This article is of particular interest to MTP as we have recently been asked by a client to build on their e-learning programme in people skills by creating an on-line session, to be delivered by one of our facilitators. I therefore had to go through the existing e-learning programme to judge what kind of foundation it would provide. I was highly impressed by the design but very uncertain about its likely impact. The author’s views confirm and clarify my reservations.
The article starts well but does not quite maintain its early promise. The author makes the key point right up front; that you can learn about soft skills via e-learning but you can’t necessarily learn to perform more effectively. You might become more knowledgeable but performance improvement depends on the effectiveness of subsequent practice.
Some people might therefore reject e-learning for this reason, in the same way as the more perfectionist L&D professionals say that ‘awareness’ training in finance or business is not effective. The author makes the point that the road to competence is a sequential process and learning about the importance of a skill can be a first step on the way to eventual mastery. He uses the pathway from unconscious incompetence to conscious competence to illustrate this point. E-learning may only move you through the first stage to conscious incompetence but that can be a key step for the manager whose people skills need to improve.
Having made this excellent, practical point, the author then loses his way by suggesting that, after learning what the skill is and why it is important, e-learning can allow learners to practice people skills. This is where I part company with the author’s views, particularly as he stresses the importance of creating ‘realistic scenarios’ to relate to. My view is that e-learning then becomes superficial and patronising, particularly with experienced managers. A typical approach is to introduce fictional characters and require judgements that are impossible without knowing the history, context and personalities involved. And it is not really practice; it becomes a guessing game with no perfect answer.
I sympathise with what the e-learning designers are trying to do because, to make e-learning engaging, you have to create interaction. But there are other ways of doing this, for instance asking learners to input what THEY would do when faced with scenarios in their own context and then feeding back the pros and cons without claiming that there is a right answer. This is however not ‘practice’; it is merely an interactive way of increasing understanding,
The article then goes further downhill by suggesting a rather meaningless distinction between e-learning and e-reference which did not move the argument forward. However there is a recovery at the end when the author makes the important point that the right way to see e-learning is as one of a number of learning methods that need to be blended together. This resonated particularly well with me because the on-line facilitator-led session for our client mentioned above was designed to lead into a later face to face programme when the skills will be applied.
The article raises interesting issues but it would have been even more useful if advocacy of the blended learning approach had been raised earlier and had underpinned the rest of the content.
Click here to view the article in full:
http://www.trainingjournal.com/feature/2011-12-01-can-you-learn-soft-skills-from-e-learning/
Wednesday 21 December 2011
‘Peter the Great’ by Stefan Stern, Management Today, December 2011
This article is based around the annual Drucker Forum, recently held in Vienna. It is a tribute to the ‘Father of Management’ that 102 years after his birth, 65 years after his first book and six years after his death, his name still attracts a wide audience and high calibre speakers. When analysing modern problems, ‘what would Drucker say?’ still seems a relevant question to many modern management thinkers.
It is also true that many of Drucker’s arguments and quotations have remarkable relevance to present day issues and prove his remarkable gift of foresight. In 1997, well into his eighties, he predicted that, during the next recession, the differentials between top pay and that of lower levels would cause ‘an outbreak of bitterness’. Not a bad call!
One of the speakers at the conference was Charles Handy, another guru who has questioned the values of modern day business. His view as expressed at the conference is that modern managers lack sympathy and that the quest for shareholder value has allowed too much uncaring behaviour. The conference also gave a platform to Mark Kramer who worked with Michael Porter on the development of the concept of ‘shared value’ which we have (critically) reviewed in past blogs. Their ideas could be seen as a further development of Drucker and Handy’s thinking in that they advocate using the profit model to ‘improve people’s lives’. However, our concerns about the wooliness of the shared value concept were backed up by Adrian Wooldridge of the Economist who claimed that Drucker, the originator of the concept of Management by Objectives and a great believer in focus, would never have embraced such a vague idea.
Perhaps the most interesting contribution to the debate was the surprising admission by Harvard professor Rakesh Khurana that business schools had played ‘a large and ignoble part’ in encouraging negative attitudes to business in the last quarter of the 20th century. He went even further than Handy by suggesting that the obsession with shareholder value and the assumption that rewards had to be linked to it, have created a self-interested culture. The assumption that managers have to be bribed to do their jobs, often at the expense of moral values, has been the main driver of the negative behaviours which drag down reputation of business.
Khurana has his own agenda here because he is the driver of the move by Harvard to make management more of a profession - as reported in previous blogs - but it is difficult to challenge some of his arguments. However to blame the business schools or the managers themselves seems to be missing the point; the underlying cause must be those investors who look for performance based on shareholder value, often over the short term. No CEO can push for moral values if he is out of a job.
Overall, an interesting article that made me wish I’d attended Drucker’s annual forum; it also caused me to think that maybe MTP should be represented in future years.
Click here to view this article in full:
http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/features/1105852/why-drucker-relevant-ever/
It is also true that many of Drucker’s arguments and quotations have remarkable relevance to present day issues and prove his remarkable gift of foresight. In 1997, well into his eighties, he predicted that, during the next recession, the differentials between top pay and that of lower levels would cause ‘an outbreak of bitterness’. Not a bad call!
One of the speakers at the conference was Charles Handy, another guru who has questioned the values of modern day business. His view as expressed at the conference is that modern managers lack sympathy and that the quest for shareholder value has allowed too much uncaring behaviour. The conference also gave a platform to Mark Kramer who worked with Michael Porter on the development of the concept of ‘shared value’ which we have (critically) reviewed in past blogs. Their ideas could be seen as a further development of Drucker and Handy’s thinking in that they advocate using the profit model to ‘improve people’s lives’. However, our concerns about the wooliness of the shared value concept were backed up by Adrian Wooldridge of the Economist who claimed that Drucker, the originator of the concept of Management by Objectives and a great believer in focus, would never have embraced such a vague idea.
Perhaps the most interesting contribution to the debate was the surprising admission by Harvard professor Rakesh Khurana that business schools had played ‘a large and ignoble part’ in encouraging negative attitudes to business in the last quarter of the 20th century. He went even further than Handy by suggesting that the obsession with shareholder value and the assumption that rewards had to be linked to it, have created a self-interested culture. The assumption that managers have to be bribed to do their jobs, often at the expense of moral values, has been the main driver of the negative behaviours which drag down reputation of business.
Khurana has his own agenda here because he is the driver of the move by Harvard to make management more of a profession - as reported in previous blogs - but it is difficult to challenge some of his arguments. However to blame the business schools or the managers themselves seems to be missing the point; the underlying cause must be those investors who look for performance based on shareholder value, often over the short term. No CEO can push for moral values if he is out of a job.
