowered teams that with with leadership presumption of adoption, meaning that leader the teams believe that they have the ability to make decision and leadership not override them going What describe as into all these decisions. Generally, like that's strong model. That's Martin Kagan writes about. That's what the all of the scrum frameworks everything prescribe. Mm That is way that this is supposed be. And know, and if you're doing that, then yeah, great. Congratulations transition into our stance on on these issues. Yeah. autonomous scrum owns outcome like that. That isn't new. That's, know, Martin made living with bunch books about this. Scrum teams always own the outcomes. This is not new. know why it's new here. Yeah, have idea but OK, let's keep going. And the case study here used to prove that consensus decision making doesn't work is in fact consensus decision making working. So it's wild again again, a true failure up down of the editorial process for someone to say consensus driven decisions don't work. And to prove that, I'm tell you all times that consensus driven decisions worked I mean the word Irene doesn't even cover it. Really, I don't know. You mean the Alanis Morissette [UH] way of using the word ironic. Yeah, I don't think does. It's like rain on your wedding day. Mm hmm. here, it's, it's all stuff was wrapped under guise of urgency. mean, don't have time to get consensus for decisions. It's too slow. It's got too many, you know hang ups. People could corrupt the results. That kind stuff. That's what all this was couched as. But everything he just showed us is the opposite. So it's if you're reading something like this or somebody organization is bringing in if there's take away something like this. I don't know. Like least make them explain, you know, and not use consensus based decision making a as an attack on we should, we should consolidate power with this one person. And I volunteer be that person. you know yeah, absolutely. That's basically what just happened here. Right. Right. You go in with eyes wide open And also and also is your firm bankrupt? Is there reason consolidate all power of one person move quickly because firm is like all your your company bankrupt ?Is your, are your creditors at door threatening liquidation? Like if no, why, why we, why consolidating for a like a basically a, a bankruptcy exit? Because it's the newest model from somebody who has some BCG jobs. I guess guess if you're saying if if we if we if consolidate for bankruptcy exit now, then we won't be surprised later when we, when we back. That's right. That's right. love it That's right. Forward thinking. We saw we're so forward thinking So yeah, we restructuring because evidence or because vibes or we just getting ready drive company using the eye blanket throw it on top of our heads and say whoo, we're ahead game. I like it. Throw that[UH] wet blanket on me because I'm done this category. comments for for the viewers and listeners on this episode are we restructuring companies based on the implementation of A .I. Is that we're doing? Because that could be a really good podcast and I'd be interested talk about that. How to restructure decision making and structures and all kinds that. So a little bit we talked about on the middle management podcast it was the delayering disaster of arguing agile to 53. Why cutting middle management is blowing up I think titled it differently YouTube in that one we talked about. they're getting rid of middle management not replacing anything. They're just driving those that work to other employees up or up down in the organization. Yeah, mostly down. Yeah, right because know, got nothing better do time. But that would be my question here is like is actual legitimate restructuring going on or it just the wet blanket being thrown over already poor processes? know, know. So speaking poor processes, let's talk about what unfiltered real time signals actually means for people that produce those So question for signals. Oh yes. So There's some great quotes here. And now it's the part where the authors lose contact with how companies actually work the real world. here's the article telling boards that their quote fiduciary duty has changed. And I'm read this verbatim verbatim verbatim verbatim from the bottom, from bottom the fiduciary duty of oversight now requires something more uncomfortable, unfiltered access to real time signals that bypass executive summary such as short bounded experiments with clear success metrics and accountability. All right. Question [UM] have you ever met a board member who actually wanted pull real time stats in a data feed because in 20 years I've not met one. No, I have not. That's easy question answer. Boards continue to operate as they have the pre era. They're working off filtered committee approved reports from the C suite. They are not exercising governance. It's next line. The fiduciary duty oversight fiduciary duty oversight that requires something more uncomfortable. Is it? uncomfortable or is just a lot busy or unfiltered access to real time signals that bypass executive summary such short bounded experiments with clear success. so the board members bring own product managers now or their own data analysts now. More information isn't an invitation to meddle I disagree. disagree the default position should be to empower the autonomous scrum and get way. So board members are come down to the cross -functional teams and start asking. That's interesting that if if this article wasn't so bad, I would