> The cross-functional team confirms the plan for tackling their goals in the next quarter.
Your organization does not equally reward teams that do this in a transparent manner because it has a bias towards new and shiny projects. Teams that work on shiny new projects get way more leeway to propose unrealistic goals without actually achieving them.
> They then set up a meeting cadence to check in, and they make clear communication rules in a public channel so the rest of the team can keep up with each other when there are questions. Backchanneling is nonexistent, and there aren’t many questions because micromanagement is at a minimum.
Your organization does not equally reward teams that do this in a transparent manner because there is not enough cracking down on people that behave like assholes in public channels in the name of transparency. Team X's manager can be an asshole in Team Y's public channel, but Team Y's manager behaves quite nicely in Team X's public channel. Ironically, since you didn't fire Team X's manager, the organizational perception becomes that Team Y is the one with problems, since "there's always someone complaining about them".
> The group identifies problems as they come up, brings them to the attention of everyone on the team and discusses them publicly.
Your organization does not equally reward teams that do this in a transparent manner because teams that work on moonshots that fail miserably never have their problems discussed; but teams that do slow and steady work are often micromanaged to death about some 5% productivity drop this week.
See any commonalities here? Even if each team is managed perfectly by itself, organization-wide disparities can lead to these undesirable patterns appearing anyway. Your organizational leaders and management as a team need to work together to make things more equitable, and fight the natural emergence of these patterns.
Your organization does not equally reward teams that do this in a transparent manner because it has a bias towards new and shiny projects. Teams that work on shiny new projects get way more leeway to propose unrealistic goals without actually achieving them.
> They then set up a meeting cadence to check in, and they make clear communication rules in a public channel so the rest of the team can keep up with each other when there are questions. Backchanneling is nonexistent, and there aren’t many questions because micromanagement is at a minimum.
Your organization does not equally reward teams that do this in a transparent manner because there is not enough cracking down on people that behave like assholes in public channels in the name of transparency. Team X's manager can be an asshole in Team Y's public channel, but Team Y's manager behaves quite nicely in Team X's public channel. Ironically, since you didn't fire Team X's manager, the organizational perception becomes that Team Y is the one with problems, since "there's always someone complaining about them".
> The group identifies problems as they come up, brings them to the attention of everyone on the team and discusses them publicly.
Your organization does not equally reward teams that do this in a transparent manner because teams that work on moonshots that fail miserably never have their problems discussed; but teams that do slow and steady work are often micromanaged to death about some 5% productivity drop this week.
See any commonalities here? Even if each team is managed perfectly by itself, organization-wide disparities can lead to these undesirable patterns appearing anyway. Your organizational leaders and management as a team need to work together to make things more equitable, and fight the natural emergence of these patterns.