Overall, an interesting article that made me wish I’d attended Drucker’s annual forum; it also caused me to think that maybe MTP should be represented in future years.
Click here to view this article in full:
http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/features/1105852/why-drucker-relevant-ever/
‘Trouble in the middle’; Economist, October 15th
I carried this short but interesting article over from the last blog, because there were so many other competing articles. It builds on two other articles reviewed last time; the top hundred business school rankings published by the Economist and the article in Management Today about the growth of business schools in emerging countries.
The article starts with the interesting and counter-intuitive observation that business school attendances often boom during a recession, as managers ‘seek shelter from the storm’. And, following this trend, there has been a recent fall-off in global attendances as economies have begun to recover. This fall has been so severe - particularly for mid-ranking schools in the USA - that there are fears that the traditional business school model is in trouble.
The key ratio behind the willingness of managers to invest in MBAs has always been the multiple of salary earned to investment required. Five years ago the average investment for a two year MBA was around $60,000 and the likely salary earned would be nearly $80,000, a multiple of around 1.33. Since then salaries have stagnated while costs have gone up and the ratio has reduced to around 1.0, still not bad if you remember that the salary is - hopefully - for many years.
The article suggests that current pressures are resulting in the ‘squeezed middle’ as the top schools retain business and the cheaper, lower level schools attract those who cannot afford the high investment. The elite schools like Harvard and Stanford generally retain good ratios of cost to salary, as recruiters are reassured that admittance is a good sign of calibre and commitment. But the mid-level schools are losing out and, at the same time, they cannot afford faculty of the right calibre or to maintain buildings to the high standards expected by modern managers.
Adding to these pressures are the dangers of losing overseas students to the increasing competition from developing countries’ schools. In 2011, about a third of students of American schools were from overseas, double the ratio of ten years ago. Though the new business schools in countries like China and India will take time to grow their international reputations, the pressure for students to stay at home will be intense, particularly as the cost - excluding travel - is around 50% of the USA schools. Though the cost differential may reduce as the emerging schools recruit international faculty, the cost differential will still be substantial.
It is also suggested that the emerging business schools will have other advantages by offering courses that are more global that the US centred American schools. There are at present very few sessions or case studies that cover cross-border activities and truly global issues. There is not enough focus on ‘difficult economies’ and the article quotes one Russian school as accepting students from crime families to help face up to the real life issues where crime and corruption are endemic. Maybe there will be Mafia faculty next!
The expected response is for many US and European schools to follow the example of INSEAD by offering shorter courses of a year or less; apparently this has not impacted the reputation and earning capacity of INSEAD graduates. Another response may be more specialisation, for instance an MBA for those managing in the health sector or in a particular industry.
Overall a thought provoking article that must give the managers of the mid ranking schools - and the universities who rely on their revenue - much food for thought.
Click here to view this article in full:
http://www.economist.com/node/21532269
The article starts with the interesting and counter-intuitive observation that business school attendances often boom during a recession, as managers ‘seek shelter from the storm’. And, following this trend, there has been a recent fall-off in global attendances as economies have begun to recover. This fall has been so severe - particularly for mid-ranking schools in the USA - that there are fears that the traditional business school model is in trouble.
The key ratio behind the willingness of managers to invest in MBAs has always been the multiple of salary earned to investment required. Five years ago the average investment for a two year MBA was around $60,000 and the likely salary earned would be nearly $80,000, a multiple of around 1.33. Since then salaries have stagnated while costs have gone up and the ratio has reduced to around 1.0, still not bad if you remember that the salary is - hopefully - for many years.
The article suggests that current pressures are resulting in the ‘squeezed middle’ as the top schools retain business and the cheaper, lower level schools attract those who cannot afford the high investment. The elite schools like Harvard and Stanford generally retain good ratios of cost to salary, as recruiters are reassured that admittance is a good sign of calibre and commitment. But the mid-level schools are losing out and, at the same time, they cannot afford faculty of the right calibre or to maintain buildings to the high standards expected by modern managers.
Adding to these pressures are the dangers of losing overseas students to the increasing competition from developing countries’ schools. In 2011, about a third of students of American schools were from overseas, double the ratio of ten years ago. Though the new business schools in countries like China and India will take time to grow their international reputations, the pressure for students to stay at home will be intense, particularly as the cost - excluding travel - is around 50% of the USA schools. Though the cost differential may reduce as the emerging schools recruit international faculty, the cost differential will still be substantial.
It is also suggested that the emerging business schools will have other advantages by offering courses that are more global that the US centred American schools. There are at present very few sessions or case studies that cover cross-border activities and truly global issues. There is not enough focus on ‘difficult economies’ and the article quotes one Russian school as accepting students from crime families to help face up to the real life issues where crime and corruption are endemic. Maybe there will be Mafia faculty next!
The expected response is for many US and European schools to follow the example of INSEAD by offering shorter courses of a year or less; apparently this has not impacted the reputation and earning capacity of INSEAD graduates. Another response may be more specialisation, for instance an MBA for those managing in the health sector or in a particular industry.
Overall a thought provoking article that must give the managers of the mid ranking schools - and the universities who rely on their revenue - much food for thought.
Click here to view this article in full:
http://www.economist.com/node/21532269
The Evolution of Training by Andrew Vermes, Training Journal, October 2011
This is a thoughtful article by a senior consultant at Kepner Tregoe, one of the few international names in management training that has survived over time. It starts well, makes some insightful observations but fades towards the end, leaving the reader unsure about the points the author is trying to make.
He starts by arguing that, for all the many developments in technology over the last thirty years, not much in management training has changed. The blackboard or overhead projector may have been replaced by PowerPoint and there may be e-learning rather than books as pre-reading but the fundamentals are much the same. The main reason is that the capacity of the human mind has not changed so there are limits to how far you can speed up the learning process and achieve economies of scale.
Another factor is that there are few big players in the training market, apart from specialist areas like IT Training, and this has become even more so as the desire for tailored programmes has gathered pace. The author quotes figures of 12,000 trainers operating in a £3 billion market with no single company having a significant share; he also mentions that the market becomes even bigger if you add on internal providers. This is an extreme example of a fragmented market that no-one fully understands.
The market has become even more fragmented in recent years as buyers of training have become more selective and employees have been given more responsibility for their own training. There have been less ‘one size fits all’ corporate programmes, more personal or divisional approaches to meeting specific needs. This means that there are less internal management trainers and more opportunities for flexible specialists; the article quotes a company where eighteen internal management trainers 20 years ago has reduced to one today.
