Conversation between Petter and friends
Check out Petter and his producers (Thomas Rusiak, Seb-Rock, Collén & Webb) discussing the album Mitt Sjätte Sinne from 1998 – uncut cool guys talking about hip-hop while playing some old tracks. It’s a must!
Article: http://www.pastan.nu/bloggen/inlagg/969
Discussion: http://www.pastan.nu/sharedmedia/pastan/blog/45/15/57/105/20081105/petter.m3u
Review of “Who Moved My Cheese?: An Amazing Way to Deal with Change in Your Work and in Your Life”
I have chosen to read and review Who Moved My Cheese? written by Spencer Johnson. Since Who Moved My Cheese? differs from other forms of management literature in ways that will be mentioned, I will emphasize the characteristics of this kind of management literature. The text will focus on if the contents of the book can be implemented successfully in a company.
Who Moved My Cheese? is a book about change. One of Google’s motto is “Change or Die”, strongly indicating that companies reluctant to change gets eliminated. Change is here to stay as an ingredient in our everyday life and is a matter of vital importance to every company today, no matter small or large. Who Moved My Cheese? has been used actively by Apple, Dell, General Motors and IBM to name a few companies.
Who Moved My Cheese? is different from most other management bestsellers, since it’s written as a parable. The definition of a parable is a brief, succinct story illustrating a life or moral lesson. While a fable use animals and forces of nature as characters, parables generally feature human characters. The lesson Johnson wants to teach the reader is the one of how to deal with change. The cheese is a metaphor of what we want out of life. The basic principle is that the individual or the company rushes after the cheese because we believe that it will grant us happiness. Parables seem to divide people into two camps. In one we find avid fans who find parables central to their business library. The other camp derides them as simplistic pulp. Even though they often take only an hour to read, this camp considers them a waste of time. They are insulted to endure tales written for adults at a fifth-grade reading level. I think it’s great that even young people can be able to read and reflect upon the content of the book. Simple doesn’t imply waste.
Who Moved My Cheese? features two mice, Sniff and Scurry, and two little people, Hem and Haw, representing humans. The four characters live in a giant maze with long and winding passages, representing the world we live in. The mice have simple brains but good instincts. On the contrary the little persons have complex brains with emotions, thoughts and analyzing minds. Sniff has the ability to use his sense of smell to track down changes, while Scurry acts fast on and instinct, without further analyzing. Hem is learning to adapt to changes when he sees the positive outcomes of them, in contrast to Haw who denies and persists every act of change, fearing it will lead to something worse. The four creatures live comfortably in a section of the maze called Cheese Station C. One day the cheese runs out. What’s interesting is how this new circumstance leads to different course of events for our characters in search for “New Cheese”. This could represent a new innovation making a company’s business idea useless, and how different personalities would tackle this problem.
Social psychologist Kurt Lewin developed The Force Field Analysis Model, describing how the change process works. Despite being developed more than 50 years ago, I think it captures what change is all about even today. Two forces work against each other in the model. Driving forces such as globalization and external environment push organizations toward a new state of affairs, while restraining forces want to maintain the status quo. Restraining forces are resistance to change and are employee behavior related, such as fear of the unknown and unwillingness to break routines. For a change to occur the driving forces must be stronger than the restraining ones. A book like Who Moved My Cheese? can accomplish this, by making a tool for discussion for leaders and middle managers in the organization. This increases the driving forces in Lewin’s model. Who Moved My Cheese? is by no means a management bible, and isn’t advertised as one either. I think that Johnson main intention is to put the change topic on the agenda and bring it up for discussion. In my experience models that are too complicated and/or time consuming are not preferable to use. The simplicity of the message conveyed in the book is according to me of advantage for company leaders and middle management. Just the fact that the story easily creates a discussion about management may be the match needed to light the fire of a successful change.
In the prologue of the book it’s mentioned that a CEO believed in the book so much that he gave a single copy of the book to every employee in his company. Strongly implicating that this is the right action, the author is doing a huge sidestep early on. This encourages managers to mass distribute copies of the book to employees throughout the organization. I disagree with this. Picture yourself a CEO who falls in love with a parable and orders thousands of copies to inspire the troops. The employees may not always get the same brilliant feeling. Some may even feel insulted at being fed what they consider to be simplistic drivel. Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams says that parables rank among the top 10 reader complaints in his e-mail. He declares that “workers feel terribly insulted by parables”. By mass distributing copies of the book throughout the company, some employees will certainly see this as an insult or an attempt to characterize employee dissent to change as taboo. If the management distributes this book to employees during times of structural re-organization or during cost cutting measures, the result will become portraying unfavorable or unfair changes in an optimistic or opportunistic way. This makes employees very reluctant to change in the future, thus strengthening the restraining forces considerably. This makes it harder to start a change process in the future.
