doesn't the OS designer role– in the case of the typical sort of business you might imagine– fall to the CEO/founders? Sure I guess they could outsource it to someone else but that seems a bit bonkers to me, "Here's my baby, pls design it". Hiring a coach or external agency who could help with organizational transformation makes more intuitive sense to me than having someone internal– I'm not sure why though. Maybe its just that, in a dominance hierarchy, the CEO is both the engine and governor (in the sense of limiting fuel) of any transformation? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I get the sense that many folks in leadership roles aren't sure what to do (as far as org/OS design) or hold some fear(s) about fucking up, so they run with the standard operating procedure and playbooks that keep them stuck at a local optimum (which often is pretty sucky for many people in the org).
I've been learning about Frederic Laloux's work recently– so far it seems like that might provide the core OS design I've been looking for. Excited to dive deeper though.
I think it does fall to the founder/CEO/executive director. And that hiring external feels intuitive.
I guess I could see a world where the CEO brings people on (full time?) to help people with their OS. In my experience, OS work is never done. Which is where hiring external falls short—it’s temporary help, then you gotta carry it forward. I just haven’t seen it carried forward in many cases, which is why I wonder about the opportunity of “OS Designer” in-house.
Even when there are in house org designers, the org always brings on external help. (I’ve been that external help in many cases.) so still thinking about this!
makes total sense to me– every org I've worked within that tries to calcify an OS (often while hoping for stability or efficiency gains) ends up stamping out the energy and enthusiasm that comes with growth and change.
I'm reminded of the Dieter Rams quote, "good design is as little design as possible". I wonder if org design follows that same advice. I wonder if, in some ways, the role of a skillful org designer is in making sure that the conditions for energy, growth, and enthusiasm are tended to. That old processes no longer serving an org are called out and weeded out. Less adding, more editing.
I'm curious– what do you think the day-to-day of the role might look like?
doesn't the OS designer role– in the case of the typical sort of business you might imagine– fall to the CEO/founders? Sure I guess they could outsource it to someone else but that seems a bit bonkers to me, "Here's my baby, pls design it". Hiring a coach or external agency who could help with organizational transformation makes more intuitive sense to me than having someone internal– I'm not sure why though. Maybe its just that, in a dominance hierarchy, the CEO is both the engine and governor (in the sense of limiting fuel) of any transformation? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I get the sense that many folks in leadership roles aren't sure what to do (as far as org/OS design) or hold some fear(s) about fucking up, so they run with the standard operating procedure and playbooks that keep them stuck at a local optimum (which often is pretty sucky for many people in the org).
I've been learning about Frederic Laloux's work recently– so far it seems like that might provide the core OS design I've been looking for. Excited to dive deeper though.
As always, thanks for sharing!
I think it does fall to the founder/CEO/executive director. And that hiring external feels intuitive.
I guess I could see a world where the CEO brings people on (full time?) to help people with their OS. In my experience, OS work is never done. Which is where hiring external falls short—it’s temporary help, then you gotta carry it forward. I just haven’t seen it carried forward in many cases, which is why I wonder about the opportunity of “OS Designer” in-house.
Even when there are in house org designers, the org always brings on external help. (I’ve been that external help in many cases.) so still thinking about this!
"OS work is never done."
makes total sense to me– every org I've worked within that tries to calcify an OS (often while hoping for stability or efficiency gains) ends up stamping out the energy and enthusiasm that comes with growth and change.
I'm reminded of the Dieter Rams quote, "good design is as little design as possible". I wonder if org design follows that same advice. I wonder if, in some ways, the role of a skillful org designer is in making sure that the conditions for energy, growth, and enthusiasm are tended to. That old processes no longer serving an org are called out and weeded out. Less adding, more editing.
I'm curious– what do you think the day-to-day of the role might look like?