These changes have been accompanied by a pressure that we at MTP are constantly fighting against; the desire for shorter programmes, often to cover the same content. The author shares our view that such pressure should be resisted because the extreme example he quotes - 500 slides to cover project management in one day - does not lead to client satisfaction. Instead we should be pushing for less content rather than being pressed into overloading. Our argument should be that though technology may have moved on, the human brain works in much the same way as 50 years ago.
There is also an interesting comment that the ‘classroom’ is still the dominant location for off the job training; e-learning is even now only 14% of training hours and is, in many cases, not much better than reading a book. I was surprised that the author didn’t move on to stress the importance of interaction and engagement to both forms of learning; instead he made the more obvious points that e-learning is better for the harder, knowledge based topics and that a blended approach is the way forward.
This was all very interesting and in some cases insightful but the ‘so what’ factor will be the main impact on most readers. It would have been good to explore some of the issues arising from these fundamental changes, for instance, for the provider, the impact on trainer recruitment, development, motivation and retention, and for L&D professionals in companies, supplier selection.
Click here to view this article in full:
http://www.trainingjournal.com/feature/articles-features-2011-10-01-the-evolution-of-training/
He starts by arguing that, for all the many developments in technology over the last thirty years, not much in management training has changed. The blackboard or overhead projector may have been replaced by PowerPoint and there may be e-learning rather than books as pre-reading but the fundamentals are much the same. The main reason is that the capacity of the human mind has not changed so there are limits to how far you can speed up the learning process and achieve economies of scale.
Another factor is that there are few big players in the training market, apart from specialist areas like IT Training, and this has become even more so as the desire for tailored programmes has gathered pace. The author quotes figures of 12,000 trainers operating in a £3 billion market with no single company having a significant share; he also mentions that the market becomes even bigger if you add on internal providers. This is an extreme example of a fragmented market that no-one fully understands.
The market has become even more fragmented in recent years as buyers of training have become more selective and employees have been given more responsibility for their own training. There have been less ‘one size fits all’ corporate programmes, more personal or divisional approaches to meeting specific needs. This means that there are less internal management trainers and more opportunities for flexible specialists; the article quotes a company where eighteen internal management trainers 20 years ago has reduced to one today.
These changes have been accompanied by a pressure that we at MTP are constantly fighting against; the desire for shorter programmes, often to cover the same content. The author shares our view that such pressure should be resisted because the extreme example he quotes - 500 slides to cover project management in one day - does not lead to client satisfaction. Instead we should be pushing for less content rather than being pressed into overloading. Our argument should be that though technology may have moved on, the human brain works in much the same way as 50 years ago.
There is also an interesting comment that the ‘classroom’ is still the dominant location for off the job training; e-learning is even now only 14% of training hours and is, in many cases, not much better than reading a book. I was surprised that the author didn’t move on to stress the importance of interaction and engagement to both forms of learning; instead he made the more obvious points that e-learning is better for the harder, knowledge based topics and that a blended approach is the way forward.
This was all very interesting and in some cases insightful but the ‘so what’ factor will be the main impact on most readers. It would have been good to explore some of the issues arising from these fundamental changes, for instance, for the provider, the impact on trainer recruitment, development, motivation and retention, and for L&D professionals in companies, supplier selection.
Click here to view this article in full:
http://www.trainingjournal.com/feature/articles-features-2011-10-01-the-evolution-of-training/
The Bank that ran out of money, BBC 2, 5th December
As a general rule, I don’t join in the widespread revulsion about bankers and their bonuses, on the basis that the extreme cases we hear about are not typical of what goes on in most banks; the multi-million bonuses are the extreme cases and are usually earned one way or the other. And, in any case, we can all apply to work in a bank if we want to.
However, it was difficult to watch this fascinating documentary without feelings of revulsion and amazement, particularly when you saw the footage of the shareholders meetings where false assurances were given and misleading statements were made.
The two characters we saw most of were the former CEO and leading hate figure Fred Goodwin and the less well known but equally culpable Chairman Sir Tom McKillop. And hearing these characters talking to their shareholders was enough to explain much of what went on; the Chairman was clearly out of his depth and quite unable to restrain Goodwin and his equally driven henchman John Campbell. It was interesting that no other board members were interviewed but, if they were anything like as hopeless as McKillop, it is no wonder that the company was out of control.
The other big question was how someone with the accounting background and track record of Fred Goodwin could have made such an appalling decision when he persisted with the ABN Amro acquisition despite all the risks involved. One of the main reasons for buying the company had disappeared when ABN Amro sold its American bank but the decision to carry on was still taken, even after Northern Rock had failed.
The programme made it clear that the answers are all about vanity and hubris. There is much evidence that, when it comes to acquisitions, common sense often goes out the window. There is research which quotes many examples of CEOs doing exactly what Goodwin did here, trying to repeat his major career success - the acquisition of NatWest - in another quite different context. Deluded CEOs assume that they cannot fail to repeat the winning formula and they pay the price. And this was combined with a desire to spike the guns of a major competitor - Barclays - who also had their eyes on the prize.
It would have been better if the programme had secured interviews with more of the guilty parties and not those who left before the main events or watched from the sidelines. There was enough evidence to show that a key factor in the decline of RBS was the inability of management and fellow directors to stand up to Goodwin’s tyrannical behaviour and this was an interesting comparison to the programme about Steve Jobs a week or so later. The key difference - confirmed by my book review below - is that Jobs was genius who got most things right, whereas Goodwin was a pretty ordinary banker with delusions of grandeur.
At around the same time as the programme we heard the news that the FSA report shared blame rather widely but did not believe that evidence justified prosecution of those most directly involved. This programme did not provide evidence to back up this conclusion. OK, maybe the government should, in hindsight, have exercised closer control and maybe the FSA should have asked more questions; but the main culprits were a CEO who lost his business judgment and took a colossal gamble, and a board of directors who did not understand what was going on.
However, it was difficult to watch this fascinating documentary without feelings of revulsion and amazement, particularly when you saw the footage of the shareholders meetings where false assurances were given and misleading statements were made.
The two characters we saw most of were the former CEO and leading hate figure Fred Goodwin and the less well known but equally culpable Chairman Sir Tom McKillop. And hearing these characters talking to their shareholders was enough to explain much of what went on; the Chairman was clearly out of his depth and quite unable to restrain Goodwin and his equally driven henchman John Campbell. It was interesting that no other board members were interviewed but, if they were anything like as hopeless as McKillop, it is no wonder that the company was out of control.