To me it’s essential that the book only is used as a tool for discussion. This is easier in smaller groups. In a large company it’s impossible to discuss a changing process including everybody. Therefore I see no need in mass distribution. Distributing the book to all employees in such companies will create a big pressure on people to accept every change no matter what it is, or be labeled a Haw who denies and resists change. This is important to have in mind when thinking about introducing Who Moved My Cheese? in the company.
Review of “From Good to Great” by Jim Collins
Jim Collins beskriver i boken vad som utmärker såkallade “GtG-företag”. Ett GtG-företag är ett företag som har tagit klivet från “Good” till “Great”. Totalt så har författaren hittat 11 stycken sådana företag (han har utgått från de 500 företagen som ingår i S&P 500 som är ett index som innehåller de 500 största företagen noterad på amerikanska börsen). Kriterierna för att de skall kvala in i denna GtG-kategori är att de ska ha uppvisat en ackumulerad aktieavkastning i linje med eller under marknadsindex under 15 år. Efter det skall företaget genomgå en förändringsfas för att sedan under 15 år ha en ackumulerad aktieavkastning som är minst tre gånger större än den ackumulerade marknadsavkastningen. För att kunna finna särskiljande faktorer som utmärker dessa företag så konstrueras sedan en pool utav jämförelseföretag. Denna består utav två grupper. Den första gruppen bestod av direkta jämförelseföretag, dessa var i samma bransch som GtG-företaget och hade liknande förutsättningar vid förvandlingstidpunkten men har inte lyckats bli ett mästarföretag. Den andra gruppen består av företag som lyckats göra ett tillfälligt lyft och uppnå mästarföretagsstatus men inte lyckats med att vara varaktiga.
Redan här så ställer jag mig frågande, inte direkt till själva studien utan till författarnas språkbråk. Är inte mästarföretag något bredare än endast ackumulerad aktieavkastning? Termen känns i mina ögon en aningen missvisande, ty jag anser att ett mästarföretag även bör fokusera på etiska aspekter och ta sitt samhällsansvar. Ett mästarföretag är vidare i mina ögon ett som har en sund personalpolitik och humana värderingar. Detta är inget som nämns i boken, dock så kan det såklart vara underförstått att företaget inte kan vara högpresterande under en lång tid utan att ta hänsyn till omvärlden och sin personal. Men då detta inte nämns någonstans i boken så antar jag att detta inte är en förutsättning. Således så känns termen mästarföretag totalt missvisande, “högpresterande” eller möjligtvis ”hyperavkastande” känns mycket mer rättvisande. Detta gör inte studien mindre intressant, det är ett intressant ämne att studera vad som utmärker företag som vida presterar över marknaden i stort. Men man måste komma ihåg till vilka kriterier man har valt ut företagen på och vad dessa symboliserar.
Collins hittar i sin studie sju stycken enligt honom särskiljande drag som uppfylls utav de företag som han benämner som “mästarföretag” men som inte finns hos jämförelseföretagen.
1.En utmärkande typ av ledarskap som de benämner som “Nivå 5 ledare”. Detta är ledare hängivna att uppnå resultat och som kan kombinera ödmjukhet med professionalism.
2. Först vem sen vad. Först måste man hitta rätt folk och sätta dem på rätt positioner i företaget. Sen utifrån dem forma företagets strategier.
3. De slutade aldrig tro på att på att de kan och kommer att segra i slutändan men var även så pass insiktsfulla att man vågar se den bistra sanningen i vitögat.
4. Något som han kallar “igelkottskonceptet” som är en slags utveckling av kärnkompetensresonemanget. Det gäller att hitta ett affärskoncept som uppfyller “de tre cirklarna”. De tre cirklarna är en bild på tre cirklar som sitter ihop och i mitten av bilden så skär alla tre varandra. I cirklarna står det “Det företaget brinner för”, “Kärnan i företagets modell” och “Det man kan bli bäst i världen på”. Kort sagt så är det kärnkompetensresonemang men att man även ska ställa sig frågan om förtaget kan bli världsbäst på detta.
5. De har en kultur präglad av disciplin
6. De har en unik syn på tekniken, de använder den inte för att initiera en förändring utan använder den för att accelerera eller underlätta förändringar. Men de visar sig att teknik inte är en primär orsak till att uppnå mästarklass.
7. De lät förändringsprocessen ta sin tid och stressade in fram den, det fanns inget mirakelögonblick där allt förändrades utan det var ett envetet gnetande under lång tid.
