Innovation can be delivered in change processes ...that's where we need to trim out bureaucracy Operationalizing scale requires discipline and controls which preserve the quality of service and productivity Bureaucracy typically grows out of the lack of discipline (accountability) and/or trust (review, approval, layers) The key lies with the design of products, production, and organization. IFF any one of these is out of sync, the management response is to introduce process, controls, and institutionalization which creates bureaucracy. The right reaction is to correct the design flaws, but that requires a different way to frame the problem.
Dear Bill, I am honored to be calling you our CEO soon. I am looking forward to learning what Bayer can achieve once we stop turning the crank and start owning it. Realizing that it is a journey of years. I am here for the ride!
Gary; after listening to your thought provoking interview, I’m unclear what Busting Bureaucracy is, or how to do it. I’m going to start with my definition of bureaucracy- *Bureaucracy:* _the structure and rules of an organization which constrain peoples’ activities. It typically has defined policies and procedures (rule following), formal division of responsibility, hierarchy, chain of command, lines of communication and record keeping._ To summarize, the bureaucracy of an organisation is its *structures* _(like a football field)_, _*_rules_*_ _(like football rules)_ and *gameplay* _(tactics employed to win)_. This is common to all games; the structure, rules and gameplay are there so we know what to do when we play a game with others. This is all that sets Football apart from Basketball and Whirlpool from Haier. What does it mean to *bust* the structure, rules and gameplay of an organisation? Bill says its more than rationalizing and optimizing what you’ve got, it’s a matter of swapping them out completely. But how would such a transition be possible? How could you successfully change from playing Football to Basketball? Halfway between, have you still got a viable game? This interview with Bill Anderson seems to suggest that *Humanocracy* and the new structures, rules and gameplay of *Roche* have much in common. You Gary, and Michele seem familiar with the game Bill has worked out. But I am struggling to visualize this new game and I would like to know more about it. As a new corporate game, it seems to offer a more humane, more personal experience combined with greater commercial success. *Sounds great, I’m all in!* Could you tell us about the structures, rules and gameplay of your new Humanocracy model. Don’t tell me what it’s not, and don’t tell me how I’m gonna feel when I play it. Don’t be vague and emotive. Be specific and formal- spell it out for me. *Wikipedia* covers the rules and gameplay of Baseball in *10 paragraphs*- could you do the same for Humanocracy? It would help us all. What do I have to buy to get started? How many people are needed to play it? How do I know I’m winning? I also need to check that Humanocracy will satisfy my Legal, Regulatory and Fiduciary requirements as a Corporation. You know, ....just to check it’s got a solid legal foundation. Give me enough to try it out for myself- give me those *ten paragraphs*. I want to play Humanocracy and see if it really is better than the game I’m currently playing.
“We put a lot of energy to positive vibes but we put a lot less energy into unsticking work” 18:00 thanks bill and welcome to Bayer! You give me hope in a way I haven’t imagined to be possible
Its a pitty that a guy crashing a Soda bottle in a supermarket gets so much more likes and views than this quality content! Thanks to Bill for sharing some of the ideas behind the concept.
Thanks for this insightful interview. Many more like this are necessary to solve our current conundrum. As a company grows in scale and complexity it gradually surpasses its current infrastructure "carrying capacity", including the founder's ability (and inclination) to do everything better than anyone else and to be "the owner". This infrastructure like the plumbing and wiring of a house or the bones of the human body. So many start ups flounder and fail because their founders are not able to make the necessary transition to a new infrastructure (including changing their own behaviors). The question is how do you build this new infrastructure without incurring in bureaucracy? What structures, processes, systems, and culture have to be put in place in order to provide the fledgling venture with the capabilities it needs to grow and reap the scale and scope benefits that Anderson mentions? When will we be teaching these at business schools and management development programs, if ever?
Lots of good ideas talked about- and surely the start of a shift to a better model. But I'd like to hear about some of the harder systems that make this all possible- or more specifically accountable. Bill talked about the resources of Roche being allocated to projects. But how is this done? How are the resources of the shareholders protected? Do the workforce share in the rewards of financial success other than feeling better about their job?
This is strange, this is a typical guy that had had privilege HIS entire life but now moved into like the ownership of a company and wants to reap ALL the profits. How about a system that looks at a companies profits then decides salaries to people on the lower end to actually get much higher wages? The minimum wage has been so low for 40 years that we truly have a divisional system between the rich and the poor. I think this right here is a hidden way to screw the avg human being even more. "We added positions, not people? Sounds like ways to add much more work and less humans. Something ain't right at the coffee bar...
The authors are being celebrated for concepts that are neither new nor viable for most companies. The authors have clearly very little to no experience in managing either companies or change of that scale. The poor quality of their book is telling. And regarding Bill Anderson... Good grief, I work at Roche and he's caused organizational mayhem that will haunt them for years to come. Watch out, Bayer employees!
What a pitty they started the presentation with a 3D pie chart - you can't take anyone serious who uses 3D pie charts. Kidding, the ideas are good obviously.
@45:30 end-to-end-jobs: Volvo Kalmar showed that instead of an assembly line you can teamassemble cars.