The other big question was how someone with the accounting background and track record of Fred Goodwin could have made such an appalling decision when he persisted with the ABN Amro acquisition despite all the risks involved. One of the main reasons for buying the company had disappeared when ABN Amro sold its American bank but the decision to carry on was still taken, even after Northern Rock had failed.
The programme made it clear that the answers are all about vanity and hubris. There is much evidence that, when it comes to acquisitions, common sense often goes out the window. There is research which quotes many examples of CEOs doing exactly what Goodwin did here, trying to repeat his major career success - the acquisition of NatWest - in another quite different context. Deluded CEOs assume that they cannot fail to repeat the winning formula and they pay the price. And this was combined with a desire to spike the guns of a major competitor - Barclays - who also had their eyes on the prize.
It would have been better if the programme had secured interviews with more of the guilty parties and not those who left before the main events or watched from the sidelines. There was enough evidence to show that a key factor in the decline of RBS was the inability of management and fellow directors to stand up to Goodwin’s tyrannical behaviour and this was an interesting comparison to the programme about Steve Jobs a week or so later. The key difference - confirmed by my book review below - is that Jobs was genius who got most things right, whereas Goodwin was a pretty ordinary banker with delusions of grandeur.
At around the same time as the programme we heard the news that the FSA report shared blame rather widely but did not believe that evidence justified prosecution of those most directly involved. This programme did not provide evidence to back up this conclusion. OK, maybe the government should, in hindsight, have exercised closer control and maybe the FSA should have asked more questions; but the main culprits were a CEO who lost his business judgment and took a colossal gamble, and a board of directors who did not understand what was going on.
The Language of Leaders by Kevin Murray, published by Kogan Page
It is perhaps not the ideal time for a senior person at leading PR organisation Bell Pottinger to be bringing out a new book, following recent exposures about their (allegedly) sleazy lobbying activities, but I decided to approach it with an open mind. After all, PR proved to be an effective training ground for our prime minister so why shouldn’t a PR executive have something to say about leadership?
The author starts with the valid point that communication inside and outside the business is one of the key leadership skills yet is often neglected and not seen as a sufficiently important priority for development. Having made that point he moves on to put forward his own recipe for success over sixteen highly readable chapters, apparently based on conversations with about sixty 60 ‘top leaders’.
There are however two problems. First of all the proportion of leaders that I had heard of is quite small, the most impressive being Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever, and Clive Woodward of British Lions fame. It didn’t help credibility when the author admitted in the introduction that Richard Branson had turned him down! The second problem is that the advice often comes over as rather obvious and sometimes quite patronising. The tone is set in the first chapter when ‘keep it simple’ and ‘stand up for what you believe in’ are offered as secrets of success. This tone continues when, in chapter three, we have ‘twelve principles of leadership communication’, most of which we would look for when recruiting a new trainer!
Nevertheless the book is well written and I was particularly impressed by the way in which the messages were interwoven with quotes and stories from the leaders who were interviewed. And not all the messages are obvious or superficial. Murray is a big advocator of stories as a way of communicating and an entire chapter is devoted to this topic; ‘logic gets to the brain, stories get to the heart’ is his argument. I also liked his emphasis on preparation before public speaking though most leaders would perhaps feel that this is something they have realised by now.
I warmed more towards the author as I progressed through the book and the fact that the messages come through his interviewees helped to overcome my initial cynicism. It is nothing new to be told that authenticity, trust and values are vital to good communication by leaders but when this message comes from the mouths of Polman, Woodward, Rose (M&S) and Gent (Glaxo) it tends to have more credibility. I particularly liked the comment of Sir Stuart Rose who was quoted as saying that for a leader, ‘communication is the day job’.
Though he doesn’t use the term, Kevin Murray is really saying that good leaders need a high level of emotional intelligence, which we really knew already. My view is that a book like this could be useful for someone at the early stage of aspiring to be a top leader; it is less suitable for the more experienced who are there or nearly there.
The author starts with the valid point that communication inside and outside the business is one of the key leadership skills yet is often neglected and not seen as a sufficiently important priority for development. Having made that point he moves on to put forward his own recipe for success over sixteen highly readable chapters, apparently based on conversations with about sixty 60 ‘top leaders’.
There are however two problems. First of all the proportion of leaders that I had heard of is quite small, the most impressive being Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever, and Clive Woodward of British Lions fame. It didn’t help credibility when the author admitted in the introduction that Richard Branson had turned him down! The second problem is that the advice often comes over as rather obvious and sometimes quite patronising. The tone is set in the first chapter when ‘keep it simple’ and ‘stand up for what you believe in’ are offered as secrets of success. This tone continues when, in chapter three, we have ‘twelve principles of leadership communication’, most of which we would look for when recruiting a new trainer!
Nevertheless the book is well written and I was particularly impressed by the way in which the messages were interwoven with quotes and stories from the leaders who were interviewed. And not all the messages are obvious or superficial. Murray is a big advocator of stories as a way of communicating and an entire chapter is devoted to this topic; ‘logic gets to the brain, stories get to the heart’ is his argument. I also liked his emphasis on preparation before public speaking though most leaders would perhaps feel that this is something they have realised by now.
I warmed more towards the author as I progressed through the book and the fact that the messages come through his interviewees helped to overcome my initial cynicism. It is nothing new to be told that authenticity, trust and values are vital to good communication by leaders but when this message comes from the mouths of Polman, Woodward, Rose (M&S) and Gent (Glaxo) it tends to have more credibility. I particularly liked the comment of Sir Stuart Rose who was quoted as saying that for a leader, ‘communication is the day job’.
Though he doesn’t use the term, Kevin Murray is really saying that good leaders need a high level of emotional intelligence, which we really knew already. My view is that a book like this could be useful for someone at the early stage of aspiring to be a top leader; it is less suitable for the more experienced who are there or nearly there.
Steve Jobs, the exclusive autobiography, by Walter Isaacson
In the last blog, I reviewed the newspaper articles after his death; this time I review the book of his life. It is not the first book about Jobs that I have read but it is by far the best. After finishing it, my feelings were that I would love to have met such an amazing icon but also relieved that I never had the opportunity to work for him. Because this was a man who could be engaging and impossible on the same day to the same people and only the tough could survive his bipolar behaviour. He rated people as either ‘insanely great’ or as a ‘total bozo’ with very few in the middle.
