Obviously, each organization and person has to customize solutions for their situation and goals. But there are some general principles in regards to the importance of priorities, communication, system dynamics, variation, and processes that will be constant. Engineers, doctors, and architects are generally expected to be licensed and / or recipients of a formal education before they can practice their craft. They, too, must improvise and problem-solve in situations that weren't covered in class - but they have a body of knowledge upon which they can rely when doing so.
The field of management is perhaps not as mature a science as meteorology, physics, or engineering. But some fabulous minds have delved into the topic and come out with insights that could change how you do business.
It seems a crime that so few practitioners of management have heard of the leading thinkers like Peter Drucker, W. Edwards Deming, Russell Ackoff, Edgar Schein, and Peter Senge. Their writing is not always easy, but it generally seems easier to understand their insights than to manage without them.
Next time you are debating about whether to work overtime or do something personal, compromise: read a book by one of these great thinkers.
Showing posts with label management. Show all posts
Showing posts with label management. Show all posts
Monday, January 29, 2007
Monday, January 15, 2007
Who Cut the Cheese? - the Myth of Management Wisdom
If you have sat through a business meeting, you have had one of those moments when you have sat mute, incredulous that the person talking is wasting your time to prattle on about such inane and obvious things. (Hint: if you have not had such a moment, you are the person prattling on.)
Apparently some people like to use meetings to connect, to come to agreement. One sure way to do this is to talk about the obvious. Who can disagree with a conclusion that this customer making up 40% of the business is an important customer? Who can disagree that it was a bad idea to offend their lead procurement guy? Who would disagree that we need to work things out? And who would disagree that we need to make this an important task? And yet the admonitions spill out, and different levels of managers trip over one another to reinforce what even an 8th grader with an iPod can by now repeat.
At halftime, it may be obvious to the team trailing by 12 points that they have to get out there and "turn things around." This is both obvious and unhelpful. What would help - and what can too rarely be provided - is actual coaching about how to turn things around. Suggestions for specific steps, certain strategies, changes in match ups. Players want to win. They do not want to be humiliated. Players are hungry for good coaching, tips that make them better, whether it comes in the form of words of encouragement or correction.
Employees don't need to be berated or subject to inane pep talks. When things have gone wrong, they need coaching that makes a difference, coaching that can actually improve their performance.
Apparently some people like to use meetings to connect, to come to agreement. One sure way to do this is to talk about the obvious. Who can disagree with a conclusion that this customer making up 40% of the business is an important customer? Who can disagree that it was a bad idea to offend their lead procurement guy? Who would disagree that we need to work things out? And who would disagree that we need to make this an important task? And yet the admonitions spill out, and different levels of managers trip over one another to reinforce what even an 8th grader with an iPod can by now repeat.
At halftime, it may be obvious to the team trailing by 12 points that they have to get out there and "turn things around." This is both obvious and unhelpful. What would help - and what can too rarely be provided - is actual coaching about how to turn things around. Suggestions for specific steps, certain strategies, changes in match ups. Players want to win. They do not want to be humiliated. Players are hungry for good coaching, tips that make them better, whether it comes in the form of words of encouragement or correction.
Employees don't need to be berated or subject to inane pep talks. When things have gone wrong, they need coaching that makes a difference, coaching that can actually improve their performance.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
The Myth of Communication
When surveyed, employees often indicate that they want more communication. The response to this is often short-lived, involving a flurry of newsletters, executive addresses, and an increase in email traffic, yet it inevitably misses the point. This is because the very notion of communication is misunderstood.
A default concept of communication seems to depend on a picture of information as a substance that moves from one person to another, like water poured from a pitcher into a glass. (Which suddenly makes those teacher admonitions to "sit still!" so much more comprehensible.) But communication doesn't work like that.
Instead, communication is a process of remote control, pushing buttons from afar, and hoping that you get it right. When I say "freedom" to you, I actually push your "freedom" word button. For one person that sounds like tiresome 4th of July speeches, to another it means complete lack of accountability, and to a third it conjures an invigorating concept. Depending on what interpretation the word freedom launches in your brain, what I say has very different meanings.
To compound this problem of communication, almost invariably organizations are made up of a variety of functions. Each function - accounting, legal, engineering, advertising, production - has a different worldview and is inclined to interpret any communication differently from the other. Hence, a large stream of communication that flows through any organization inevitably shows up as chatter, as static, rather than a meaningful signal or message.