Collins går metodiskt igenom respektive egenskap och beskriver dessa utifrån sina mästarföretag.
Detta är mycket intressant läsning ur ett företagshistoriskt perspektiv, man får en unik inblick i olika företag och vilken typ av strategier och fokus som de har haft utifrån de fem egenskaper som Collins har definierat. Vidare så finner jag resonemanget om de s k Nivå 5 ledarna som den absolut intressantaste biten. Den personlighetstyp som Collins beskriver är inte den som jag först tänker på när jag hör talas om framgångsrik företagsledare. Han beskriver timida och ödmjuka människor som inte framhåller sin egen insats utan istället framhäver andras prestationer. Det är absolut inga mesiga ledare utan är väldigt tydliga och målmedvetna men de har inget behov att höja upp sig själv. De övriga kriterierna är också intressant läsning, men är kanske inte några nya revolutionerande insikter. Men ur ett beskrivande perspektiv så är det nog så intressant att även läsa om dessa då man får en bra beskrivning ur hur det har sett ut på dessa företag som har vida överkastat aktieindex.
Jag anser att boken bör ses med ett sådant mer beskrivande syfte i åtanke. Collins försöker å andra sidan att se boken som svaret på hur ett företag når och lyckas bibehålla en avkastning som vida överträffar marknaden. Se t.ex. på citatet nedan som är hämtat ifrån sida 29 i bokens inledning.
“Den (boken, Rasmus anm.) handlar om hur man förvandlar en ordinär organisation från det vanliga till det mästerliga”
Men jag anser att Collins har fått riktningen på implikationerna aningen om bakfoten och vänt dem åt de hållet som han vill. Studien är som tidigare nämnt utformad genom att man har plockat ut en grupp företag och kontrollerat vad som utmärker dem jämfört med en jämförelsegrupp. Således är de egenskaper som Collins hittat en nödvändighet för att kvala in i den kategorin som han har definierat. Men studien säger inte att detta är en garanti. Ty då måste man göra tvärtom. Då måste man först plocka ut alla företag med dessa sju egenskaper och sedan se om de är företag som lyckats transformera sig från normala till så kallade “företag av mästerklass”. Men som studien nu är genomförd så går alltså implikationen ”mästerföretag” à “uppfyller de sju egenskaperna” inte “uppfyller de sju egenskaperna” à ”mästerföretag”. Det är en väldigt stor skillnad på dessa två påståenden och de måste tolkas utifrån det som de faktiskt säger. Så den frågan som jag ställer mig direkt är således, hur många av de resterande “icke mästerföretagen” på S&P 500 uppfyller dessa 5 kriterier. Ett exempel är att Collins talar mycket om egenskap nr fyra, som innebär att företaget vågade byta riktning och ta ett revolutionerande steg. Jag tycker att det hade varit högst intressant att se hur många företag som bytt riktning radikalt där det slutat med att de gjort stora förluster.
Detta är inget som i sig gör studien och boken mindre intressant men det är bara det att jag ogillar det faktum att de sju utmärkande egenskaperna framställs som ett framgångskoncept och inte som förutsättningar för att man eventuellt skall kunna uppnå Collins definition på företag som lyckats ta sig till mästarnivå. Boken beskriver väldigt intressanta resor som olika amerikanska företag har gjort och man får en inblick i flera fascinerande förändringsprocesser. Men den bör nog läsas ur ett sådant perspektiv än som ett garanterat framgångskoncept på hur man går från att vara ett medelmåttigt företag till ett högavkastande bolag.
Sales pitch, lyrics and some further information about our project
The purpose of the video is to show parts of the intellectual history of management in a way easy to interpret even for those not familiar with the academics of management. The lyrics focus on chosen parts of management and emphasize the message by practical examples. Of course we weren’t able to include every part of management history since it then would have ended in a whole full-length album or a complete symphony. The different perspectives chosen were those we thought best highlighting the views on how management has changed over time. As probably noticed while watching, the video includes a humoristic touch and this approach has also been incorporated when we chose which parts of management history to include. As for the visual, we have had one thought, to combine classic hip-hop video style with illustrations of the management routines described in the lyrics. This will further on contribute to this video being easier to comprehend. The classic hip-hop approach applied to 5 white guys in shiny Adidas uniforms will hopefully even further lighten up the heavy theories described in the lyrics.