Yet despite his bizarre and unkind behaviour, he had the ability to retain those that he really needed and to inspire them to work impossible hours and deliver against impossible targets. And despite the way he treated them, they were prepared to follow him from one obsessive project to another. And this author, more than his previous biographers, reveals some of the secrets of his genius.
Those who were following him in the mid 1980s - when he was sacked from Apple and was floundering at his corporate creation NeXT - must have wondered whether they had made the right choice. But it was here that luck played a part. A company that he bought for its hardware - Pixar - proved to have software that would change the world of animated films and propel him on the road to success as saviour of Apple and genius of the 21st century.
Rather than describe his phenomenal success during his second phase with Apple, it is perhaps more useful to think of the strategic lessons for the rest of us mere mortals. But this is where it gets dangerous, because Jobs broke all the rules of marketing and strategy. His view was that market research is for bozos and that all he had to do was look in the mirror each morning. He knew what customers would want in the future much more clearly than they could possibly imagine.
So what are the lessons from this extraordinary life? Certainly the lesson from his first time at Apple was that, if you have a genius who lacks people skills, find him a role that exploits his genius rather than pushing him out. The lesson from his time with Pixar and his second spell with Apple, is that the driver of success is not usually the inventor but the one who sees the potential. Right from the time when he first visited Rank Xerox’s laboratory and saw the potential of the mouse, through to his belief that Apple could enter and conquer both the music and the telephone markets, he showed quite extraordinary foresight. He had the vision to see potential that the inventors could not imagine. And this talent made Apple, for a few weeks in 2010, the most valuable company in the world.
The final lesson from Jobs life that recurred time and again during his career, was the importance of design. Apple’s computers, MP3 players, telephones and tablets do not perform any better than the competition but, because of Jobs’ flair for design and his obsession with the look and feel of his products, customers are willing and proud to pay over the odds.
He should have died a happy man, knowing that his obsessions paid off and that the bozos who sacked him from Apple were proved wrong a thousand times over. But after reading the book you are left uncertain whether anyone so driven, so obsessive, so angry, could ever have found complete fulfilment.
Yet despite his bizarre and unkind behaviour, he had the ability to retain those that he really needed and to inspire them to work impossible hours and deliver against impossible targets. And despite the way he treated them, they were prepared to follow him from one obsessive project to another. And this author, more than his previous biographers, reveals some of the secrets of his genius.
Those who were following him in the mid 1980s - when he was sacked from Apple and was floundering at his corporate creation NeXT - must have wondered whether they had made the right choice. But it was here that luck played a part. A company that he bought for its hardware - Pixar - proved to have software that would change the world of animated films and propel him on the road to success as saviour of Apple and genius of the 21st century.
Rather than describe his phenomenal success during his second phase with Apple, it is perhaps more useful to think of the strategic lessons for the rest of us mere mortals. But this is where it gets dangerous, because Jobs broke all the rules of marketing and strategy. His view was that market research is for bozos and that all he had to do was look in the mirror each morning. He knew what customers would want in the future much more clearly than they could possibly imagine.
So what are the lessons from this extraordinary life? Certainly the lesson from his first time at Apple was that, if you have a genius who lacks people skills, find him a role that exploits his genius rather than pushing him out. The lesson from his time with Pixar and his second spell with Apple, is that the driver of success is not usually the inventor but the one who sees the potential. Right from the time when he first visited Rank Xerox’s laboratory and saw the potential of the mouse, through to his belief that Apple could enter and conquer both the music and the telephone markets, he showed quite extraordinary foresight. He had the vision to see potential that the inventors could not imagine. And this talent made Apple, for a few weeks in 2010, the most valuable company in the world.
The final lesson from Jobs life that recurred time and again during his career, was the importance of design. Apple’s computers, MP3 players, telephones and tablets do not perform any better than the competition but, because of Jobs’ flair for design and his obsession with the look and feel of his products, customers are willing and proud to pay over the odds.
He should have died a happy man, knowing that his obsessions paid off and that the bozos who sacked him from Apple were proved wrong a thousand times over. But after reading the book you are left uncertain whether anyone so driven, so obsessive, so angry, could ever have found complete fulfilment.
Tuesday 8 November 2011
The role of line managers in L&D, by Joanna Knight and Rob Sheppard, Training Journal, September 2011
This topic has been addressed before in our blogs but I make no excuse for choosing another article on such an important issue. It is often the ‘Elephant in the Room’ in discussions about new learning initiatives; we all know that line manager support is key to learning being applied but we also know that it is the area that we can influence least. This article does not provide any fundamental solutions but it does recognise the issue and provide some interesting ideas.
It starts off with some interesting statistics from two studies, one from the ASTD (American Society for Training and Development) and one from the CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development). These are worth reproducing here in summary form as they can be useful evidence when diagnosing problems and making the case for manager support:
• 70% of failure in training takes place after the formal training has finished
• Only 12% of people being trained feel that their line managers take L&D seriously
• 90% of those involved in training believe that manager support is important to success
• Only 5% of learning practitioners’ time goes into follow-up activities
The authors start by looking for the causes of the problem and the article spends rather too much time on this diagnosis rather than the potential solutions. Most of this is quite obvious stuff - competing business pressures, not seeing L&D as part of their role, having too high expectations, wanting training to provide the ‘finished product’ rather than a foundation to build upon. There are some interesting examples of good practice - for example an unnamed company that has a KPI targeting this kind of learning support - but these are less powerful because they are reported anonymously. If the example is genuine and the practice is good, why would companies not want to be quoted?
Having broadly agreed with the causes, I was looking forward to the solutions, hoping that these would be less obvious and more original. There were certainly some obvious but frequently forgotten points - for instance seeking post-course feedback from managers - though there was no recognition of the time that this is likely to take. In practice much depends on the length and strategic importance of the programme and the number of participants; contacting every manager after every short programme is unlikely to be realistic in many cases.
The ideas that caught my attention and are worth sharing were:
• Rather than action plans, ask participants to produce a summary of learning for their line managers, which then becomes the basis for them to move forward to action together
• Take advantage of more modern technology when reminding participants and managers about follow-up, either text messaging or on-line applications (apparently there is an on-line application called ‘Huddle’ which can be used for post-course sharing)
• Inviting key managers to contribute to the course as a way of increasing their commitment (though I had a few reservations here; might there be a danger of damaging a course by inviting a poor or off-message speaker?)
• Training line managers to be more supportive
I felt that the last point was too idealistic and it reminded me again that, though interesting, the article misses out an important point, the issue of time and its cost. In most companies these days, managers are increasingly busy and problems of manager commitment are often due to their being resentful about members of their team being taken away from the job. So the idea of asking line managers to give even more time to be trained may harden attitudes.
