Business/Game theory?

[Squat]

Hi guys

I don't have a business background and I'm thinking of a situation I think must be fairly common and I'm hoping someone can point me towards the name of the theory or topic so I can find out more.

The situation I'm thinking of is when large organizations have many departments that contribute towards the primary purpose of the organisation. Ideally of course the departments should work together like cogs in a well oiled machine, cooperating to achieve that primary purpose.

Is there a name for when a department's activities gradually provide a less and less effective contribution to the primary goals of the organisation to the point where they actually hinder or detract from it. I'm thinking this could happen due to a large number of reasons, the department in question could simply begin to evolve autonomously and lose sight of the organization's primary purpose perhaps prioritising their own goals. They could simply just become ineffective in their activities or communications so they have a frictional impact on the other departments they interact with.

Now I think about it, this situation is probably not isolated to business, because something similar may happen with players in team sports, or indeed in any kind of human activity where groups of people cooperate to achieve common goals, Aces High for example.

I'm thinking that the theory around this must be very well known and well analysed. There must be a name for it and tons of material out there, can anyone tell from this what I'm looking for and point me in the right direction?

Regards

Squat

[Randy1]

Only 2% of the working force has the ability to become great leaders of people.  Since true leaders are hard to find, current management practice has eliminated the need for these hard to find leaders.  This is especially true when gender and color figure heavily on the selection process. 

"Demand Performance," management might be the best descriptive phrase.  You do not lead people, you just demand they work.  You get about the same results as slavery.

[shotgunneeley]

Not sure if you realize how close you are by the term, but that sounds a lot like Game Theory.

[guncrasher]

Only 2% of the working force has the ability to become great leaders of people.  Since true leaders are hard to find, current management practice has eliminated the need for these hard to find leaders.  This is especially true when gender and color figure heavily on the selection process. 

"Demand Performance," management might be the best descriptive phrase.  You do not lead people, you just demand they work.  You get about the same results as slavery.

you just described my current boss.  he thinks just because he demands it that we will actually provide it.  I work at a steel mill.  and the job sucks under his leadership.  but since it's next to impossible to move to another department, we all play the game.  we pretend he's right then we pretend we do that work.  which is really sad.  he has a way to upset people into actually not working.  if he was only a true leader we could produce twice the work in 1/2 the time.

semp

[FLS]

Hi guys

I don't have a business background and I'm thinking of a situation I think must be fairly common and I'm hoping someone can point me towards the name of the theory or topic so I can find out more.

The situation I'm thinking of is when large organizations have many departments that contribute towards the primary purpose of the organisation. Ideally of course the departments should work together like cogs in a well oiled machine, cooperating to achieve that primary purpose.

Is there a name for when a department's activities gradually provide a less and less effective contribution to the primary goals of the organisation to the point where they actually hinder or detract from it. I'm thinking this could happen due to a large number of reasons, the department in question could simply begin to evolve autonomously and lose sight of the organization's primary purpose perhaps prioritising their own goals. They could simply just become ineffective in their activities or communications so they have a frictional impact on the other departments they interact with.

Now I think about it, this situation is probably not isolated to business, because something similar may happen with players in team sports, or indeed in any kind of human activity where groups of people cooperate to achieve common goals, Aces High for example.

I'm thinking that the theory around this must be very well known and well analysed. There must be a name for it and tons of material out there, can anyone tell from this what I'm looking for and point me in the right direction?

Regards

Squat

I'd call it poor management or government.

[EskimoJoe]

Sounds like the scientific theory of entropy, where everything eventually devolves into chaos. Try looking up something like the theory of entropy in the workplace, maybe that will get you in the right area to bump into what you're looking for.

[Chalenge]

Goal orientation theory, which is basically an achievement motivational model. The current "stolen work effort" theories are a sarcastic view of the same, much like Randy1 indicated.

[zack1234]

Only 2% of the working force has the ability to become great leaders of people.  Since true leaders are hard to find, current management practice has eliminated the need for these hard to find leaders.  This is especially true when gender and color figure heavily on the selection process. 

"Demand Performance," management might be the best descriptive phrase.  You do not lead people, you just demand they work.  You get about the same results as slavery.

Medical report released yesterday stating leaders usually have personality disorders and have such traits as insincerity, lack of empathy and lack of responsibility.

Majority of the workers are idiots and spend their rewards on things they want and not on things they need such as a car on credit whilst having no proper health care etc.

With the advent of technology and the belief by the individual that he is "Informed" due to such gimmicks as Wikaidiot the modern western individual has been pigeon holed unable to realise that he is redundant, his role superseded by third world serfs.

The demise of the Western worker has been known since the 1970's.

The fact that the "informed" can never admit this fact is why they can never change their position.

Debt slavery At least you had a shiner car 

They will have sore eyes looking for my money

[Randy1]

you just described my current boss.  he thinks just because he demands it that we will actually provide it.  I work at a steel mill.  and the job sucks under his leadership.  but since it's next to impossible to move to another department, we all play the game.  we pretend he's right then we pretend we do that work.  which is really sad.  he has a way to upset people into actually not working.  if he was only a true leader we could produce twice the work in 1/2 the time.

semp

I know your pain Semp.
I was lucky to retire, before demand management became common place.  Friends still working at the company hate to go to work everyday now. Demand management has over taken my Son's company now.  Everyone hates working there now as well.

[Bizman]

To me that sounds a lot like marriage with kids. 

[BuckShot]

Same here. I used to be goal and big picture oriented for the benefit of the company. I had a big part in making the company what it is today. There was six offices when i started, now it's growing out of control at 36. The company got huge and changed when the investment group came in.

Now I just blindly and exactly perform the tasks the CEO asks of me without question. If it fails, I can show that I did exactly what he asked.

Scary, because I have 120 workers under me in the US and Canada. I'll get fired if I say it was my bosses idea.

[PJ_Godzilla]

I'd call it an Agency problem.

Typically, and this happens in business and, even more so, in Government, when you appoint a person or persons a task in the service of a large organization, that task gets subverted to the closer, and far more visible and incentive-driven, goals of the agent appointed.

At this point, I'd use a pointed example, perhaps from a fairly prominent foundation out there that might be pursuing the rather narrow interests of its principals rather than the stated interests of the people it purports to serve, but I don't want to draw a Skuzzy censure.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/agencyproblem.asp

[bustr]

Sounds like the two banks I worked IT for.

Most large companies make those departments compete against each other for productivity, or to build up and sell off for profit, and to have a ready target to cut dead wood during down turns and executive level mistakes to make wall street happy. A big problem with large companies is during up turns executives hire people and build empires to polish their egos. The executive in charge of each department usually is on a contract to deliver something from the department with goal incentives and a giant golden parachute win or loose. So often truly bad decisions are made to look like the goal was achieved with the knowledge failing is wining at least for the executive who can walk away with a bundle. If you are not that executive, be really useful to that person or, to people who are useful to that person. Otherwise you are part of the minions who do all the work who are looked upon as replaceable when the executives screw up.   

[Ratsy]

"Suboptimization is a term that has been adopted for a common policy mistake. It refers to the practice of focusing on one component of a total and making changes intended to improve that one component and ignoring the effects on the other components."

I think we need a definition for 'improve' as it relates to fearful management, however.

But I'm retired.  What do I know?

 

[Brooke]

he has a way to upset people into actually not working.

Some people really have that knack, the natural talent to demotivate people.

Can you anonymously describe the situation to someone higher up?  You have to do it with 100% certainty that it can't be traced to you, though, to avoid possible retribution.  If you can't have 100% confidence of that, I wouldn't try it, though.