invite that as a part that should talk about is have ever seen board members at your Sprint review or in your planning? Yeah, I know. know. Never. lot this article like when get into this part anyway. It's lot like how to best care your unicorn. Like are you talking about, dude? Yeah, I agree. I think the uncomfortable aspect of board members actually looking at real data might be they might not like what they see, so they're just not going look at that. That's how feel. They, uncomfortableness discomfort is because they probably don't really want to see what's know, what's there. clearly. It's sort can read the top line? you read the fourth line? don't want read fourth line, so I'm going squint this. So the fiduciary duty business is just, it's, it's, it's like when somebody uses big word that not everyone understands. Everyone just kind like nods along lets them keep going. That that's what this is like. I looked into corporate law and fiduciary duty and this law has not changed in long time. definitely definitely doesn't have any .I. amendments. recently about, know, needing changes reporting. It's just the care mark standard that they talk and like we're not go into because it's super boring. Caremark standard requires boards have reasonable oversight system generally satisfied by having any good faith monitoring. There's lot latitude behind that good faith monitoring. So if your argument is people are manipulating these reports not giving me clean numbers, then OK, well, you're board member. why you standing by while you get fraudulent reports? Why not solve that problem? Like we autonomous scrum? Because the principles, one pillars is transparency. I know you're big shot right for HBR. So like you know I'm just like small fry over here podcast or But but but listen I know what pillars are. Right? One is transparency. The other ones are [UH] inspection adaptation. Yeah, yeah that's nice. Most the time these board members don't even worry about these pillars. All care about is rosy numbers forward looking statements. And [UH] how's stock doing? That's craziest part is I've seen most unhinged stuff come down from top. You know, make this away. Make, know, change this change that that kind stuff. may say we're doing this know, we're building mobile this year. Well, not build mobile app. Yeah, but knew everyone's built mobile app. can't left out. just add that in. Yeah, that's right. know that this usually where the unhinged stuff comes from. So yeah, it's great again. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe that, know, maybe a career spent a bone picker Maybe that's different than a career spent tech, but I know. Wild, wild authors are saying that these people should be owning this. I don't know. But put them up. So that's maybe should write HBR article. That's should do we need couch it in way where appeals to the HBR audience. But then when actually read the article, it's all, it's all like what they did with the, you know don't do consensus. Just be the single point and be the single bottleneck for everything. It'll be the the anti gold rat gold book. That's what need write. Oh my Lord. Be the bottleneck for everything. You know, be hardcore mode though. That's the Elon Musk what's his name Brian Chesky. Oh yeah. The founder hardcore founder mode hardcore founder mode. That's new HBR article. Look for it coming near a near year coming soon. Steelman audit committees do request specialized reporting. do that all time. They're like sometimes board brings in auditors and they will go through with a fine toothed comb. I've been through audits. This stuff happens. You know, an activist investors, they bring, they do bring in technical staff. They go get the data themselves and come site do whatever. then I'm saying, yeah, temporarily one off, you know, once year, maybe once every couple years. Yeah, because that takes money. It does. And it's mostly done to placate regulatory violations or requirements unless you're pitching your sweet consulting group come in and a whole new, whole new business [UM] influenced independence investor relations, a whole team that just twenty four seven works your investors and of course gets paid you know by your company. Sure. On behalf. But it's great. Yeah, is. I'm starting see market segmentation happening here I'm going stick steel man though like although I should just move on because I'm not supporting these very well. Some boards genuinely have members are very technical, technical backgrounds I feel there's missing second part that which is and they're not querying sequel either. No, they're not. Yeah, they've moved on, know, and then then the success theater name in here like that's not surreal. Like the, know, the, the fake reports kind stuff happens, happens all time. And probably every company I've ever been in, they massage the reports before front board. know, that's better word than manipulate. But yes, yeah. we don't like word fraud because of you know, it's a couple people got sent jail. Now suddenly you can't commit fraud anymore. let's look the optimism. Let's, let's be optimist for second. OK, because because the practitioner side this is I have say didn't, I didn't put it in to the slides we just read. But practitioner side this is one respect most of steelman. practitioner will say, listen, the board meets couple times year. They're skimming deck matter how many details we put in. Who cares? Who cares what we put [UH] it's all manipulated. It's all fake anyway. don't even read it. Most time even