Perhaps the answer is mainly around attitudes, partly caused by a lack of resources and spare capacity to cover the time required for training activities. Unless line managers and course participants feel that they can spend time away from the job without performance being adversely affected, the problems are unlikely to be solved by the ideas in this article.
Click here to view the article in full
http://www.trainingjournal.com/search/?pageName=magazines-magazine-2011-09-training-journal-magazine&formName=fSearch&query=The+role+of+line+managers+in+L%26D+by+Joanna+Knight
It starts off with some interesting statistics from two studies, one from the ASTD (American Society for Training and Development) and one from the CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development). These are worth reproducing here in summary form as they can be useful evidence when diagnosing problems and making the case for manager support:
• 70% of failure in training takes place after the formal training has finished
• Only 12% of people being trained feel that their line managers take L&D seriously
• 90% of those involved in training believe that manager support is important to success
• Only 5% of learning practitioners’ time goes into follow-up activities
The authors start by looking for the causes of the problem and the article spends rather too much time on this diagnosis rather than the potential solutions. Most of this is quite obvious stuff - competing business pressures, not seeing L&D as part of their role, having too high expectations, wanting training to provide the ‘finished product’ rather than a foundation to build upon. There are some interesting examples of good practice - for example an unnamed company that has a KPI targeting this kind of learning support - but these are less powerful because they are reported anonymously. If the example is genuine and the practice is good, why would companies not want to be quoted?
Having broadly agreed with the causes, I was looking forward to the solutions, hoping that these would be less obvious and more original. There were certainly some obvious but frequently forgotten points - for instance seeking post-course feedback from managers - though there was no recognition of the time that this is likely to take. In practice much depends on the length and strategic importance of the programme and the number of participants; contacting every manager after every short programme is unlikely to be realistic in many cases.
The ideas that caught my attention and are worth sharing were:
• Rather than action plans, ask participants to produce a summary of learning for their line managers, which then becomes the basis for them to move forward to action together
• Take advantage of more modern technology when reminding participants and managers about follow-up, either text messaging or on-line applications (apparently there is an on-line application called ‘Huddle’ which can be used for post-course sharing)
• Inviting key managers to contribute to the course as a way of increasing their commitment (though I had a few reservations here; might there be a danger of damaging a course by inviting a poor or off-message speaker?)
• Training line managers to be more supportive
I felt that the last point was too idealistic and it reminded me again that, though interesting, the article misses out an important point, the issue of time and its cost. In most companies these days, managers are increasingly busy and problems of manager commitment are often due to their being resentful about members of their team being taken away from the job. So the idea of asking line managers to give even more time to be trained may harden attitudes.
Perhaps the answer is mainly around attitudes, partly caused by a lack of resources and spare capacity to cover the time required for training activities. Unless line managers and course participants feel that they can spend time away from the job without performance being adversely affected, the problems are unlikely to be solved by the ideas in this article.
Click here to view the article in full
http://www.trainingjournal.com/search/?pageName=magazines-magazine-2011-09-training-journal-magazine&formName=fSearch&query=The+role+of+line+managers+in+L%26D+by+Joanna+Knight
‘Inside the mind of a tyrant’ by John Arlidge, Sunday Times, 9th October
In the next blog, we will be reviewing Walter Isaacson’s new book about Steve Jobs but this time I have chosen what I thought was the best of the many immediate articles written after his death. Those writing since he passed away seem to have gone one of two ways, either to idolise him as the new Messiah, or to question whether the adulation is going over the top. This article seemed to get it just right by admitting that he was a bullying tyrant but also a man who changed the world for the better in quite fundamental ways. ‘Good Steve, Bad Steve’ is how the author expresses it.
I have previously read a number of books about this remarkable man but this article provided me with a number of extra insights. I did not know for instance how much his greatest rival - Bill Gates - admired Jobs, even though it was not reciprocated. And Gates summed up his genius pretty well - ‘he could figure out where the next big bet was coming from’.
The author makes it clear that Jobs was disdainful about all ideas of conventional marketing, in particular of market research. This was evident in his early Apple days; the joke was that his method of market research was to look in the mirror each morning. The arrogance behind his statements - ‘it is not the consumer’s job to know what they want’ and ‘the customer is not always right, I am’ - is unbelievable yet it worked for him, because he was a genius. He could see instantly what would sell; the moment he saw Rank Xerox’s first ideas of the Mouse, he rushed back to Apple to exploit its potential.
That was the Good Steve. The Bad Steve came about because he was also arrogant and dismissive of his own employees, calling anyone who opposed him a ‘bozo’ and either sacking or causing to leave a whole series of despairing employees. This is what caused the Board of Apple to throw him out in 1985, only to plead for his triumphant return in 1997.
Yet he was very different when it came to people he really valued and on whose commitment he depended; for example Jonathan Ive, the Englishman on whom his latest successes at Apple have depended and John Lasseter at Pixar. One criticism of this article it is that it rather plays down Jobs’ achievement at Pixar between his Apple stints, encouraging and selling the technology that enabled Toy Story to happen and paving the way for a new generation of children’s films. Maybe this development would have happened anyway but it was on his watch that the breakthrough came.
The article also makes it very clear what was behind Jobs’ genius. He was not a green-fields innovator; he took other people’s ideas and converted them into marketing successes because he did, as he claimed, know what would sell to the masses. And that was simplicity of design and operation, combined with a special kind of elegant and minimalist beauty. This made Apple products seem to be cool and fun, creating an army of addicts and devotees.
The danger for management learning of such unique success stories is that others begin to think that such genius can be bottled and copied, when clearly it can’t. But the message is clear; there is always more than one route to success, more than one strategy that works. We will explore this issue further when we review the new book.
I have previously read a number of books about this remarkable man but this article provided me with a number of extra insights. I did not know for instance how much his greatest rival - Bill Gates - admired Jobs, even though it was not reciprocated. And Gates summed up his genius pretty well - ‘he could figure out where the next big bet was coming from’.
The author makes it clear that Jobs was disdainful about all ideas of conventional marketing, in particular of market research. This was evident in his early Apple days; the joke was that his method of market research was to look in the mirror each morning. The arrogance behind his statements - ‘it is not the consumer’s job to know what they want’ and ‘the customer is not always right, I am’ - is unbelievable yet it worked for him, because he was a genius. He could see instantly what would sell; the moment he saw Rank Xerox’s first ideas of the Mouse, he rushed back to Apple to exploit its potential.