Innovation can be delivered in change processes ...that's where we need to trim out bureaucracy
Operationalizing scale requires discipline and controls which preserve the quality of service and productivity
Bureaucracy typically grows out of the lack of discipline (accountability) and/or trust (review, approval, layers)
The key lies with the design of products, production, and organization. IFF any one of these is out of sync, the management response is to introduce process, controls, and institutionalization which creates bureaucracy. The right reaction is to correct the design flaws, but that requires a different way to frame the problem.
Dear Bill, I am honored to be calling you our CEO soon. I am looking forward to learning what Bayer can achieve once we stop turning the crank and start owning it. Realizing that it is a journey of years. I am here for the ride!
I work for Bayer China, also looking forward to the changes!
Gary; after listening to your thought provoking interview, I’m unclear what Busting Bureaucracy is, or how to do it.
I’m going to start with my definition of bureaucracy-
*Bureaucracy:* _the structure and rules of an organization which constrain peoples’ activities.
It typically has defined policies and procedures (rule following), formal division of responsibility, hierarchy, chain of command, lines of communication and record keeping._
To summarize, the bureaucracy of an organisation is its *structures* _(like a football field)_, _*_rules_*_ _(like football rules)_ and *gameplay* _(tactics employed to win)_.
This is common to all games; the structure, rules and gameplay are there so we know what to do when we play a game with others.
This is all that sets Football apart from Basketball and Whirlpool from Haier.
What does it mean to *bust* the structure, rules and gameplay of an organisation?
Bill says its more than rationalizing and optimizing what you’ve got, it’s a matter of swapping them out completely.
But how would such a transition be possible?
How could you successfully change from playing Football to Basketball?
Halfway between, have you still got a viable game?
This interview with Bill Anderson seems to suggest that *Humanocracy* and the new structures, rules and gameplay of *Roche* have much in common.
You Gary, and Michele seem familiar with the game Bill has worked out.
But I am struggling to visualize this new game and I would like to know more about it.
As a new corporate game, it seems to offer a more humane, more personal experience combined with greater commercial success.
*Sounds great, I’m all in!*
Could you tell us about the structures, rules and gameplay of your new Humanocracy model.
Don’t tell me what it’s not, and don’t tell me how I’m gonna feel when I play it. Don’t be vague and emotive.
Be specific and formal- spell it out for me.
*Wikipedia* covers the rules and gameplay of Baseball in *10 paragraphs*- could you do the same for Humanocracy? It would help us all.
What do I have to buy to get started? How many people are needed to play it? How do I know I’m winning?
I also need to check that Humanocracy will satisfy my Legal, Regulatory and Fiduciary requirements as a Corporation. You know, ....just to check it’s got a solid legal foundation.
Give me enough to try it out for myself- give me those *ten paragraphs*.
I want to play Humanocracy and see if it really is better than the game I’m currently playing.
“We put a lot of energy to positive vibes but we put a lot less energy into unsticking work” 18:00 thanks bill and welcome to Bayer! You give me hope in a way I haven’t imagined to be possible
Its a pitty that a guy crashing a Soda bottle in a supermarket gets so much more likes and views than this quality content! Thanks to Bill for sharing some of the ideas behind the concept.
Thanks for this insightful interview. Many more like this are necessary to solve our current conundrum. As a company grows in scale and complexity it gradually surpasses its current infrastructure "carrying capacity", including the founder's ability (and inclination) to do everything better than anyone else and to be "the owner". This infrastructure like the plumbing and wiring of a house or the bones of the human body. So many start ups flounder and fail because their founders are not able to make the necessary transition to a new infrastructure (including changing their own behaviors). The question is how do you build this new infrastructure without incurring in bureaucracy? What structures, processes, systems, and culture have to be put in place in order to provide the fledgling venture with the capabilities it needs to grow and reap the scale and scope benefits that Anderson mentions? When will we be teaching these at business schools and management development programs, if ever?
Lots of good ideas talked about- and surely the start of a shift to a better model.
But I'd like to hear about some of the harder systems that make this all possible- or more specifically accountable.
Bill talked about the resources of Roche being allocated to projects. But how is this done? How are the resources of the shareholders protected?
Do the workforce share in the rewards of financial success other than feeling better about their job?
And now people at Bayer are realizing this transition is not an easy one. Especially for a German global company.
best Bayer, can’t imagine more!
So far it’s failed when tried before. Not sure why people even still talk about this management philosophy
Where is this assessment that people can take to find out how they still think and behave bureaucratically?
This is strange, this is a typical guy that had had privilege HIS entire life but now moved into like the ownership of a company and wants to reap ALL the profits. How about a system that looks at a companies profits then decides salaries to people on the lower end to actually get much higher wages? The minimum wage has been so low for 40 years that we truly have a divisional system between the rich and the poor. I think this right here is a hidden way to screw the avg human being even more.
"We added positions, not people? Sounds like ways to add much more work and less humans. Something ain't right at the coffee bar...
The authors are being celebrated for concepts that are neither new nor viable for most companies.
The authors have clearly very little to no experience in managing either companies or change of that scale. The poor quality of their book is telling.
And regarding Bill Anderson... Good grief, I work at Roche and he's caused organizational mayhem that will haunt them for years to come. Watch out, Bayer employees!
The build up is just ridiculous
What a pitty they started the presentation with a 3D pie chart - you can't take anyone serious who uses 3D pie charts. Kidding, the ideas are good obviously.
This is all a vague scam