This is a very silly take on the article which is an informative history of KPI and OKRs and the back story to why G.M's model of looser structure, outcomes driven work was adopted at scale. I am fascinated by this history, and I would love this kind of topic to be discussed, and the work of Robert McNamara to be discussed.
It makes substantive points. You're using ad hominem to try and push back on a legitemate debate. Musk tried to change the agenda of federal government structural reporting and used key terms from the OKR model. Thats huge. Normally it would be done by a directive after consideration. it was simply dropped into the stream via X, not even via a formal communications structure, and without notice.
It is also remarkable that the bureaux and departments have included ones which pushed back at the top, and that Musk himself had to re-state his abundendly clear (not) statement, to clarify what he expected. This does not speak of a well understood communications team behind the message. Have you known a statement of this importance to have to be clarified at least TWICE, in the delivery because of the mis-understanding?
Seriously. You are just wrong to state this is a machine response, or as valueless as a machine response. It's not.
X is not, should not be a US government public policy communications channel to staff. Thats insane.
5 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 13.1 ms ] threadIt makes substantive points. You're using ad hominem to try and push back on a legitemate debate. Musk tried to change the agenda of federal government structural reporting and used key terms from the OKR model. Thats huge. Normally it would be done by a directive after consideration. it was simply dropped into the stream via X, not even via a formal communications structure, and without notice.
It is also remarkable that the bureaux and departments have included ones which pushed back at the top, and that Musk himself had to re-state his abundendly clear (not) statement, to clarify what he expected. This does not speak of a well understood communications team behind the message. Have you known a statement of this importance to have to be clarified at least TWICE, in the delivery because of the mis-understanding?
Seriously. You are just wrong to state this is a machine response, or as valueless as a machine response. It's not.
X is not, should not be a US government public policy communications channel to staff. Thats insane.