When employees say that they need more communication, they aren't asking for more static. They are asking to be heard. Until you hear their story, understand their frustrations, goals, and experiences, you don't even know how to talk to them. Worse, as long as a person goes unheard, he or she gradually grows disengaged from your enterprise.
It is no myth that your organization needs more communication. It is a myth that such communication should begin with even more management pronouncements.
A default concept of communication seems to depend on a picture of information as a substance that moves from one person to another, like water poured from a pitcher into a glass. (Which suddenly makes those teacher admonitions to "sit still!" so much more comprehensible.) But communication doesn't work like that.
Instead, communication is a process of remote control, pushing buttons from afar, and hoping that you get it right. When I say "freedom" to you, I actually push your "freedom" word button. For one person that sounds like tiresome 4th of July speeches, to another it means complete lack of accountability, and to a third it conjures an invigorating concept. Depending on what interpretation the word freedom launches in your brain, what I say has very different meanings.
To compound this problem of communication, almost invariably organizations are made up of a variety of functions. Each function - accounting, legal, engineering, advertising, production - has a different worldview and is inclined to interpret any communication differently from the other. Hence, a large stream of communication that flows through any organization inevitably shows up as chatter, as static, rather than a meaningful signal or message.
When employees say that they need more communication, they aren't asking for more static. They are asking to be heard. Until you hear their story, understand their frustrations, goals, and experiences, you don't even know how to talk to them. Worse, as long as a person goes unheard, he or she gradually grows disengaged from your enterprise.
It is no myth that your organization needs more communication. It is a myth that such communication should begin with even more management pronouncements.
The Myth of the Management “Team”
A corollary to the myth that people are endowed with specific attributes, knowledge, skills and experience simply by virtue of the position or title they hold is another myth, the myth of the management “team,” described quite well in Peter Senge’s 1990 book, The Fifth Discipline.
Mr. Senge talks about this august group of senior executives who battle collectively to define the organization’s pathway, knock down internal and external obstacles, and provide the wherewithal for the organization to compete and survive in the marketplace. But in describing how this “team” functions in reality, he makes the point that the way they function tends to minimize any chance for collective or individual learning. Listen to what he has to say:
“All too often, teams in business tend to spend time fighting for turf, avoiding anything that will make them look bad personally, and pretending that everyone is behind the team’s collective strategy—maintaining the appearance of a cohesive team. To keep up the image, they seek to squelch disagreement; people with serious reservations avoid stating them publicly; and joint decisions are watered-down compromises reflecting what everyone can live with, or else reflecting one person’s view foisted on the group. If there is disagreement, it’s usually expressed in a manner that lays blame, polarizes opinion, and fails to reveal the underlying differences in assumptions and experience in a way that the team as a whole could learn.”
Senge continues by referencing Chris Argyris’s book, Overcoming Organizational Defenses, about the fact that, while executive team’s can function quite well in managing more mundane issues, their cohesiveness and performance break down under encounters with real problems or crises:
“Argyris argues that most managers find collective inquiry inherently threatening. School trains us never to admit that we do not know the answer, and most corporations reinforce that lesson by rewarding the people we excel in advocating their views, not inquiring into complex issues. (When was the last time someone was rewarded in your organization for raising difficult questions about the company’s current policies rather than solving urgent problems?)"
Senge continues:
“Even if we feel uncertain or ignorant, we learn to protect ourselves from the pain of appearing uncertain or ignorant. That very process blocks out any new understandings which might threaten us. The consequence is what Argyris calls ‘skilled incompetence’—teams full of people who are incredibly proficient at keeping themselves from learning.”
Perhaps we should focus more time and energy on examining the quality of the questions being asked inside our organizations rather than just focusing on the quality of the “answers.” When was the last time your management asked you to focus on the nature of the questions being asked inside your organization?
Mr. Senge talks about this august group of senior executives who battle collectively to define the organization’s pathway, knock down internal and external obstacles, and provide the wherewithal for the organization to compete and survive in the marketplace. But in describing how this “team” functions in reality, he makes the point that the way they function tends to minimize any chance for collective or individual learning. Listen to what he has to say:
“All too often, teams in business tend to spend time fighting for turf, avoiding anything that will make them look bad personally, and pretending that everyone is behind the team’s collective strategy—maintaining the appearance of a cohesive team. To keep up the image, they seek to squelch disagreement; people with serious reservations avoid stating them publicly; and joint decisions are watered-down compromises reflecting what everyone can live with, or else reflecting one person’s view foisted on the group. If there is disagreement, it’s usually expressed in a manner that lays blame, polarizes opinion, and fails to reveal the underlying differences in assumptions and experience in a way that the team as a whole could learn.”
