In order to distinguish the operations of a company, it is helpful to observe the flow of information within the organization itself. From the most critical operation to the least significant one, the ranking remains the same in terms of how information ultimately moves. We do not have absolute time at our disposal, nor would it be correct to hover over a single detail and divide it into ever smaller parts in order to analyze it and try to understand something, because in the end nothing remains.
The creation of an internal archive will facilitate oversight and procedures, because the way work is carried out will become understandable once it has been deconstructed. Each person will then be able to selectively retain what they believe will benefit them beyond what they are formally required to keep. The goal is not to change the work itself.
The way employees keep a personal archive for themselves stems from their concern that information might be lost and from the need for quick access. The situation becomes even more complex when documents are sent externally, since employees may keep additional material in order to have what they need readily available. This makes it harder to distinguish between information that merely needs to be searched and information that must be retrieved from the original document or its official copy. A logbook with a sense of official formality would help record such information in whatever way individuals prefer and would strengthen confidence in carrying out their work, since everyone would know what they need and where they recorded it. From an official document, not all information is always required and it would be better to consult it only when it is truly necessary.
Flow of information
Once the operation of a business begins, work output is produced, expenses are created and personnel management takes place as coordination around work. Alongside all this, a corresponding flow of information develops within the workplace. This flow is the result of employee coordination and duties, a reflection of problems and a map of collaboration around work. As such, this flow of information cannot be fully defined or fully controlled. The purpose of a theoretical design of this flow is to observe how quickly information reaches a supervisor, through which filters it passes, how it is distributed in the workplace and what other situations exist in the obscurity of such a diagram.
The entrance door is the primary route through which new information of all kinds enters. Some are content to describe it in a rather theatrical manner as merely the front display of the whole, a first impression for an external visitor. This perspective does not concern us, as such claims do not hold up in practice despite being easily and widely repeated.
It is often observed that the person at the entrance directly informs the supervisor in order to serve their own needs or those of a third party. However, in most cases the guard or receptionist gathers useful information from the interlocutor and informs the relevant departments, or alternatively notifies specific individuals whom they trust and feel comfortable approaching with a question.
It becomes evident that this person plays a very important role in how everything unfolds. Much depends on their discretion and usually no one pays attention to their duties. They have exclusive control over how quickly others are informed and we need to learn from them how they do their work instead of issuing instructions. Only in this way can we understand what they face daily and ultimately see which routes could be bypassed without attracting attention.
Within the context of management, I am not referring to subconscious political tactics. This is important, because such tactics may apply instructions from above without open disruption. Subconscious practices end up harming employees and more broadly, humanity itself. Rather than attempting in a cunning way to bypass reliable evaluation of employees once they see methods applied in practice, we should face the challenge of reality and analyze the empirical data that are given to us. It is advisable for an atmosphere of fear and denial to be transformed into objections that can be answered.
It is a fact that, at worst, a supervisor may know nothing about what is happening, or may know far too much that has no real value for them. Before anything else, each interested party should examine how information reaches the ears of the responsible authority in order to understand the fundamental nature of simple relationships within the company.
We start from the simple, not in order to move to the more complex, but because these coincide with the initial issues that come to light. Information that circulates is naturally filtered within the office. Simple relationships, focused interests and similar factors filter and emphasize certain points and sometimes even remove others in order to serve the issue at hand. No one can know what preceded a piece of information when it reaches their ears, nor do they need to doubt their ability to move forward, because everything is fundamentally simple. There is no need for paranoia about the help and work we provide.
It is very poor management for a supervisor to accuse employees of issues they do not understand and, in turn, for an employee to accuse another colleague of matters for which they aren't responsible. What is required is that everyone knows their own role and has a general understanding of what is happening in their working environment. Then filtering is less likely to remove useful information and distribution is more likely to reach the appropriate employees for the desired solution or update.
From each position’s duties arise the formal patterns of contact, as well as the communication ties between colleagues who exchange information. This has little significance for the continuation of our work, yet it is worth analyzing in order to avoid fixation on a bureaucratic perspective when developing growth plans from the top of the hierarchy. Those at the top often impose informal measures on internal operations, even when they are not the ones making the critical decisions about how the company functions.
Archive
Boxes upon boxes, useless papers next to property titles. If this resembles the archive of the company where you work, then don't ignore this text. A proper archive is designed for that purpose, without necessarily requiring an entire room for file storage. If it does, then it is time to rethink a few things.
What does proper archive construction entail? It requires limiting the materials you keep to those that have lasting value, separating them from those that will be used temporarily and have no further significance. These criteria should be defined early, based on the legal and accounting framework within which the company operates, without neglecting your own preferences regarding what you wish to retain as historical record. The furniture in which the archive is housed must meet appropriate specifications, whether cabinets with compartments, simple shelving units, or hanging file systems.
You could say that an archive is like a drainage basin, where categorization creates many tributaries. Care must be taken, however, regarding what is cultivated, so it does not drown and rot from excess water. The ground must be suitable and the climate appropriate, meaning that both the furniture and the space should support regular renewal and use through visits for consultation and retrieval.
Verification of information validity after its flow, and validation of sorting against official documents, are necessary steps. Such verification is preventive and can benefit employees or serve as a foundation for trust in their personal sorting of information. Mistakes are human and there should be no fear of error, since employees will use their information to draw conclusions and improve themselves. This measure focuses on personal development.
Trading options and investing schemes are merely operational tools, not the essence of the work itself and they shouldn't be treated as such, otherwise something will be built on secondary foundations. It will not endure and even if built, it won't last long. There is no sense in companies becoming chameleons. The market is not a tropical forest. Let us not cultivate illusions. People are not ants, beetles, or any other insects. When has anything been built that did not eventually pass and remain only as history?
The example of CC is decisive for corporate culture. The separation of responsibilities and intellectual ownership, meaning an individual’s personal work, among employees doesn't imply isolated tasks. Even the most isolated task affects or is utilized by others in the workplace. Management planning must move in this direction.
As a result, the flow of work is not ignored and contributes to the rapid implementation of any measure or useful reform. The more we focus on existing problems under real conditions, the better. Plans on paper, no matter how well presented, often falter in implementation and ultimately in their necessity.
So-called modern methods that were always irrational have failed. The unification of work environments with rest areas or even living spaces by technology giants and the introduction of playrooms by a wide range of companies, were naive ideas that caused distraction. What resulted was, at best, wasteful spending and more importantly a crisis of trust from employees toward the company and toward those in high positions who make decisions on their behalf.