Stepping through the looking glass … some follies, some wisdom
On a TGIF night everything’s OK, so get ready for some light food for thought, and some more “organizational pathologies” …
Carmine Coyote c/o Slow Leadership calls for leaders to try something new in management, because
Pragmatism is fine for second-rate businesses handling commodity products, but that route will never win long-term market leadership. Visionary companies, and leaders with a fierce resolve to implement those visions, consistently win over the long haul.
[…]
The more the demand grows for quick, measurable results, the more our aims become distorted to give only these—even if it hurts the organization’s interests in the longer term.
and
Most management is still based on the underlying assumption of a “master” stipulating what the “servants” must do and judging them according to their performance against his or her imperious standards.
This is not the way to promote creativity, learning, or fun in the workplace—let alone real productivity. Leadership of this kind is always ‘us’ versus ‘them’: the expert leader instructing the ignorant subordinate and demanding compliance. Yet compliance never produces better than mediocre performance.
Another noteworthy post calls the king naked, calling upon a cool Soderbergh movie or so: “Lies, Damned Lies, and Executive Platitudes”
That handy platitude about our people being our greatest asset is trotted out in everything from press releases to annual reports to executive speeches. But does it mean anything? Is there ever any real intention to act on it? And if there is not, as so often appears, what are the implications for the businesses and organizations involved?
Then, Bill has a thought provoking post on the lifecycle of fads:
First, you start with an overhyped management consultant who packages some common-sense ideas with marketing hype and the promise that this is all revolutionary. Then, the business press (looking to fill the enormous news hole) latches onto the guru and begins to manufacture the problem that the guru’s method will solve. Senior executives looking for celebrity read the business press and decide to hook their star to the new idea.
After some initial successes (we don’t talk about the failures because failure only occurs if the company wasn’t “fully” committed to idea), more consultants jump in and start offering certifications and training. More pressure is put on companies that don’t adopt the cutting-edge ideas from both the consultants and the senior executive celebrity want-to-be’s.
It’s not until the next consultant looking for the next great idea decides to question the current fad. And thus the cycle starts all over again.
Bill, let me reassure you, it’s not you alone who’s getting more cynical with age. Yet, not all books are ripe with fad pushing, some are offering fun and consolation, like this one that Businesspundit references (“Business and Bullshit”):
We can’t know everything, so we often use bullshit instead of saying “I don’t know.” A customer asks if a certain feature is planned for a future software release. If you really don’t know, is it better to say so, or to give them some bullshit? I’ve seen some software features that are “on the roadmap” forever. Salespeople use that line because it keeps a potential customer in the loop. That can be a good thing because the customer will stay in touch and provide you with information about what they would like to see in your product. That is helpful to you, and no harm is done to them if they aren’t making a buying decision based on your bullshit.
Another interesting book may be this one, referenced in the Enterprise Decision Management Weblog, which closes the circle rather nicely:
I just finished reading Phil Rosenzweig’s book “The Halo Effect…and the Eight Other Business Delusions That Deceive Managers”. This book takes aim at the general run of business books and, in particular, their tendency to dress up vivid stories as scientific study. Phil does not seem to have anything against stories per se, nor does he disagree with some of the advice given in the books. What he takes issue with is the focus on a single, definitive “scientific” set of recommendations when there is no real scientific rigor behind them. He lays out 9 specific delusions and shows how they distort the advice in management books:
* The Halo Effect – tending of analysis of a company to reflect only the overall results
* The Delusion of Correlation and Causality – the lack of proof of causality in many situations
* The Delusion of Single Explanations – one factor is unlikely to be the reason for success or failure
* The Delusion of Connecting the Winning Dots – problems with only considering “winners”
* The Delusion of Rigorous Research – mistaking large volumes of data for good data
* The Delusion of Lasting Success – most companies trend to the mean eventually
* The Delusion of Absolute Performance – companies can do well and still fail if a competitor does better
* The Delusion of the Wrong End of the Stick – successful companies may do various things but that does not mean that doing those things will make you successful
* The Delusion of Organizational Physics – business organizations are just not that predictable