Senge continues by referencing Chris Argyris’s book, Overcoming Organizational Defenses, about the fact that, while executive team’s can function quite well in managing more mundane issues, their cohesiveness and performance break down under encounters with real problems or crises:
“Argyris argues that most managers find collective inquiry inherently threatening. School trains us never to admit that we do not know the answer, and most corporations reinforce that lesson by rewarding the people we excel in advocating their views, not inquiring into complex issues. (When was the last time someone was rewarded in your organization for raising difficult questions about the company’s current policies rather than solving urgent problems?)"
Senge continues:
“Even if we feel uncertain or ignorant, we learn to protect ourselves from the pain of appearing uncertain or ignorant. That very process blocks out any new understandings which might threaten us. The consequence is what Argyris calls ‘skilled incompetence’—teams full of people who are incredibly proficient at keeping themselves from learning.”
Perhaps we should focus more time and energy on examining the quality of the questions being asked inside our organizations rather than just focusing on the quality of the “answers.” When was the last time your management asked you to focus on the nature of the questions being asked inside your organization?
Friday, January 5, 2007
Using the Carrot as a Stick - the Myth of Motivation
Audrey introduced Candice and Paul and was quite happy that the two were as delighted with one another as she thought that they’d be. About a year later, Candice and Paul were married. They had a little ceremony and served cake but no meal. Audrey was hurt that she was not invited.
Audrey wasn’t hurt because she introduced Candice and Paul with the expectation of free cake. She was hurt because she wanted to share in the natural consequences of something she’d done, expected some recognition. And this gets to the heart of what is perhaps the most thoughtlessly relied-upon myth: the myth of extrinsic motivation.
There is such a huge gap between research and common practice on this point of employee motivation that the average person is usually stunned to learn that virtually all formal research indicates that extrinsic motivation does not work. Offering free cake as an inducement to get friends to introduce potential couples simply doesn’t work.
Extrinsic motivation is motivation that comes from outside of the person and typically shows up in the form of the classic carrot (bonus if you achieve this goal) or stick (humiliation or demotion if you don't achieve the goal). This belief in the efficacy of extrinsic motivation is so ingrained that, as Alfie Kohn says, research reporting on conclusions seems to invariably begin, "Contrary to hypothesis."
There are a variety of reasons for this confusion about a myth being fact. I will focus on only one here. The real problem with extrinsic motivation is that it places the locus of control over the task in the hands of someone not doing it. This practically guarantees that the task won’t be done creatively nor well. Rather, it will be done rather perfunctorily; people will do what’s needed for the reward but not necessarily what is needed for the task.
If you manage people, share the consequences of their work with them. Invite them to the wedding or have a profit sharing plan or some means to create a linkage between what they have done and what results from it. But don’t confuse that with the hope of controlling their behavior as if you were dangling fish in front of dolphins at SeaWorld. Let them eat cake - just don't use it to get them to jump through hoops.
Audrey wasn’t hurt because she introduced Candice and Paul with the expectation of free cake. She was hurt because she wanted to share in the natural consequences of something she’d done, expected some recognition. And this gets to the heart of what is perhaps the most thoughtlessly relied-upon myth: the myth of extrinsic motivation.
There is such a huge gap between research and common practice on this point of employee motivation that the average person is usually stunned to learn that virtually all formal research indicates that extrinsic motivation does not work. Offering free cake as an inducement to get friends to introduce potential couples simply doesn’t work.
Extrinsic motivation is motivation that comes from outside of the person and typically shows up in the form of the classic carrot (bonus if you achieve this goal) or stick (humiliation or demotion if you don't achieve the goal). This belief in the efficacy of extrinsic motivation is so ingrained that, as Alfie Kohn says, research reporting on conclusions seems to invariably begin, "Contrary to hypothesis."
There are a variety of reasons for this confusion about a myth being fact. I will focus on only one here. The real problem with extrinsic motivation is that it places the locus of control over the task in the hands of someone not doing it. This practically guarantees that the task won’t be done creatively nor well. Rather, it will be done rather perfunctorily; people will do what’s needed for the reward but not necessarily what is needed for the task.