That was the Good Steve. The Bad Steve came about because he was also arrogant and dismissive of his own employees, calling anyone who opposed him a ‘bozo’ and either sacking or causing to leave a whole series of despairing employees. This is what caused the Board of Apple to throw him out in 1985, only to plead for his triumphant return in 1997.
Yet he was very different when it came to people he really valued and on whose commitment he depended; for example Jonathan Ive, the Englishman on whom his latest successes at Apple have depended and John Lasseter at Pixar. One criticism of this article it is that it rather plays down Jobs’ achievement at Pixar between his Apple stints, encouraging and selling the technology that enabled Toy Story to happen and paving the way for a new generation of children’s films. Maybe this development would have happened anyway but it was on his watch that the breakthrough came.
The article also makes it very clear what was behind Jobs’ genius. He was not a green-fields innovator; he took other people’s ideas and converted them into marketing successes because he did, as he claimed, know what would sell to the masses. And that was simplicity of design and operation, combined with a special kind of elegant and minimalist beauty. This made Apple products seem to be cool and fun, creating an army of addicts and devotees.
The danger for management learning of such unique success stories is that others begin to think that such genius can be bottled and copied, when clearly it can’t. But the message is clear; there is always more than one route to success, more than one strategy that works. We will explore this issue further when we review the new book.
‘China Calling’ by Andrew Saunders, Management Today, October 2011
As usual Management Today’s article on business schools is wrapped around an advertising feature for a selection of institutions but the content is different and interesting; it is about the growth of management education in China and the development of the China Europe International Business School (CEIBS) based in Shanghai. This school is being run by John Quelch, a former professor at LBS and Harvard.
The article makes the case for managers to think about broadening their education by a spell in China, either a few years in management or attendance at business school, or both. It is suggested that a period in Asia will in future be regarded as a necessary part of the CV for those who want to take the top jobs in global companies.
CEIBS is still dominated by Chinese participants - partly because 85% of sessions are in Chinese and need simultaneous translations for non-speakers - but there are increasing numbers of western participants for the full time MBA, despite the $50,000 price tag. And, unlike the UK and USA, it is the full time MBA which is growing and not just at CEIBS; there are now more than 120 different MBA programmes in China. The appetite for learning is voracious and continuous.
Unlike the western institutions, the majority of participants are into middle age and have significant management experience; in fact a significant proportion are at senior level. It is not so much seen as a route to the top; it is more a requirement to stay there and improve. The most needed and popular topics at CEIBS have been on the softer side of management with managing change and finding/developing talent at the top of the tree; the harder subjects are seen as areas of strength already.
Ironically it is finding training talent that is seen as a key limiting factor in the development of CEIBS. They have been relying on 50% visiting faculty but feel that they need a higher proportion of full time people to expand and still retain quality. Another problem is some resistance to professors from western business schools; eastern participants quite reasonably question their qualifications to teach them when they see such a lack of growth in western economies. There is also some blame attached to the west for the financial crisis.
It would have been interesting to hear how western participants to Chinese MBA programmes had fared and whether the Chinese MBAs are getting the same kind of global recognition as those from the top western schools. But the article was certainly an interesting reminder that Harvard, INSEAD and LBS may be facing significant competition from Asian business schools in the future.
Click here to read the article in full
http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/features/1094849/mt-mba-business-education-guide-autumn-2011-china-calling/
The article makes the case for managers to think about broadening their education by a spell in China, either a few years in management or attendance at business school, or both. It is suggested that a period in Asia will in future be regarded as a necessary part of the CV for those who want to take the top jobs in global companies.
CEIBS is still dominated by Chinese participants - partly because 85% of sessions are in Chinese and need simultaneous translations for non-speakers - but there are increasing numbers of western participants for the full time MBA, despite the $50,000 price tag. And, unlike the UK and USA, it is the full time MBA which is growing and not just at CEIBS; there are now more than 120 different MBA programmes in China. The appetite for learning is voracious and continuous.
Unlike the western institutions, the majority of participants are into middle age and have significant management experience; in fact a significant proportion are at senior level. It is not so much seen as a route to the top; it is more a requirement to stay there and improve. The most needed and popular topics at CEIBS have been on the softer side of management with managing change and finding/developing talent at the top of the tree; the harder subjects are seen as areas of strength already.
Ironically it is finding training talent that is seen as a key limiting factor in the development of CEIBS. They have been relying on 50% visiting faculty but feel that they need a higher proportion of full time people to expand and still retain quality. Another problem is some resistance to professors from western business schools; eastern participants quite reasonably question their qualifications to teach them when they see such a lack of growth in western economies. There is also some blame attached to the west for the financial crisis.
It would have been interesting to hear how western participants to Chinese MBA programmes had fared and whether the Chinese MBAs are getting the same kind of global recognition as those from the top western schools. But the article was certainly an interesting reminder that Harvard, INSEAD and LBS may be facing significant competition from Asian business schools in the future.
Click here to read the article in full
http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/features/1094849/mt-mba-business-education-guide-autumn-2011-china-calling/
‘The top thirty’, the Economist, October 15th 2011
This is a short article in the Economist, providing its ratings of international business schools, based on a number of criteria. These combine salary levels, ability to find a job, calibre of faculty, age and experience of students, fees and programme duration. The responses come from former students.
It is interesting, in the light of the above article, that the only Asian representative in the top thirty is the INSEAD school in Singapore, though the article mentions that there are three more in the top hundred, including CEIBS and Hong Kong University. One wonders also if, with seven American schools in the top eight, there is some bias in the criteria or the process. It is also surprising to see the usual suspects like Harvard, Stanford and MIT still well down in 5th, 8th and 11th respectively, with the less well known Tuck School at Dartmouth and Booth School at Chicago taking the first two places. The Tuck and Booth schools were also the top two last year, though the positions were reversed.
So how do UK and other European schools fare? Not too well. The only European entries in the top 10 are IMD of Switzerland and IESE of Spain, which are rated third and tenth respectively. The highest ranked UK school is London at 13th with Bath and Cranfield the only other two in the top 30. This must be bad news for others whose reputations should have put them in the top league, notably Manchester, Warwick and Ashridge.
The full results are available on line at economist.com/whichmba
Click here to read the article in full
http://www.economist.com/node/21532270
It is interesting, in the light of the above article, that the only Asian representative in the top thirty is the INSEAD school in Singapore, though the article mentions that there are three more in the top hundred, including CEIBS and Hong Kong University. One wonders also if, with seven American schools in the top eight, there is some bias in the criteria or the process. It is also surprising to see the usual suspects like Harvard, Stanford and MIT still well down in 5th, 8th and 11th respectively, with the less well known Tuck School at Dartmouth and Booth School at Chicago taking the first two places. The Tuck and Booth schools were also the top two last year, though the positions were reversed.
