from Diary 2023-06-18
[The problem of decision-making in large organizations as seen in Googleâs policy of recommending office attendance.
In this series of tweets, the following concerns and points were raised in response to Googleâs policy of encouraging employees to work in the office at least three days per week.
- The problem with prioritizing the wishes of the majority despite the possibility of lower productivity for the minority (those who want to work remotely).
- Emphasizing the trivial importance of conversations in the office while failing to consider the impact on individual productivity.
- The decision was made without fully examining the results of the telecommuting âexperimentâ that began in the wake of the epidemic.
- Things are being done as if they are rational decisions without rational and acceptable explanations.
- The illusion of acting on data and operating while rounding down outliers in the real world.
- If outliers are intentionally truncated, accountability should be fulfilled.
- that those who make the decision to change policy are in a position not to be directly affected by the change. These points highlight the problems of decision-making in large organizations, such as the impact of prioritizing the will of the majority on the minority, the seemingly insufficient emphasis on data and rationality in practice, and the disconnect between decision-makers and those affected by their decisions.
On the other hand, it is not realistic to base all decisions on data, and some degree of separation is necessary. However, in making such decisions, we must be accountable to those who will be affected.
- This highlights the difficulty of ensuring transparency and accountability in Organizational Decision-Making, while respecting diverse values and Diverse ways of working. In order to deal with these issues, decision-making is necessary. To address these issues, it is important to make the decision-making process transparent, listen to the voices of those affected, and be accountable.
hikalium The reason Iâm not too convinced by the companyâs decision to encourage a stricter 3-day work week, I believe, is because it is exactly the same structure as oppression of minorities. I think itâs because itâs exactly the same structure as oppression of minorities. Some people say, âhikalium, youâre here more than 3 days a week for whatever reason, nothing will change!â But is it okay if the productivity of the few goes down as long as it is good for the many?
hikalium If you admit such cruelty and then say, âAccording to this data, the companyâs productivity will increase, so even though there will be individual ups and downs, we have factored them in, so please cooperate. If you admit such cruelty and then say, âThe data shows that the companyâs productivity will increase, so even though there are individual ups and downs, weâve factored them in, so please cooperate with us. It would be exactly unconscious prejudice to proceed with the conversation with such a sentiment as âI think itâs important to have small conversations that occur in the office after all.
hikalium Another N in my head says, âFocus on your work instead of losing productivity over trivial things,â or âWhy donât you do something else when you have time to write this? âWhy donât you do something else when you have time to write this?â âAre you really enjoying yourself?â âYou shouldnât complain so much, you donât want to lose this environment, do you?â I listen to them half-heartedly.
hikalium It is an effective survival strategy to keep quiet even if you want to speak up about a situation if you donât want to get burned by it, and that is one way to live. However, I am writing this because I have suffered in a society made up of such people, and if we were in such a situation, I would have to despair of everything.
hikalium As someone who worked completely from home from my first day on the job for over a year and a half before gradually coming back to work due to an epidemic, I can understand that there are good and bad things about both. I understand that both are good and bad, and in fact there have been times when I have suffered from working from home, but it is unfortunate that a decision was made that appears to have been made without fully examining the results of an unintentional experiment that occurred.
hikalium The hardest part is that things are going on in an atmosphere as if this is a rational decision, even though a sufficiently rational and acceptable explanation has not been given. I am not sure if it is just my lack of understanding or not. Of course, maybe I just donât understand it well enough, but if not, where the heck have we gone when we should have been acting on the basis of dataâŠ
hikalium Well, perhaps acting on data is itself an illusion. In fact, it is too costly and impractical to base every single decision on data. Therefore, I think it is sometimes necessary to make a decision at the last moment, and that is how the real world works. While cutting off outliers.
hikalium If you are intentionally truncating outliers to achieve other metrics, I think that should be clearly stated and accountable. If they donât even realize they are truncating, thatâs very sad, but they can revisit it from there as pointed out. If that doesnât work, then maybe there isnât much of a future.
hikalium The other hard part is that the people who made the decision to change the policy are people who are not directly affected by the policy change. Either the organization has grown so large that it cannot see the ridiculousness of enforcing rules on others to which it is not subject, or it is intentionally ignoring them, but either way, there is a deep divide.
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/GoogleăźăȘăăŁăčćșć€æšć„šæčéă«èŠă性èŠæšĄç”çčăźæææ±șćźăźćéĄçč using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. Iâm very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.