Tag: reorganization

  • The Ontological Crisis of the Orphaned Recurring Meeting

    There exists in the corporate universe a peculiar form of digital purgatory: the recurring meeting whose original organizer has long since departed the organization, yet continues to manifest on calendars with the persistence of a poltergeist.

    You know the one. Every Tuesday at 2 PM, “Weekly Sync – Q3 Initiative” still appears. Janet created it in 2019. Janet left in 2021. It’s now 2025. The meeting persists.

    The Ship of Theseus, But Make It Annoying

    Philosophy majors spent centuries debating whether a ship remains the same ship after every plank has been replaced. Corporate drones face a more pressing question: Is it still “Janet’s Weekly Sync” if Janet is now a VP at a competitor and half the original attendees have been reorganized into oblivion?

    The meeting has evolved. New people have been added. The agenda (if one ever existed) has drifted from “Q3 Initiative” to “whatever fire we’re currently putting out.” Someone changed the meeting location from “Conference Room B” to “Zoom – see link.” The organizer field still reads “Janet Thompson (External).”

    It’s the meeting equivalent of a hermit crab inhabiting an abandoned shell.

    The Metaphysical Hierarchy of Meeting Death

    Let us establish a taxonomy of meeting cessation:

    Clinical Death occurs when the organizer deletes the recurrence. Clear. Decisive. The meeting is dead, and everyone receives a notification of its passing. We can grieve and move on.

    Brain Death happens when the organizer leaves the company but the meeting remains. The meeting has lost its consciousness, its original purpose, but the body continues to function. Attendees still show up, confused, like neurons firing in a deceased host.

    Zombie State emerges when attendees begin dropping off one by one, but the meeting continues to exist for the two remaining participants who lack either the authority or the initiative to kill it. They meet. They know it’s pointless. They do not speak of it.

    Schrödinger’s Meeting exists when literally no one attends anymore, but the calendar invites persist. Is it a meeting if nobody comes? Does it exist in any meaningful sense? The calendar insists it does.

    The Problem of Remaining Attendees

    Here’s where it gets thorny. If the organizer departs but six people remain, surely the meeting still “exists” in some form. But what if it’s down to two people? One person?

    At what threshold does a “team meeting” become just “two people on a call who should probably just Slack”?

    And here’s the real question that keeps enterprise architects up at night: Who has the moral authority to delete someone else’s recurring meeting?

    You’re not the organizer. You’re just an attendee. Can you unilaterally declare this meeting dead? That’s not murder—that’s more like… meeting euthanasia. Merciful, perhaps, but do you have the right?

    The Solution No One Wants

    The answer, of course, is that someone needs to be granted organizer privileges so they can officially end it. This requires:

    1. Someone to care enough to do this
    2. IT to process the request
    3. Agreement among the remaining attendees that yes, this meeting has earned its rest

    In practice, what happens is: nothing. The meeting continues until the heat death of the universe or the next corporate restructuring, whichever comes first.

    The Deeper Truth

    Perhaps the recurring meeting never truly dies. Perhaps it exists eternally in some quantum state, simultaneously alive in someone’s accepted calendar invites and dead in the absence of human attendance.

    The meeting is not the organizer. The meeting is not the attendees. The meeting is not even the recurrence pattern.

    The meeting is the shared corporate delusion that synchronous time spent together produces value.

    And as long as that delusion persists, so too shall Janet’s Weekly Sync, 2 PM every Tuesday, until the end of time.

    See you there. Or not. The meeting doesn’t actually care.

  • Be Open to Change!

    Amazon Affiliate Link

    “The only constant is change.”

    “Be open to change.”

    “Embrace change.”

    For those who work in small businesses or startups, these mantras probably aren’t necessary. When you’re breathing constant change, you don’t have to be reminded that it exists.

    No, the only people that have to be reminded that “change happens” are those who work for large, slow moving organizations, such as large corporations and government agencies. Many of us have actually stuck with these organizations, despite all the bureaucracy, specifically because change is such a rarity.

