{ Tuesday, January 20, 2009 }
I've been benefiting from Kareem's extensive notes on various books on Good Reads, including today's review of The Future of Management. Some notes:
23: Toyota's capacity for continuous improvement has been powered by a belief in the ability of "ordinary" employees to solve complex problems. In 2005, the company received 540,000 improvement ideas from its Japanese employees.
43: Goal of mgmt innovation is to build organizations that are capable of continual, trauma-free renewal.
56: Something in orgs that deplete natural resilience and creativity of human beings - management principles that foster discipline, economy, rationality, and order, yet place little value on artistry, nonconformity, originality, and elan.
62: Hierarchies are good at aggregating effort, at coordinating activities of people with widely differing roles. But not good at mobilizing effort, at inspiring people to go above and beyond. When it comes to mobilizing human capabilities, communities outperform beaureacracies. For several reasons:
- In bureaucracy, basis for exchange is contractual; in community, it's voluntary - give your labor to make a difference or exercise talents
- In a bureaucracy, you are factor in production; in community, a partner in a cause
- In a bureaucracy, loyalty is a product of economic dependency; in community, dedication and commitment depend on one's affiliation with the group's aims and goals
- in a bureaucracy, policies and rules determine supervision and control; in community, norms, values, and peer pressure
- in a bureaucracy, contributions based on role; in community, capability and disposition are more important than credentials and job desc
- in a bureaucracy rewards are mostly financial; in community, mostly emotional
Compared with bureaucracies, communities tend to be unmanaged. That, more than anything else, is why they are amplifiers of human capability.
64: No discussions of mgmt process suggest participants have hearts - none of Beauty, Truth, Love, Service, Wisdom, Justice, Freedom, Compassion. You are unlikely to get bighearted contributions from your employees unless they feel they are working toward some goal that encompasses bighearted ideals.
Looks great. I've ordered a copy.
LINK | 10:42 AM | TB
Unfortunately management systems become bureaucracies designed, as most are, to be self preserving. Open models of management are usually practiced by owners who have no fear of being replaced by their underlings. Where there is competition for position most heirarchies become very protective of position, information, and tools. Even the Japanese models have become more bureaucratic in recent years, denying innovation more and more. Competition for scarce resources (executive positions)creates internecine fighting and in the long run harms the business.
Mike | January 26, 2009 5:40 PMcaterina, glad you're enjoying the notes.
@mike - that's a big generalization about open mgmt models. some of the most radical (ex: WL Gore) only have managers if others want to work for them - the notion of "underling" doesn't exist as it does in most hierarchical companies.
also - re: not being scared of being replaced - i know of a company with execs that (bindingly) ask their employees every year whether they should step down. i'm guessing as an exec there you can't be driven by fear and *must* be driven by your ability to inspire those you are leading to perform.
kareem | February 13, 2009 2:04 PM{ Post a comment }
Thanks for this post. Gary Hamel is great. I strongly recommend Peter Drucker's writing as well, especially "Management" and "The Effective Executive."
j david | January 20, 2009 3:18 PM