It’s a commonly shared opinion among the five of us, this course verifying management as a broad concept hard to put a single definition on, and that management can be looked at through many different perspectives. But whichever perspective chosen one fact remains, it’s essential you can communicate your ideas by taking your target group’s own “language” into account, thus making the message more easy to comprehend. With this communicative perspective in focus, one of the major purposes we hope this video to fulfill is reaching another audience than just academicians. Being more precise, we want to show chosen parts and angels of management for an audience we believe less likely running in to these academic routines of management. Hoping this will encourage a discussion about different management perspectives where it might not have happened otherwise. This in mind makes it quite obvious it’s not possible doing an abstract documentary, focusing on eventual similarities between Foucault’s views on management’s episteme and Poppers methodological induction. To reach an audience less familiar with this very subject, you have to communicate in a way they understand and feel comfortable with. Here you can see strong connections to managing a company or an organization; even if you have the best strategies and the coolest management models, it’s useless if you’re not able to communicate them properly. Hence, one of the most essential aspects of management is making everyone understand where to go and which way to take. Academic routines can often seem boring for the “big mass” and we believe a humoristic approach could make the management history more interesting for our very target group. Besides the major point of the movie, i.e. communicating management theory in a new way to a new target group, it also highlights the importance of communication within the fields of management.
Hip-hop has for a long time been a tool for afro-American middle and lower class to communicate what life is all about, especially showing how the situations in some of the poorer suburbs of USA are experienced from within. We thought it a good idea taking this approach and communicating management through it, thus taking academic teaching to a completely new level; reaching people that so far have been overlooked when it comes to terms of distributing management theory.
Another reason we chose producing a hip-hop video are due to our beliefs that the management enclosing this task would be quite interesting. The management needed by us arranging and getting acceptance for the field trips to the studio and Bentleys were more demanding than we at first thought, not to mention persuading the Bentley manager to actually be a part of the video. The fact this being a zero budget production made it complicated finding a professional singer for the chorus, and even more finding a studio with someone helping us producing. There have been other suggestions of what to include in the video, which we after some time realized weren’t doable, but before accepting this we all pushed our personal connections to the limit. Another management issue we faced was to hype this project; we believed creating this hype could lead to mouth-to-mouth marketing, consequently resulting in many “hits” on Youtube. This reasoning is based on what Mr. Sköld observed in his truck-designing thesis. Sköld found out that what’s motivating truck drivers designing and “pimping” their trucks were not the actual result, but the hype of how great their next truck would be. We applied similar logic, if we get the buzz about this video going, people would build up expectations, thus urging them to see it. Hopefully, the viewers will be more satisfied after watching the video than the truck drivers were after designing the next truck.
Even before giving birth to the hip-hop idea we all agreed on doing a fun project, thus making us more committed to the task and able to produce something to be proud of. Not saying the other groups haven’t had fun, but we believe it fair to say we’re having the very most of it producing this video. Every time leaving for the studio or to shoot new scenes, the mood was at top. This might actually be the most fun we ever had at our soon to be four years at KTH. Practicing what’s been taught in theory is very valuable and it complements the teaching process satisfyingly, and if we, the students, are to be properly prepared for what’s facing us when graduated, we should definitely have more project-based learning implemented in our education.
At the beginning we had a totally different, much more academic approach. But it didn’t feel right; it became so bookish and scholastic. Then, after reflecting over the Youtube clip ‘Consulting paradise’, the hip-hop idea was born. Suddenly we were all engaged to the utmost, and the ideas were gushing. Thus confirming what’s written above, i.e. how important it is having fun, and how much better one then can make the result.
During this course we’ve been taught seeing management from several perspectives, and different models and relevant management history have been discussed during the lectures. Now the course ending, we reflect upon what we learned and how. The most learning took place during the project, managing five different minds wanting the same thing but each in their own splendid way. The models and historical perspectives are of course interesting but learning by doing is, as commonly known, the best way to learn something new.
During the project it’s been necessary for us doing further research about the different models and persons mentioned in the lyrics. Since we had to summarize and criticize them in just a few lines, understanding what they were all about was essential.
This project has indeed made the five of us, if possible, even closer. Even though the video has been ready for a while, we get together more often than before, and just ‘chilling’ which is enjoyable. It appears the kind of ‘Fun Management’ practiced by us during this project has been very successful. It is easier to work hard if you really enjoy what you are doing. Perhaps this is the title of the next Business Bestseller from KTH: ‘Fun Management – Why and how you want to do what you do’.
Considering further releases from Snowflake Productions is not unthinkable!
Sköld David, 2008, ”Behind the Green Paint: The Perverse Core of the Aesthetic Economy”, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm
Lyrics:
Management, Here I come, You can’t hide,
Gonna find you and understand you.
Management, Here I come, You can’t hide,
Gonna define you, and start consulting.
If we look back in time, hierarchy’s the way,
Everyone that works has a boss to obey.
This will ensure total control,
But that’s not how to roll!
