@jandeman

Ackoff on Business Schools

Russel Ackoff about business schools. His thoughts fit into my exploration of human friendly organizations as one of several clues. In fact we cannot discuss how to make organizations more human friendly without also deconstructing the mental models of our education systems. I hope things have started to shift in business schools since this was written, but I have to admit that I see very little evidence of it.

"I have ‘‘endeared’’ myself to some faculty and business schools by identifying the three things that business schools do for students. First, they provide students with a vocabulary that enables them to talk with authority about subjects they do not understand. Second, they transmit to them a set of principles that have demonstrated an ability to withstand any amount of disconfirming evidence. Third, they provide a ticket of admission to a job where they can learn something about management and business. Around 95 percent of what managers use on the job they learned on the job. The most they get out of business school is connections. Attendance at a business is justified economically in terms of return on investment, but not in terms of providing an education."

(Quote from STRATEGY & LEADERSHIP, VOL. 31 NO. 3 2003, pp. 19-26, MCB UP Limited, ISSN 1087-8572)

//jan

The Flip Manifesto by Dan Pink

I've just read Dan Pink's inspiring e-book on leadership, motivation and innovation.

You can get a hold of a copy by subscribing to his newsletter on danpink.com.

Recommended.

Hope to update this post later with a few thoughts in connection with my read.

 

 

Peter Senge on collective smartness and more

Peter Senge shares his thoughts on systems, learning and collaboration vs individuality. See the whole clip. Take a while and reflect. Then think hard about you organization. I hope you see some potential for new perspectives and initiatives ;) If we want our organizations to suck less, this is the kind of thinking we need to put to work.

Jan

What goes around comes around

The last two weeks have been pretty amazing for me. Lots of exciting things in the making and I have been a little over-whelmed about the relative easiness in moving things ahead. When I reflected upon why I was experiencing this I reached these conclusions.

• People I interact with respond favorably to the new directions I am exploring, not only because they like the directions, but also just because I now have a more apparent direction (or directions). Direction matters.
• Enthusiasm and engagement can be very contagious. People respond better to folks who are engaged in their work. They want in on the energy. They offer to help. Enthusiasm matters.
• Most of the folks I'm interacting with are my friends. New friends, old friends. Friends of friends. They are not primarily business aquaintances. They are friends. Relationship "capital" matters.
• We might forget details from the past. But we remember if people are honest and friendly. We remember if they have made good contributions before. Obviously I have a few screw ups in my track record but today I am extremly happy I have always chosen to be responsible, generous and fair. And always delivered at the top of my capacity. History matters.

What goes around comes around. No rocket science, but good to reenforce. 

//jan

Some personal thoughts about work

In my early thirties I spent a night in intensive care with a suspected heart attack. It later turned out to be a massive stress reaction. I didn't sleep that night. Instead thought about why I was constantly pushing myself to the limit in my work. What was so important that I evidently was prepared to destroy myself?  

Early next morning I had figured it out. I had arrived at the conclusion that I was prepared to kill myself to earn love and recognition. 

Now, once I had exposed this to myself it was impossible to continue with the destructive behavior. It just seemed so stupid. And I quickly realized if it was love and recognition I was after, there probably were smarter ways to get them. I had reached a new level of understanding about myself. 

I will admit that it took some time to change the everyday realities of my life. There were a lot of social "contracts" that had to be renegotiated with family, friends and colleagues. Not always successfully which has ended some relationships. Still, all in all a real improvement in my life.

The remaining problem with this process is that it took away the meaning of work from me. What happened was I started to work less. To do away with the immediate pressure. But also because it freed up time to explore other things, or simply do nothing. On an intellectual level I understand that I need to work, both as a means for supporting myself and a way of building my self worth. But I must admit I have very little emotional drive in my work.

The paradox is that I seem to be doing better work than ever and earning more while working less and less. This baffles me a little as it is contrary to what I was taught to believe in. 

During my current sabbatical I have examined this paradox some and have challenged myself to rediscover the meaning of my work. The model I'm currently running may work well enough for me, but what I have discovered is that I'm easily bored and seldom challenged to my full potential. This cannot be sustainable. So, I find myself convinced that if I'm going to work for 20 or so more years I'll need to put more emotional "capital" into my work.

Where this will put me looking forward is to be discovered. It is darn scary and very exciting at the same time.

Jan

 

On self-reliance

I'm finding that a lot of folks these days are singing the praise of self-reliance and independence, be it countries, companies or individuals. The logic as far as I understand it is that one can stand stronger when crisis hits and one also can avoid the disappointment of others failing to deliver when it is most needed. Or avoid going through the emotional hassle of trusting someone. Better to do everything by oneself and control one's own destiny.

I believe this reasoning is flawed. Not that the striving for self-reliance and independence is inherently bad. On the contrary this can be very good as long as it reflects a genuine interest in accepting responsibility and accountability for one's actions and non-actions.

But when self-reliance and independence become a strategy to avoid vulnerability and possible failure it is pushing the whole idea too far and making it counter-productive. As far as I am concerned being overly self-reliant is a recipe for lonliness and becoming irrelevant. And chronic blaming of other people's incompetence over one's own brilliance.

Humans and our enterprises are defined by relationships. If you don't trust others, if you can't stand things going wrong, if you can't show your uncertainty or weakness then much of what it is to be human is lost.

In general we humans develop together through our interactions, not in isolation. You can chose your attitude towards this. It either sucks big time and keeps all your talent and brilliance boggled down. Or you can decide to join the adventure of human messiness. You risk making an ass of yourself. You risk being let down by people you trusted. You risk things turning out different than you imagined, and some times even better than you imagined! You risk that your shining ego not be seen as brightly as you dream of.

But you also win the joy of genuinely helping other people. You win the joy of achieving things with others. And sharing accomplishment. And tapping into so much love and energy that you never would have gotten access to otherwise.

I know what I am talking about. I have switched sides. And it has made all the difference.

Jan

 

Stanford Magazine profiles d.school

"A first-year graduate student in the management science and engineering program, Asha Gupta had barely started Design Garage, a course aptly characterized as an "imagination dunk tank"—and she was getting soaked. Gupta and her classmates were challenged to develop a prototype that would improve the gift-giving experience. They had 54 minutes."

via www.stanfordalumni.org

A darn interesting piece on the development of d.school. Why do we have so few learning environments like this?

/jan

Charlie Davies on Money

SUI 24 Charley de Mornay Davies from Videologic on Vimeo.

My friend Charlie has a lot of wise and witty things to say about money. Enjoy.

Jan

A great jab at Michael Moore

Mårten Schultz is my hero of this winter.

He did what I wished I could, but never could have done. He answered back to Michael Moore's open letter to the Swedish government. He did it with wit and sharpness. He defended Sweden in a way I'm mighty proud of and showed Mr Moore "where the cabinet should stand" (Swedish saying. Cabinet as in furniture piece, not government cabinet). If Mr Moore responds remains to be seen.

The beginning goes like this:

Dear Mr. Michael Moore,

I read your open letter to the Swedish Government. I am afraid they will probably not answer. They’re a bit busy at the moment: The aftermath of the financial crisis requires attention. And there’s also the thing with the first suicide bomber in our country, which has caused quite some commotion. But don’t you worry, it is very unlikely that we will use this single act of terror as an excuse to invade a country. Or maybe a very small one, but that it is unlikely.

Read the whole letter here.

Jan

 

 

Is it really worth daring to be great?

Wonderful and inspiring talk by Keith Yamashita. Had the pleasure of meeting him in San Francisco a couple of years ago. Remarkable man.

//jan