read it. So big deal. Yeah, me practitioner. I've seen that exact thing over over over again. know, it's got end in one slide and nobody skims it anyway. I would take that practitioner's against point and flip around say, then why then why need this article? if you're saying that the boards never dig in to this level, I would say then why is the why? Why are they suggesting it? This just getting real to most employees don't have real time access to most these systems. Most employees locked these systems. Exactly. say they don't have real time access. Not not because that's how the system is. It's, it's deliberate. They're not given access, and also the other point here that I touched on earlier is why are we not fixing the transparency problem? Why we building much systems involving consultants and doing this backflips? Why don't just solve transparency problem if that really is problem? Are you saying too culturally spread to do anything about? And that's you're saying, will say that is the most cynical take. It may be most cynical take, but I think disease is malignant and there's no easy cure. So we're living with it right now as we have been doing for a long, time. Sadly, yeah. you know, now what we're doing is we're just putting under dressing on the. On wound and calling it eye. Let's have some takeaways here. So that when the diagnosis is information distortion, the cure is transparency as a corporate value. Not whole bunch more dashboards or consulting dollars on a team come in and do whatever you know or a bunch your board members wasting time vibe coding sequel searches whatever. Like I understand the tools exist. Happened in reality. No, absolutely not. But that's that's what they're leaning towards Yeah. anybody's got I know. So that's what would go here. But in reality, what would happen is the companies are spending money because the board members say they want to engage their consulting firm to do some audits. They build some reports blah blah. Now money's flowing back BG. That, that's it. mean, it's not like a one to three. It's a one step Surely isis. Yeah, yeah[UH] I call that influenced independence. So have questions. your org's actual problem information distortion or is it lack of transparency as a value? Not declared, but probably latter. Right. and who profits from this suggestion? Just build more systems, you know, rather than just change your values or get CEO or get, know, change enough board members or change enough senior leadership that know, they bring the values that you want that company. Right? know, value driven board members. I was say development but it's not development. They're not hang around long enough to see results you're to do things the right way. So they may as well just do the song dance move and pocket difference. I got a big difference usually. I got a Monday morning. I got Monday morning you know what you do Monday morning kind of suggestion here. You, you pick a report that you do regular basis or status update something regular basis. say what take? What take make this report tell the actual truth without consequences? And if you can't even try it, you got, I think I got one piece advice for you as we updated. would say, you know, if you're doing status reports regularly, just just don't do it couple weeks and just repeat the last status report did two weeks ago just send it out new date and see who complains. because most people just look it yeah, looks good. That's it. Listen, same thing board. They don't, they're not read. They're going skim it. They're skim They're skim They're listen to the story. There's another package do about storytelling. Yeah, that's a great thing. They're just listen story and be enamored with the story that the CEO was telling they're waiving hands stuff like Yeah, bananas, bananas suggestion. And spend any more time on it. So comment time. Have you ever worked closely with board members I have. So I'm interested how many other folks listen this podcast have. So have ever seen them ask for and or pull real time operational data or did it always get routed through management of some some way, shape form? You know, tell specifically because I'm interested know about this, know, unfiltered signal work that they're talking about here the article And now let's talk about part part the art. And now let's talk about the part of the article that gave whole worldview away. The peacetime general portion. Oh, you're like this one[UM] all And this the part of the article that ends flattering you instead flattening you. I don't know why they would do that. That's, that's, that seems rude. Yeah. So here's, here's closing story from the HBR article. And I'm read it for me. I'm screen here. I'm going to read verbatim. it's executives thrive this environment, the environment they're explaining. so you don't have all decisions. don't have all the information at hand, but need decision anyway. OK they will share particular disposition. They'll be comfortable, even excited, making consequential decisions on incomplete information. will trust signals over instinct, speed over process and small teams over consensus. Wait minute. thought our board was pulling real time members. Why don't we have data? They will demand a world continuous feedback loops and recognize the greatest sin is not making wrong call but making no call at all I'm product manager so don't like none this is new me right now. OK, this is at its core a test of character rather than capability or intellect. We once encountered CEO mid