‘Cause when the CEO comes down to the floor,
What’s he really looking for?
Everyone hides all the stuff that looks bad,
The CEO is still glad.
Taylors rhyme, specialization’s fine,
Scientific management is worth the dime.
Robots never take a leak, they don’t even sleep,
Emotion’s overrated human sissies just weep.
But robots can’t create, fuckers work to late,
Smash them to pieces and off to China State.
People that work need different things,
Maybe fly with their own wings.
Management, Here I come, You can’t hide,
Gonna find you and understand you.
Management, Here I come, You can’t hide,
Gonna define you, and start consulting.
You know the Hawthorne studies they made?
Change motivates people – not what they’re paid,
They wanted to know which way to go.
To make workers work their best in the flow,
Such a little thing as illumination change.
made a big difference – but it ain’t so strange.
For people to feel noticed and treated right,
you might only have to lower the light.
That’s right – Remember Core Competence,
Just thinking ’bout the products is nonsense.
Look inside the company see what we do best,
That, my friend, is the most important quest.
Build your company based on this,
And no opportunity you’ll ever miss.
Prahalad, Hamel, Leonard-Barton were correct,
Upon the Core Competence we must reflect.
Management, Here I come, You can’t hide,
Gonna find you and understand you.
Management, Here I come, You can’t hide,
Gonna define you, and start consulting.
You can’t learn it all,
From the models yeah,
oh baby hey baby
Gotta combine them all oh yeah.
Boston Ma-atrix, Seven S, Outsource, Benchmarking,
Six, Sigma,
User Innovation, oh yeah.
We need to focus more on the people,
Their interaction is the company’s steeple.
Networking more important than feedback,
You should not… Yo, bring the beat back.
you should not stop worrying about sales rather,
you should start focusing on one another.
people should communicate as much they want,
and they won’t ever feel treated nonchalant.
Yo, so we talked about a thousand ways,
to look at management, and what they say.
Taylor, Mintzberg, Drucker, Hamel, Porter, Kotler, Prahalad, Dunbar,
Does anyone care who they are?
Can’t be defined, management’s too wide,
Look at those guys they already tried.
Management’s hard to put a finger on,
It’s what these guys make their money from.
Management, Here I come, You can’t hide,
Gonna find you and understand you.
Management, Here I come, You can’t hide,
Gonna define you, and start consulting.
Review of Chefs paradoxen
In the book ”Chefs Paradoxen” Thomas R. Horton describes a CEOs thoughts and work from being hired until retirement. The book is very interesting and I really encourage reading it since it present the whole picture of being a multinational CEO as well as many interesting details. After reading it I though think a more suitable title would be ‘In the mind of a big time CEO’, because that’s what the book is all about. Horton, as a resigned CEO, writes the book to the new CEO, with the idea of the book being used as a guide, making his successor successful as CEO. Horton though declares that all new CEOs, in the beginning of their career, should apply what he‘s written. Another of Horton’s purposes is to unravel the mysteries of the role as a CEO. In the book Horton also describes methods of how to avoid the most obvious problems that can strike a CEO. Horton describes the CEO from a business and humanistic perspective, as he himself has experienced and carried out the CEO-ship during a successful career. The book becomes even more interesting since it’s written in a way putting the reader as CEO during the many examples and discussions. Among other things Horton describes the CEOs decision-making, delegation, planning and the way to lead a big company, Horton also gives personal comments on how to dress and act as a CEO. Horton even goes as far as describing how to behave as a CEO when working with attractive female employees.
In an open and informal way Horton describes the leader’s passion in practicing his power but notes that leaders can be emotional as anybody else. It’s with passion and detail Horton describes the complexity of retiring from being a CEO, leaving all the power to someone else. Horton though encourages a retiring CEO to seek new inspiring jobs, maybe trying a new career such as dean at a college or parliamentary undersecretary or equal. I believe Horton in an admirable way describes the life of a CEO. He describes the CEO from a causality perspective with good pedagogic, clearly stating how to become a leader of world class. When unravelling the mysteries of the CEO, Horton gives examples he himself has experienced, as well as his friends in similar positions. Some of the examples are “spiced up” a bit I can imagine, thus making the book more interesting. So with this in mind one can say that Horton succeeds achieving one of his purposes with the book; to unravel the role of a CEO. he still describes the CEO as a person with extra ordinary abilities though, a person to look up to. This is, according to Horton, based on the CEOs unique talents running a multinational company.
