There's a weird culture of management arrogance at TVNZ. It's persisted over the last two and a bit decades of personal experience with the company, despite restructures and staff turnover.

It seems to manifest in two ways:

distrust of staff, as in management not trusting their reports at the bottom of the hierarchy
cognitive dissonance between what is and what should be

Consultation with staff for restructuring has never been genuine: the plans are always already made and the "consulting" is actually just "telling".

Planning for the future has always been an ivory tower exercise by management, apparently because management have the "overview" but then don't place any value on the worker's knowledge of the actual work. Staff know there's plenty of penny-wise pound-foolish bullshit work done "but it's the TVNZ way so keep doing it".

In this case there's one of two root causes:

ineptitude: no one thought that they'd better check employment contracts for relevant clauses they'd negotiated
malevolence: they did but chose to ignore them

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Dave 3 points 5 months ago (3 children)

A bit of a tangent, but has anyone ever worked at a large organisation through some big event and felt like leadership were clued up and managed it well?

[–] RecallMadness 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I worked for a tech company that went through an acquisition. The GM for my department knew what was up and insulated everyone from it.

6 months later, redundencies for every department but ours.

He also just told us what he wanted, and not how he wanted things done. Probably one of my best bosses tbh.

[–] Dave 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I was more asking about the people leading it, and it sounds like he wasn't the instigator. He sounds like a good manager, it's always nice to have a manager that protects you from the BS and just lets you get on with doing your job. I've been lucky enough to have a few of those in my time.

[–] RecallMadness 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

He was a shareholder and board member too. He 100% was an instigator.

[–] Dave 1 points 5 months ago

Boards only need a majority not a unanimous vote. It seems like it would be a bit shit to vote to make all the other departments restructure, but not your own one.

[–] Xcf456 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Given businesses are effectively run like dictatorships, and the public sector orgs emulate privates wherever possible, I'd say good practice in this space is extremely rare.

[–] Dave 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm curious what good practice looks like. I'm not sure I can think of a way it can be handled well, and I'm also not convinced never restructuring is good either.

[–] Xcf456 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Genuine worker involvement in these decisions from the start, not just consulting on a fait accompli.

Ultimately that means proper structured worker representation through unions that can meet management at their level. Germany for example, has union representation on company boards. Worker owned cooperatives are another model.

[–] Dave 2 points 5 months ago

Ah yes, I guess that makes sense. Working with the employees instead of us vs them.

[–] flambonkscious@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Nah, of course not. Ideal team size for communications and decision (assuming we're not skimping on output!) is 3 from memory (I'm struggling to grasp the mythical man month from over decades ago)

[–] Dave 1 points 5 months ago

I guess in this world you don't have a team leader for every 3 people, but instead have them self-organising and with a clear goal but no direct management?