turnaround who argued with genuine conviction that his talents were better suited for growth than crisis. That's like being peacetime general. We told him he was replaced the next day. The anecdote is instructive not because its outcome but because the psychology. It reveals even asas organization was failing, the leader's mental model remain anchored to world that no longer existed. And they go on talk about the speed of A .I. and you need speed of decision making. the issue is you just need to be more reckless and speedy in your decisions and maybe move fast break law. That's, that's fast break things. Yeah So that's closing story article. Now, now ask few questions So it's like our, it's our 10 question speed round. Oh, that's right. It's like Lenny's podcast except real questions. Sorry[UM] So now question now I ask questions that the article isn't ask. So what was what was person's name? What was their company? Was the replacement good call? Did destroy the company? Was new CEO better worse fired six months later? We don't know any that because article doesn't say there's no name. There's no company. There's no date. There's no follow up. It's what they're doing here is not argument. It's a flattery delivery mechanism. Right. Meant to compliment the reader and say see kid like you. have I know kid is. know why reader is like puppy. bat him. Yeah. reader is puppy. It's a, it's meant to, to talk down honestly to the, to the reader and invite them to identify with the wise judges of character you know, not with guy that didn't make cut, which is funny because lot people reading this might identify guy that didn't make it. Well, my company's growing pretty big, pretty big. I, have imposter syndrome, supposed just nod this anecdote and go like everyone's along with the whole thing, you know. here's issue this is a pop business shoplifting happening right here. So the Ben Horwitz wrote original peacetime CEO wartime CEO essay 2011 And it also landed in book The Hard about hard hard things. Yeah, 2014. Yeah, it's the HBR article here, the authors in this HBR article, They use it without any reference to Ben Horowitz, any attribution to Ben Horowitz or the hard thing about hard things. So it's, it's saying that's borrowed without attribution. Lift shifted is polite. I will say yeah. And know, once again, something else the editor of HBR should have caught, especially they're, know, the business editor extraordinaire over here. And I'm kind shocked that this, this, you know I'm kind shocked that didn't, you know, and there's no because been so easy just have a reference there say put an asterisk on it and then put footnote in. know, or just or throw line as they say the book. The hard thing about hard things. then yeah any attribution would be I think the right thing do Yeah, it's shocking but also very disappointing as a former consumer of HBR articles en masse that's still going on by way. HBR articles are the fodder for MBA schools. So if this is quality that we're getting now, I feel for our generation [UH] bananas, bananas. Crazy. So [UH] listen. Oh, decisive leadership under uncertain conditions and without data. That's real. It's like some people freeze. There's self -aware leaders do step aside because they know they're in over their heads like that. That's real thing. And also know, get off my back. It's also rare. And also anonymous anecdotes are are common. They're common writing convention. It's just a writing convention. Although I wonder if the people saying that steelman and defending it would also agree like commonly lifting from other from other publications without calling you like it's stealing is leveraging whatever call it. Oh man, listen people are saying fill in the blanks like nobody's saying it. But you said lot people are saying I don't like to call it stealing. like to call it light shop shop lifting. That's what like call it. Little pop culture shop lifting. the great thing about the Againster is like there's there is three things going on. Is because the agile reference. Number one. But number two is because these three things together really, really threw me for loop. was like, oh, three things we watch for in the same article time bring this one up, friend. So the credential parade because the authors position themselves a big name companies and know hot shots. know, there's no second guessing us. make, you know, important decisions. Yeah And then unverifiable stats. Right? So you know, the name, no company. We wash out the CEO. know, we're great. And then the self flattery of the reader that obviously is going on here. Yeah, buddy, you're good enough. You're it's, it's almost like the opposite of the, the fear hook we point out many times where they're like if you're not using AI, you're going be left behind. It's almost like opposite Yeah, yeah, If you make these, if you make decisions without evidence and never look back whether was good decision or a bad decision, you're a good boy. Have have dog biscuit I don't know where these things go. Boy, boy. let's, let's, let's zip through these four items here because there's too much screen. yeah, yeah. But that academic is was academic point that we probably didn't even read podcast because wasn't very good. was saying like hey listen like the the flexi the flexibility of the message to apply audience we're writing for like that. That's real thing you need have. You need have you have articles in the in the form of what these folks are looking for except except it treats all of the examples that refute the binary position that this article is pointing out as if they don't exist. You know, it treats the Jeff Bezos and Reed Hastings all those folks world that actually built a good company. And doesn't touch them. It's like you need to make you make basically all people that say like the one way door to day to day to day way door versus two way door decisions. go back on you with if it's one way decision really do want to investigate and do your diligence. Right? know, don't make your decision without lot evidence. But it's two way door, then yeah, go for it. know, things like that. You know that even the even culture Amazon six pager, you don't bring up six pager and get it, know, thumbs up and get it going unless you've done your top to bottom research. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And this sort like don't worry. Don't worry, CEO. Mr. CEO, don't worry. You can just make oh six shooter from hip decisions and you'll be fine. That's what it seems. It does. It's amazing think that know people this caliber would endorse such thing. And anybody that's questioning you. need this obvious framework because they should just be the, they should just crowd. They should just be, know, just shuffle them off pick your favorite people they have veto authority and then they'll let know you because they're your favorite two people. So you can trust them to let know you're gone too far. You know, you're not taking things into consideration. Yeah. Yeah. And gives you that fake independence too [UH] it's not my decision. They even endorsed it. Yeah. Yeah. Unbelievable. Yeah. Bob told good idea. Yes, is Timmy little Timmy told me was a God bless us everyone. A Dickensian Christmas tale. That's what we're doing. boy. and then as always we're exposing meta meta pattern. That's the payoff of this episode is a whole episode shows the behind curtain what's happening the unverifiable hero story to read or flattery to buy my worldview to now buy my book. Yeah. So I services like consulting. Right. end day, that's where lands. So the funnel mechanism. And boy, I hate it. do hate I do hate it. Sure. But for purpose time, is there a takeaway in this category? If someone's telling you this story, that's what is. Someone's telling this story and they want you to not along. They come along with them and get inspired by the story like are there names of people or companies or dates in the story where their follow ups done to the story or they just telling you a Dickensian Christmas tale Is there any substance there? Yeah, yeah. mean, like ask these questions as story is happening. mean, hate be one that's like you should question when someone's, you know, trying inspire whatever. But you kind should because at end that inspiration is, you know if I'm nodding along and I'm just like placidly just kind yeah, that sounds good. Yeah, should. Yeah When are they to turn into? And now need buy my book. Like when's that shoe drop? It's coming. Don't worry. So yeah, you may well just say wait minute. Right. me just [UH] introspect this little bit more. And if the antidote is doing all rhetorical work and can't back any of it up. You have ask Where's the verifiable evidence here? Not just the the narrative strategy that's being deployed here. Just story. Yeah. Yeah. where's where's hand? So last comment of episode. Tell us what your most recent management article that close with an anonymous hero story like this was or link it because we'd like go read it. Sure. And know when and when did you realize that you were being flattered into agreeing with things? What did you do about it? what did think about it? Yeah, that's right flip table. us when flip table. So after five segments we have a case study in bankruptcy. That's retrofitted with scrum vocabulary. We have proof in the point that consensus management is not working. That shows consensus management be working actually working. Yeah. And we've got some.I. sprinkled in somewhere because A.I. is hot. Yeah. All kids are doing the .I. So you know read the byline out of framework like check the proof read the article. I try to link it the comments and [UH] you know, nod along like I was nodding along with it and spit my coffee when read it. So, oh, when I went in, when we first read through the article, when were prepping this but when were prepping this podcast, I thought that was just brochure with citations until dug it I realized that like rot is real. It's and goes deep. And it's like then was really concerned with the question of how did this get past the HBR checks or editors or editorial review or whatever. I don't know. That is amazing think that you know that was even edited because don't see that much an evidence there. Like it wasn't really was just submitted and published without any checkpoints. Perhaps possibly. I don't know. guess maybe because the jobs of the authors. Who knows I mean again, that's part credential parade that was pointing out is oh, they worked at Google for X number years. They must be, know, must know they're talking about. Yeah, must know what they're talking about [UH] I'm not going question them or do any my editorial checks or anything. And that's just wild for for a for HBR that so many people look to to kind lead them in their thought leadership. Wild. Yeah, crazy. Absolutely. So that's other takeaways for this is, know, look your sources, figure out what, know, what quality of output they have and be your own judge. That's right. And you know, and if like this podcast, like and subscribe,