Consequently I believe it fair to say Horton succeeding unravelling the mysteries of a CEO, but in the same time creating a halo surrounding it, i.e. the role of a CEO demands abilities beyond the ordinary. One of Horton’s other purposes, suggesting different methods making the CEOs day to day job easier, is limited to giving advice such as learn to listen, learn to delegate and being rational, which I hardly consider methods, rather just friendly advice. In this purpose I consider Horton’s attempts trying making science of his own advice, not achievable since I believe his ideas too subjective and not possessing the appropriate substance. This glorified depiction of the CEO, from Horton’s helicopter point of view, is about CEO at big American companies, hence the many examples from Horton’s friends with just such roles, e.g. General Motors and Coca-Cola etc. Very well educated people with extremely high performance potential, but limited when seeing the world from e.g. Joe the Plummer’s perspective (John McCain’s election campaign 2008). Joe the Plummer and many many others, that are CEOs of their own companies or at small or medium sized companies have completely different working situations than the one Horton describes. In this aspect I believe Horton misses his purpose unravelling the mysteries of a CEO since him just focusing on companies of enormous size, and those big hotshot CEOs hardly stand like Joe the Plummer with dirt under the nails among their employees on the “working floor”.
In the world of business in a Horton perspective, there only exists men, and Horton thinks and writes as the man he is, female CEOs are hardly mentioned in the book. This can be seen as an example on the male domination amongst CEOs when the book was written in 1994, and still is, but hopefully in much lesser extent. One of the things I have reflected mostly upon is Horton not, with a single word, mentioning the union and how it by defending its interest, and through actions can limit the freedom of a CEO. Even the board of directors or owners are hardly mentioned, thus not at all described how they can control or influence a CEO. Another thing I consider strange, is Horton not seeing the unions and owners as resources to establish consensus when solving different kinds of company related problems. Almost as strange is Horton not writing anything substantial about the collaboration and relation between a CEO and the public opinion, the media and the political parties in a prevailing society. Having the purpose Horton has, it’s astonishing he’s not mentioning anything about these important “pressure” groups almost every CEO, at small or big companies, are related to whether they like it or not. Horton’s forgotten chapter should be named ‘The CEOs acting in a social context.
Horton represents a humanistic and management based view of the economical systems CEOs are part of, but Horton’s depiction of the reality is of course the one from a big time CEOs perspective. What Horton forgets to mention, or isn’t aware of is the labour force also being individuals needing acceptance and encouragement. They are by Horton just given production-factors in a profitable environment. In the market capitalistic world of Horton it seems to be no room for philosophical, humanistic or profitable aspects concerning the well being of individuals – and thereby the possibility of more devoted individuals producing more and better. This is according to my opinion also considered a forgotten chapter that probably would contribute with interesting aspects for a person soon to become CEO.
Horton has written a book full of advice CEOs at big, multinational companies should take in to account. But it’s clear that the advices are for those really big company CEOs, not the average or small time CEOs. For those soon to be big time CEOs, fitting the target group of the book, Horton appears as a strong sender of norms and values for expected behaviours and mindsets of attitudes. Horton goes so much in to details that he gives recommendations on what’s proper to wear as CEO, and how to create your own leader characteristics. At the same time as recommending different leadership styles, Horton malign other big CEO’s due to them strutting around in the limelight, or as the Lee Iacocca and Donald Trump, being publicity hunters and writing books just for bragging! Horton though writes, which I believe evident, CEOs can be all kinds of types, from chatterboxes to reflecting thinkers, to despots or collaborators. Horton’s tip is though to be yourself as much as possible, commenting that you sometimes have to mount a role making some for you, less natural decisions more easy.
As a summary I want to make some last statements. Horton writes open-heartedly, humoristic and in an easy way, sharing the norms he has lived according to and acted on; values he think other CEOs should consider. When looked upon the book from a big multinational company perspective, I believe Horton to be successful achieving his purposes, apart from some mistakes or forgotten chapters. When seen from small or medium companies standpoint, or the public’s point of view, the book still has a lot to accomplish. After reading the book and reflecting upon it I believe Horton had a third, secret purpose, namely to mock other CEOs he believe to be chatterboxes, writing their own books just for bragging.
What is management?
I have been thinking about whether management exists in everything, if it does everything would be a question about good or bad management. Right know for example if we look at Iceland they must have had a bad management to end up where they are today. To be fair maybe we should not give them the whole blame for ending up with like they did since the market is a global one. But the question of blame is not as important as the question on how to get out of the financial crisis. As discussed before at this blog it might not exist a finished recipe of management for how it should be used. So you have to use ad-hoc solutions when a new situation arrives. But this situation is a good example for when good management is needed but by who? Who should try to solve this problem, is it a management expert, a economist or a politician? I don’t know but my feeling is that the most rational is that they all are needed to put together a god strategy together. To put specialists from many different fields together to come up with a solution might be the best way to go. The problem in the case of Iceland is that they need a solution quite soon. The real management task therefore to balance the need of coordination and the need for a quick strategy. So in this case management could be said to be about coordination and leadership.