    Stop telling us safety seeking employees about this whole change thing. Stop giving us copies of Who Moved My Cheese? If we truly embraced change, we probably wouldn’t suffer the high degree of bureaucracy in favor of the safety of the large organization.

  • The Social Bonds of a Team

    I’m sure that, somewhere out there, some popular business wisdom says that people get stagnant when they stay in the same core group too long. Maybe they’re supposed to start failing to come up with new ideas because they are stuck in the mode of groupthink. Maybe they’re too comfortable and complacent. Maybe well-bonded teams are supposedly full of self-promotion and cronyism.

    There must be some business wisdom that says that, because it seems that reorganizations often target the cohesive teams as non-productive.

    Here’s a different perspective: Teams are families. They have black sheep and dysfunctional members. However, they also find a way to survive despite the individual failings of each team member that would otherwise be somewhat insurmountable. Teams have an implicit loyalty and trust that bypasses the initial trust evaluation phase that occurs with a new relationship.

    What if teams function as an extension of the neural networks that shape the individual members of the team? Just as a person who takes up tennis one year, then switches to piano, then cooking,  never becomes good at anything, teams that never build a cohesive unit never become good at anything.

    Of course, reorganization itself doesn’t have to permanently break down team cohesiveness. New teams can form, just like people join new families. The danger occurs in the perpetual reorganization cycle, especially when team members have no real input about their interests. Such cycles have the same effect on team building that moving a child from foster home to foster home has on trust. Eventually, people just assume that any bonding effort will be wasted and quit bothering to try.

  • What’s in a Name/Logo?

    Once, maybe twice, in a business’ life, things change to warrant a name change.  “Bob Jones Consulting” may not be an appropriate name for a company that “Bob Jones” has severed ties with.  “Turducken Shack” might be inappropriate for a restaurant chain who magically found a sleeper hit in its vegetarian fare.

    Understandably, if you’re dealing with customers in person, who you are representing can be as important as how you represent the company.  That’s fine.

    Once you get below a certain level of granularity, however, does the customer really care what organization within the company you represent?  If a customer had a positive interaction with the sales department, but had a horrible interaction when getting technical support for a problem placing the order on the website, do the department labels really matter?

    Does the reporting structure matter? Is your new marketing slogan, “Reorganized to Serve You Better”?

    Does the customer care that the marketing department has a new blue logo, while the IT department has a shiny black background logo with monochrome green outlines?  Does the customer care some guy in the marketing department still has his red logo background on his computer’s desktop?

    Meanwhile, while we’re all splitting hairs, the customer has hung up after hearing, “Your call is important to us,” for the 20th time–probably because it’s a lie.

     

  • Don’t Confuse Us With the Judean People’s Front

    …we’re the People’s Front of Judea!

    How many times has your organization made minor or major organization changes that made the naming of teams or departments less than 100% aligned with their job descriptions?  Obviously, the confusion generated by such inconsistencies cannot be allowed.

    More importantly, generic department names such as “information technology” won’t because such terms are neither cool nor do they offer enough variety to give every mid-level manager a team with a different name.  Worse still, what would happen if the CIO was also in charge of the sales department?  Clearly, “information technology” would not be a broad enough term for the department, and you’d have to name your department for some job that loosely resembles your function…  You’d become the “Barrista Department”.

    Inevitably, no name fits the mission completely, and no mission fits the need completely.  Therefore, management and teams must change, and names along with them.

    A lovely side effect of this is that the “old” names tend to still be used for some time after the fact.  Maybe you gave your team fancy logo wear to pump them up for the last name change.  Maybe you prefixed all of your documents with an abbreviation of the department name.  Maybe you had 2 million glossy business cards printed up with the new department name and logo.  Maybe you even had a special domain name with that department or division represented.

    Well, forget them.  They’re all useless.  Any use of the old names is likely to produce confusion.  Using the old names may also suggest that the old way was good enough, and we all know that reorganizations are perfect.

    Burn those business cards, shirts, and servers with legacy names and logos on them. Otherwise, you may get a scolding for clinging to the “old ways”.

    [If you don’t get the title reference, see the following YouTube clip (warning: language)