11–20 of 27 posts
If we could stop adding "Ops" to every word...
Sales? SalesOps. HR? PeopleOps.
I worked ... in operations. We didn't get a shiny new name. But then, we actually did WORK, which had to continue at the datacenters -- not just get drunk on Zoom, like "PeopleOps" did.
Now, seriously, I find the various Ops way of seeing things refreshing. Usually it's just a repackaging of old ideas, but hey, half of infrastructure is packaging. So go for it.
If I get to avoid urgent work to make room for important work and the company has my back cause we are implementing "DecisionOps". That is fine.
Ops is just one letter away from Oops. Now, seriously, I find the various Ops way of seeing things refreshing. Usually it's just a repackaging of old ideas, but hey, half of infrastructure is packaging. So go for it. If I get to avoid urgent work to make room for important work and the company has my back cause we are implementing "DecisionOps". That is fine.
It doesn't really answer any of the hard questions. There is nothing particularly controversial but the hard questions include: 1) How do you actually measure performance? 2) How do you deal with performance and variance in individuals? 3) How do you set an acceptable performance level? 4) How do you make allowances for external disruption that affects performance? With more than 3 years in management, I have persona…
It doesn't really answer any of the hard questions. There is nothing particularly controversial but the hard questions include: 1) How do you actually measure performance? 2) How do you deal with performance and variance in individuals? 3) How do you set an acceptable performance level? 4) How do you make allowances for external disruption that affects performance? With more than 3 years in management, I have persona…
To me, standards are a clear, agreed-upon baseline that every member of the team must meet. They're not what we preach, they're what we tolerate. It is intolerable if a member of the team doesn't meet a standard.
Goals on the other hand, are what we hope for; they cannot be "lived up to", coerced on an individual or forced from the outside. If a member of the team can't achieve a goal, then they need differents goals.
I set the standards to be low and universal, while the goals are high and person-specific[1]. I'm thinking objectives could be thought of as "parts of standards that must be met at a later point in time but now now"[2]. But I'm still figuring it out. I think material about education is relevant, and helps to avoid easy, versatile, and deceiving thought-terminating cliches like "expectations".
[1] https://apasseducation.com/education-blog/3-differences-cont... [2] https://dataworks-ed.com/blog/2014/07/how-to-craft-a-learnin...
If we could stop adding "Ops" to every word...
The last company I worked at renamed every department in this fashion. Sales? SalesOps. HR? PeopleOps. I worked ... in operations. We didn't get a shiny new name. But then, we actually did WORK, which had to continue at the datacenters -- not just get drunk on Zoom, like "PeopleOps" did.
If you have witnessed, or even just heard of, properly functioning HR, please share your story.
MintingOps (n) creation of new words by dressing them up with a postfix "Ops" The piece is not about operationalizing decision-making, how to make decisions in ops, or even about which elective surgeries I should choose. It's an incoherent grab bag of management ideas.
It doesn't really answer any of the hard questions. There is nothing particularly controversial but the hard questions include: 1) How do you actually measure performance? 2) How do you deal with performance and variance in individuals? 3) How do you set an acceptable performance level? 4) How do you make allowances for external disruption that affects performance? With more than 3 years in management, I have persona…