American election
Since I am interested in politics I have reading quite a bit about the American election. When reading about the election one thing that strikes me is the importance of “external” opinion builders like evening show hosts and even bloggers or volunteers. Today it’s quite easy even for the everyday person to spread your opinion especially through internet where for example a blog can be started in less than 5 minutes. This is something that the brains behind the campaigns have understood. Not only have they understood that it is important to try to get them on your side but it’s also the importance of getting feedback on how their politics are perceived and what the public opinion believe to be important questions. This is new because before the views of average Joe voter have always been filtered and delayed through a research institute. The improvement from this is that campaigns can be faster to react to public opinions and also that public opinion in a more direct way can influence the policies of the candidates.
One other implication of blogging is that the original message is redesigned at these blogs and might in the end not be that similar to what was intended. Which is a further reason for the campaign staff to follow the trends on blogs to make sure that there message is not misinterpreted.
All this have made people outside the campaigns more important for developing the campaigns. Maybe companies could learn from this the importance of the people outside in forming their product even if it doesn’t look like that at first glance?
Here is a simplified sketch of the difference of the two ways.
Old way of campaigning slow if any feedback
A more modern view of how to form a political message.
Fast to scout the attitudes and reforming the message
Thoughts about Mastering the Case Interview and Case in Point
I have read through and spent some thoughts about the books Mastering the Case Interview by Alexander Chernev of Kellogg School of Management but also Case in Point by Marc P. Cosentino at Harvard Business School. These books are both books about how to do well in an interview and especially an interview at a management consulting firm or similar. What’s is characteristic about these interviews in these industry is that it often involves a case solving part where the interviewee is suppose to show his or her ability to “solve” and reflect around a business problem. Here I will discuss a few thoughts about these books solution to the cases.
When reading through these books it’s hard not to see how similar they are in many parts. The feeling I get is that Mastering the Case Interview came out as an answer to Case in Point to show that Harvard is not the only school that can teach you to pass the interviews to the job that you want. These similarities make it even more interesting to find and discuss the differences but also to draw conclusions about the similarities.
One characteristic of popular management books is the exaggerated confidence that they present their theory which is quite different from the more widespread self-criticism you could find in a academic report. Oversimplified catch phrases like “how to succeed” or “the 10 steps to …” are common and make me see parallels with magazines or evening papers. These books are somewhere in between the two extremes of popular management books and academic report but leaning more towards the first of these buckets.
In Mastering the Case Interview Chernev presents an extraordinary skill of making up names and acronyms for almost everything he talks about, from how to present yourself to how to reason around any business problem. This might be an easy way to get his “frameworks” to seem more established and fancy or maybe to make them more easy to remember. The later would be counteracted by the cheer volume of them which just makes them confusing.
In Case in Point we are presented to The Ivy Case System© which is the process that the book is centered around. By learning this process you should be prepared to tackle almost any case that is thrown at you during the interviews. What is really interesting about this system is the simplicity of it. One might figure that to “crack” a complex business problem you will need complex frameworks and models but the authors would not agree. It is the simplicity that makes it practical to use. That Chernev has a similar view can be seen in his approach also is a quite simple one and that he in just a few pages walks through the management models that he believe is needed. Both of them agree that simplicity of frameworks makes them more useful and that the trick is to know when to use them and when not to use them in the end the frameworks are there to help your reasoning. One might think that this is not so strange since an interview is only an interview and not the real deal. But I believe otherwise, even when “solving” real business cases a complex framework won’t help you a more than a simple one. This since any real business case is so complex and with so many different unknown variables that the exact outcome can never be determined anyway which makes a complex framework just more time consuming. Thus I like these books focus on the practical rather then what the exactness.
I don’t necessarily agree that the systems advocated in these books are the answer to any kind of case. Since business problems can be of a wide range of characteristics but also that the people using these systems are different. I also think that the fact that the two systems have sliced and diced the solution framework in quite different ways supports my view that no one solution is the best one every time. At the same time I can understand the quest for finding the perfect system that explain it all like the physicist is trying to find one model to explain and unite the physics behind the smallest part of the universe to the biggest. Such structures appeals to most of us.