If you manage people, share the consequences of their work with them. Invite them to the wedding or have a profit sharing plan or some means to create a linkage between what they have done and what results from it. But don’t confuse that with the hope of controlling their behavior as if you were dangling fish in front of dolphins at SeaWorld. Let them eat cake - just don't use it to get them to jump through hoops.
Thursday, January 4, 2007
The Automatic Attribution of Competence by Role
One of the most amazing phenomena (myths) we all witness through the course of our careers is the attribution or inference of knowledge, skills and particular competencies simply by virtue of the position someone occupies or the title someone holds. In other words, just because someone is promoted to a management position, the inference must be drawn, particularly by the supervisor who promoted him or her, that the individual actually knows how to “manage” people and lead the organization. However, since few companies actually seem to have any formal training programs, tutorials, handbooks, or other learning modalities to familiarize or immerse people into what it truly means to manage other human beings, one has to wonder how the newly promoted managers magically acquired these competencies. How does an individual who has never had any prior managerial experience or training become endowed with the knowledge and qualities needed to motivate, lead, train, guide, evaluate, and promote their new subordinates?
Or take another example. The senior executives bring in a new individual to become general manager of an operation. What are the specific attributions or inferences of competency that must be drawn (and granted) as a result of that simple act? Well, all of the competencies ascribable to that job, of course. Otherwise, we must assume that the new individual wouldn’t be there, right? And, the new general manager expects us to understand immediately that he or she must be “smarter” than we are because, after all, he or she occupies the titled position and we don’t. And the new individual must act and “look” the part, if for no other reason than that they can’t be found out by their manager to be less than “all-knowing” in their new role. They will only be rewarded and promoted for “looking good” and “being right.” After all the person who put them into the position is not paying them for “not knowing,” for asking too many questions, for being indecisive, or being wrong. Having the answer is what it’s all about and sounding intelligent is essential, even if the ideas or opinions expressed are not founded on articulable theory, hypotheses generated from trial and error, specific knowledge, corroborated information or fact. So the charade begins.
And we all play the game, become complicit in inferring the manager’s infallibility and omniscience. We decide it is unreasonable (or potentially career limiting) to point out errors in the individual’s thinking and decisions, and we stay quiet even when we know that wrong questions are being asked, the focus is misplaced, the identified problem is really only a symptom of something deeper, or the decision is off target. We quietly do what we’re told even when we know it won’t make a difference for the organization, or worse, will hurt the organization. And, this myth of infallability is exacerbated even more by the emergence of an increasing portion of workers as knowledge workers. Knowledge workers' specialties and particular skills very often distance them over time from their supervisors or managers' competencies, supervisors and managers whose technical knowledge and skills may have been acquired long ago, may be outdated in today’s environment, or may never have really been germane to the task (or tasks) that his or her employees now face. How do CFO’s or COO’s make intelligent decisions with respect the work of digital circuit designers, test engineers, marketers, or salesmen? How does a hospital administrator, trained in hospital management, begin to fathom the difficulties of the task decisions faced by oncologists or cardio-pulmonary specialists?
They often can’t. But we can’t say so and neither can they.
Or take another example. The senior executives bring in a new individual to become general manager of an operation. What are the specific attributions or inferences of competency that must be drawn (and granted) as a result of that simple act? Well, all of the competencies ascribable to that job, of course. Otherwise, we must assume that the new individual wouldn’t be there, right? And, the new general manager expects us to understand immediately that he or she must be “smarter” than we are because, after all, he or she occupies the titled position and we don’t. And the new individual must act and “look” the part, if for no other reason than that they can’t be found out by their manager to be less than “all-knowing” in their new role. They will only be rewarded and promoted for “looking good” and “being right.” After all the person who put them into the position is not paying them for “not knowing,” for asking too many questions, for being indecisive, or being wrong. Having the answer is what it’s all about and sounding intelligent is essential, even if the ideas or opinions expressed are not founded on articulable theory, hypotheses generated from trial and error, specific knowledge, corroborated information or fact. So the charade begins.
And we all play the game, become complicit in inferring the manager’s infallibility and omniscience. We decide it is unreasonable (or potentially career limiting) to point out errors in the individual’s thinking and decisions, and we stay quiet even when we know that wrong questions are being asked, the focus is misplaced, the identified problem is really only a symptom of something deeper, or the decision is off target. We quietly do what we’re told even when we know it won’t make a difference for the organization, or worse, will hurt the organization. And, this myth of infallability is exacerbated even more by the emergence of an increasing portion of workers as knowledge workers. Knowledge workers' specialties and particular skills very often distance them over time from their supervisors or managers' competencies, supervisors and managers whose technical knowledge and skills may have been acquired long ago, may be outdated in today’s environment, or may never have really been germane to the task (or tasks) that his or her employees now face. How do CFO’s or COO’s make intelligent decisions with respect the work of digital circuit designers, test engineers, marketers, or salesmen? How does a hospital administrator, trained in hospital management, begin to fathom the difficulties of the task decisions faced by oncologists or cardio-pulmonary specialists?
