Comments on: Us vs. Them in Business

By: Tim B

Tim B — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 19:36:10 +0000

A quote I have always loved is that a business isno more than a group of people trying to get along and get something done with a certifcate filled in Delaware.
Trabalism and the need to move away fromthe Norm is detialed in novels and sience fiction. The innovators create and can not fit in the new machine they invent. So they create a new world, a new tribe, The good and the bad is they can not for all they try be part of the machine. they create a new one that is small enough to understand and exsist within

By: David Maister

David Maister — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:52:02 +0000

In a recent article “Do You Really Want Relationships,” (http://davidmaister.com/articles/2/80) /I explore the ways the confusion of Us and Them prevents both good relationships with clients and good management. In modern business, people preach that they want relationships, but the truth is that they take a “Them” transaction to most encounters.

By: David Foster

David Foster — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:02:40 +0000

One thing that helps *a lot* is to distinguish between good and bad kinds of internal competition. Competition between two sales regions is usually good; competition between hardware and software engineering is usually bad. Competition between two product line divisions is usually good; competition between engineering and marketing is usually bad. Organizational decisions should be made to maximize good competition and minimize harmful competition.

By: David G

David G — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:42:03 +0000

Startups do fail (probably more frequently) – so, it’s not that they are easier to “keep the team united” – in my experience, succesful startups have to go through a (sometimes painful) “changing of the guard” as the bulk of the work evolves from 80% creation to 80% management & administration –> very few people excel in both phases –> we’re either good at the startup kind of work or the corporate kind –> even if we do stay on through the transition, the startup kind of employee typically grows miserable as the company becomes “corporate” and their workload administrative – likewise the corporate folk often find the kind of work required in a startup beneath them – they enjoy corporate power and abhor the waste of mundane activities like booking your own travel etc. – e.g. I heard of a bean-counter who quit a startup after one day when he realized he was required to write checks by hand

By: laurence haughton

laurence haughton — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:30:29 +0000

Yet the NYC fire departement with over 30,000 maintains it passion for its purpose. (I also found a lot of shared purpose at IKEA.) And by the way it can work very well at the team level

You’re right it’s easier for the smaller units. But most organizations give up and don’t even try the few simple acts that go far in sharing a purpose.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 04:26:54 +0000

I think that it’s also much easier to keep a small group unified behind a common purpose. For example, 5 individuals find one another, and because of their common thinking, set off on an agreed upon goal.

But when you reach the size of a Wal-Mart, with over a million employees, trying to keep unity becomes near impossible. Naturally, we read about all of the push and pull that occurs WITHIN the company itself.