Even if I don’t believe any of these systems to be the solution to any problems I do believe that both of them are very good fundament from which to start from. My personal view is also that these books should not be used as manuals with an instruction on how to succeed but rather as a help to form your own way of reasoning without being limited by someone else’s views. One other thing to remember is, as Chernev actually points out, that companies are not looking for people that can memorize a number of solutions rather they are looking for people understanding the logic behind. Therefore it’s is more important to try to figure out what is unique with a particular case rather than looking for what is as “mainstream”. In the end practice is what makes the difference
Review of the book “Running Things – The Art of Making Things Happen” by Philip B. Crosby
Review of the book “Running Things – The Art of Making Things Happen” by Philip B. Crosby
Philip B. Crosby has a Quality Management background after working with that type of questions in the industry for over 20 years. He has also started a management consulting firm and written many books on the subject of quality and management. The book “Running Things” is his main contribution to the field of leadership and management. As the cover says, “Whether you want to run a boy scout troop or a multinational corporation, Philip Crosby shows you how to make things happen – how to reach goals, how to make projects successful – in a wide variety of settings.” This seems like the trademark catchphrase of the everyday management literature and in a way, it is.
The usual way of dividing management literature is between academic papers and business bestsellers. I would also like to make a distinction within the business field, between those who have the questions and those who want to answer them. Peter Drucker once said “My job is to ask questions. It’s your job to provide answers.” Some consider this approach to be a bit stupid – all the questions asked seem obvious and the first feeling is that every organization in the world must be thinking of it. The other business genre would be the one that has all the answers. An example of this type of literature is John Kotter who has written “Leading Change” about the eight steps to create long-term successful change.
With this book, Philip B. Crosby is part of the first category. He pinpoints some of the most important aspects of running an organization: Its purpose, the role of the leader, arranging, establishing, exampling, handling and doing. As quoted above, the book is to be read by any form of manager – be it of a church committee, a big corporation or your own newly-started firm. This means that the same solutions cannot be applied to all areas, but Crosby believes many of the same questions have to be answered. By mixing statements of what needs to be laid down with anecdotes of various situations, the reader is guided through the different aspects of the organization.
It is easy to criticize this kind of book. Not a single statement of what needs to be done is motivated from any other perspective than the writer’s experience. What gives an academic text its credibility is that it is based on previous research, with an immense amount of references followed by a few conclusions drawn from either the referenced material alone, or combined with some new studies. What gives this text credibility is Philip B. Crosby. If we trust this man to be reliable and worthy of our attention then the book is acceptable. If we do not trust him, the book is obsolete and useful for nothing more than paper-weight.
The examples given in the text in order to illustrate the outcomes of certain behaviors are very naïve. When feedback is given to a bully, he immediately accepts it and is thankful that is was brought up that his co-workers did not like him. When a leader of many committees and organizations are faced with the fact that his friends feel that he does not accomplish anything and is a burden to them, he reacts not by being angry and feeling unappreciated but by thanking them for the information and asking for help how he can change to the better. These kinds of simplifications can make the reader believe that the world is black and white, that there is a correct answer to everything and that every action is followed by a predefined reaction.
However, the field of management is not easy to approach in many different ways in order to make it understandable to the general public. A text in this area must among other things be easy to read, insightful, based on reality and applicable to the life of the reader. Although a bit amusing, the anecdotes of behavior in different organizations serve their purpose of giving the reader an important aspect of management in a way that the reader can understand what is being said. While academic texts mostly focus on delivering a message, these types of texts focus on how the message is accepted and what needs to be done in order to help the reader understand the message. If interpreted literally, most of the examples are of course too specific to be used in any organization. Crosby however manages to let the messages of the stories shine through the settings of the stories, which means that the reader can take in the message in a way that would not be possible if it was only described in a more direct fashion.
Also, many of the topics considered in this kind of literature, although seemingly obvious, are not used in reality. For example, had I read the part on how to arrange an organization before starting a company last year I think it might have been easier to scale up and grow, instead of just being three guys conducting math lessons. Even though both I and Crosby believe in the “less planning, more doing” attitude, his specifics on how to arrange an organization in order to make everyone understand it seem fair. The charter (what?), the purpose (why?), the requirements (how?), the dedication and the attitude of any organization needs to be established. The first two, and maybe the third, are easy. The last two however are easy to skip while arranging an organization, but in order to help people want to work for it they are essential. Among all the points made in the book, I think this is the most vital one – and also the one mostly used when Crosby describes a company’s way from being an idea to a place where nametags are needed since it is impossible to remember everybody’s name.
To summarize, this book is an easy-to-read guide on how to run your everyday organization. It does not take the Welshian approach on how to become the best in the world, but rather focuses on how to create and maintain a stable organization. Many of his points seem a bit too apparent to be useful, but if interpreted in a wider fashion than described they serve their purpose well: To make the ordinary person understand how to manage an organization.