They often can’t. But we can’t say so and neither can they.
Friday, December 29, 2006
Myth of Cause and Effect
There are a number of variations to this myth of cause and effect. And it is easily the most pervasive. In its simplest form, it is simply the myth that whoever is standing closest to the problem is obviously responsible for it. An example of this would be management believing that the manufacturing person unable to keep sufficient inventory of odd-sized bolts is obviously responsible for the problem when production is halted rather than the designer who included an obsolete bolt spec in his design. Deming was particularly frustrated with this common management disease.
But the myth is more pervasive than this. As it turns out, cause and effect is typically defined in advance by the system, by context. Peter Senge used to ask who the leader on a ship was. Common answers included the captain who gave orders, the navigator who gave directions, the activity director who set the tone, etc. Senge pointed out that the ship designer is rarely mentioned as the leader even though the designer defines what activities can take place, how sharply the ship can turn, its maximum speed, etc. Once the ship is designed, all other parties are simply tweaking variables within some predetermined range. They are causing various effects, to be sure, but those effects are all within a normal, predetermined range. Getting "effects" outside of that range requires a change to the system, something an employee rarely has the responsibility or knowledge to do.
Management concerned with cause and effect is basically working to maintain the status quo. Transformative leadership changes the context, changes what is possible. Cause and effect is a given once a particular system is defined. Perhaps the biggest myth is to believe that the individual employees within that system can transcend its limits.
- Ron
But the myth is more pervasive than this. As it turns out, cause and effect is typically defined in advance by the system, by context. Peter Senge used to ask who the leader on a ship was. Common answers included the captain who gave orders, the navigator who gave directions, the activity director who set the tone, etc. Senge pointed out that the ship designer is rarely mentioned as the leader even though the designer defines what activities can take place, how sharply the ship can turn, its maximum speed, etc. Once the ship is designed, all other parties are simply tweaking variables within some predetermined range. They are causing various effects, to be sure, but those effects are all within a normal, predetermined range. Getting "effects" outside of that range requires a change to the system, something an employee rarely has the responsibility or knowledge to do.
Management concerned with cause and effect is basically working to maintain the status quo. Transformative leadership changes the context, changes what is possible. Cause and effect is a given once a particular system is defined. Perhaps the biggest myth is to believe that the individual employees within that system can transcend its limits.
- Ron
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Management Myths
Unleashing human potential at work and creating the freedom to contribute meaningfully
If you’ve ever gone to a bookstore to find a good book on business leadership or management, the number of titles purporting to unlock the secrets of successfully leading an organization will overwhelm you. Countless recipes for success line shelf after shelf of Borders and Barnes and Noble.
But the worlds described in those books are never where you and I live. We know this from the experiences of our workaday worlds. We live inside corporations where management seems to shower us with countless tribulations and inanities that prevent us from feeling a sense of purposefulness, value and contribution. And they do this in a myriad of ways, everyday, that annoy and perplex us. We see little connection between what we do and what lies upstream and downstream of us. We are given so little responsibility, entrusted with so few decisions, and assigned repetitive, tedious tasks. We seem to dwell in trivial matters, with too much to do, multiple shifting priorities, and little perspective on what matters most or how best to contribute. In fact, if you talk much to other employees, you might conclude that companies succeed in spite of their managements and only because of the heroic efforts of employees to overcome the impediments management streams their way.
What is this all about? Why does this happen? Is management so cloistered and shielded from their own workplace worlds that they can’t see what’s happening? Have they forgotten what it’s like to be a grunt trying to maneuver through a raft of management requests and imposed task priorities just to get their own work done? Or is management just so overwhelmingly preoccupied with their own self-importance and obtaining the next bonus that they focus almost exclusively on their own goals and objectives and pay little attention to how their own company works and the real problems that confound their employees?
We believe that the managements of most corporations simply labor under a set of myths that misinform them everyday, myths that are deeply embedded in their psyches and totally invisible to them. It’s like they’re living in a room where muzak has been playing for two years; after a while, they can’t hear the music playing anymore. These myths have become so deeply embedded into the fabric of the companies' cultures that they are virtually imperceptible.
Our hope for this blog is that if we can make these myths visible to management, they might actually be able to see the folly of some of their behaviors and the underlying beliefs and attitudes that catalyze those behaviors. By doing so, we believe we might be able to unlock the vast repository of human potential, desire and entrepreneurial spirit that lie trapped inside these monoliths of dysfunction and ineffectiveness. At the heart of all of this is our desire to unleash the human spirit and create the freedom to excel, contribute, and feel valuable inside places where people spend an abundance of their lives. If we can do that, we will feel successful.
Toward this end, we ask all of you attending this site to contribute your own insights into this subject of interest. We know that you have endless sources of information and insights by virtue of where you work everyday. We obviously will share our ideas and recommendations, but we are necessarily limited by our own experiences and knowledge. So, together, we may be able to influence and ultimately persuade our corporate leaders to adopt more informed, more rational, and more enlightened and effective approaches to management by letting them see how their current ways of thinking tremendously limit the potentials of their people and, therefore, their organizations. After all, it will only be through harnessing the brains, commitment, attention, and energy of employees that companies can hope to succeed and thrive into the 21st century. And since we’re all in this together, it’s in all of our interest to start to move these corporations toward more enlightened leadership so that our posterity will also have productive places to inhabit, work and thrive. So, let us begin.
- Bill
If you’ve ever gone to a bookstore to find a good book on business leadership or management, the number of titles purporting to unlock the secrets of successfully leading an organization will overwhelm you. Countless recipes for success line shelf after shelf of Borders and Barnes and Noble.
But the worlds described in those books are never where you and I live. We know this from the experiences of our workaday worlds. We live inside corporations where management seems to shower us with countless tribulations and inanities that prevent us from feeling a sense of purposefulness, value and contribution. And they do this in a myriad of ways, everyday, that annoy and perplex us. We see little connection between what we do and what lies upstream and downstream of us. We are given so little responsibility, entrusted with so few decisions, and assigned repetitive, tedious tasks. We seem to dwell in trivial matters, with too much to do, multiple shifting priorities, and little perspective on what matters most or how best to contribute. In fact, if you talk much to other employees, you might conclude that companies succeed in spite of their managements and only because of the heroic efforts of employees to overcome the impediments management streams their way.
What is this all about? Why does this happen? Is management so cloistered and shielded from their own workplace worlds that they can’t see what’s happening? Have they forgotten what it’s like to be a grunt trying to maneuver through a raft of management requests and imposed task priorities just to get their own work done? Or is management just so overwhelmingly preoccupied with their own self-importance and obtaining the next bonus that they focus almost exclusively on their own goals and objectives and pay little attention to how their own company works and the real problems that confound their employees?
We believe that the managements of most corporations simply labor under a set of myths that misinform them everyday, myths that are deeply embedded in their psyches and totally invisible to them. It’s like they’re living in a room where muzak has been playing for two years; after a while, they can’t hear the music playing anymore. These myths have become so deeply embedded into the fabric of the companies' cultures that they are virtually imperceptible.
Our hope for this blog is that if we can make these myths visible to management, they might actually be able to see the folly of some of their behaviors and the underlying beliefs and attitudes that catalyze those behaviors. By doing so, we believe we might be able to unlock the vast repository of human potential, desire and entrepreneurial spirit that lie trapped inside these monoliths of dysfunction and ineffectiveness. At the heart of all of this is our desire to unleash the human spirit and create the freedom to excel, contribute, and feel valuable inside places where people spend an abundance of their lives. If we can do that, we will feel successful.
Toward this end, we ask all of you attending this site to contribute your own insights into this subject of interest. We know that you have endless sources of information and insights by virtue of where you work everyday. We obviously will share our ideas and recommendations, but we are necessarily limited by our own experiences and knowledge. So, together, we may be able to influence and ultimately persuade our corporate leaders to adopt more informed, more rational, and more enlightened and effective approaches to management by letting them see how their current ways of thinking tremendously limit the potentials of their people and, therefore, their organizations. After all, it will only be through harnessing the brains, commitment, attention, and energy of employees that companies can hope to succeed and thrive into the 21st century. And since we’re all in this together, it’s in all of our interest to start to move these corporations toward more enlightened leadership so that our posterity will also have productive places to inhabit, work and thrive. So, let us begin.
- Bill
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