So how do UK and other European schools fare? Not too well. The only European entries in the top 10 are IMD of Switzerland and IESE of Spain, which are rated third and tenth respectively. The highest ranked UK school is London at 13th with Bath and Cranfield the only other two in the top 30. This must be bad news for others whose reputations should have put them in the top league, notably Manchester, Warwick and Ashridge.
The full results are available on line at economist.com/whichmba
Click here to read the article in full
http://www.economist.com/node/21532270
‘How to win investors over’ by Baruch Lev, Harvard Business Review, November 2011
This article is an interesting counter to the messages coming over from CEOs like Paul Polman of Unilever and Warren Buffet of Hathaway, that producing too much information to the outside world, particularly about future performance, is not in the company’s or shareholders’ interest. This is because it encourages short-termism and adds no value to the business. Thus Polman and Buffett have ceased to provide formal quarterly earnings guidance.
It is interesting that the author is a professor from New York University, better known previously for his theoretical work on accounting issues. He disagrees with Polman and Buffett; he argues that failure to disclose information will destroy value. His views are based on the economic theory of information asymmetry, which I confess to not having heard of before. It says that when one party to a transaction has more information than another, one of the two suffers. The author compares the buying a share to buying a house; if you don’t have full information, you are unlikely to pay as much for it. I was not entirely convinced by the analogy because, if the seller of a house gave a forecast of future house prices, I am not sure that either party would benefit!
The article’s other argument in favour of forecasting sales and profit levels is the more conventional one of providing early warning systems and avoiding nasty surprises; this is more easy to relate to, though not necessarily more convincing. All depends on the accuracy of the forecasts and the quality of the results. If the results are bad it almost doesn’t matter whether there have been previous forecasts; it is just a question of how the pain is spread.
Another argument for disclosure is that it encourages a two way dialogue, that regular communication with shareholders will encourage responses from them and there will be greater understanding of their expectations and what needs to be fixed. If this dialogue takes place, it is more likely that changes to forecasts will be understood and that share prices will be less volatile.
This sounds valid in theory but it assumes the ideal that all CEOs would like to see; shareholders who are in it for the long-term, who are prepared to enter into dialogue and who will take a reasoned view of the company’s strategy. But, as was mentioned in a previous blog which featured an article on Paul Polman, the majority of share transactions are short-term and the share price is often driven by those who are constantly changing their portfolio. It is difficult to have a reasoned dialogue when - as the earlier article suggested - 70% of shareholders are changing every year. Polman’s view was that he wanted to encourage more long-term shareholders who did not care too much about this quarter’s earnings.
In the end each Board has to decide how it wants to communicate with its shareholders and it is difficult, with different corporate histories and shareholder profiles, to generalise. This article is an interesting, if rather theoretical, contribution to the debate. But I am not sure that Paul Polman and Warren Buffet will be convinced enough to change their mind.
Click here to read the article in full
http://hbr.org/2011/11/how-to-win-investors-over/ar/1
It is interesting that the author is a professor from New York University, better known previously for his theoretical work on accounting issues. He disagrees with Polman and Buffett; he argues that failure to disclose information will destroy value. His views are based on the economic theory of information asymmetry, which I confess to not having heard of before. It says that when one party to a transaction has more information than another, one of the two suffers. The author compares the buying a share to buying a house; if you don’t have full information, you are unlikely to pay as much for it. I was not entirely convinced by the analogy because, if the seller of a house gave a forecast of future house prices, I am not sure that either party would benefit!
The article’s other argument in favour of forecasting sales and profit levels is the more conventional one of providing early warning systems and avoiding nasty surprises; this is more easy to relate to, though not necessarily more convincing. All depends on the accuracy of the forecasts and the quality of the results. If the results are bad it almost doesn’t matter whether there have been previous forecasts; it is just a question of how the pain is spread.
Another argument for disclosure is that it encourages a two way dialogue, that regular communication with shareholders will encourage responses from them and there will be greater understanding of their expectations and what needs to be fixed. If this dialogue takes place, it is more likely that changes to forecasts will be understood and that share prices will be less volatile.
This sounds valid in theory but it assumes the ideal that all CEOs would like to see; shareholders who are in it for the long-term, who are prepared to enter into dialogue and who will take a reasoned view of the company’s strategy. But, as was mentioned in a previous blog which featured an article on Paul Polman, the majority of share transactions are short-term and the share price is often driven by those who are constantly changing their portfolio. It is difficult to have a reasoned dialogue when - as the earlier article suggested - 70% of shareholders are changing every year. Polman’s view was that he wanted to encourage more long-term shareholders who did not care too much about this quarter’s earnings.
In the end each Board has to decide how it wants to communicate with its shareholders and it is difficult, with different corporate histories and shareholder profiles, to generalise. This article is an interesting, if rather theoretical, contribution to the debate. But I am not sure that Paul Polman and Warren Buffet will be convinced enough to change their mind.
Click here to read the article in full
http://hbr.org/2011/11/how-to-win-investors-over/ar/1
‘Blink’ by Malcolm Gladwell, published by Penguin Books
I reviewed Gladwell’s book ‘The Outliers’ for an earlier blog and have been fascinated by the way in which his ideas have caught the imagination of people I know. Mention Gladwell’s name to a group of managers and you are likely to find someone who has read one or more of his books, often people who would not normally read management texts. I bought my son in law ‘What the Dog Saw’ last Christmas; the copy is now on his desk in ‘dog eared’ form and he’s regularly boring me with quotes from it.
Yet the response from some academics has been typically negative, ‘just a colourful story teller’ and ‘cherry picked anecdotes, post-hoc sophistry’ were two typical reactions in reviews of his work. Yet ‘Tipping Point’ sold two million copies. This reaction from the academic world reminded me of the initial response to Peters and Waterman when they published ‘In Search of Excellence’; it smacked of jealousy that it had become the best-selling management book of all time. Academics do not like journalists getting in on their act.
I decided to review ‘Blink’ on a friend’s recommendation that it is the best of his books, even though it is the least well known. After reading it I emerged convinced that there is something in his arguments and was armed with lots of ideas and anecdotes that are useful in both course and dinner table environments. Just as I could initiate debates about whether it takes 10,000 hours practice to be really good at anything after reading Outliers, I can, after reading Blink, quote evidence for my long held belief that being six feet tall makes success in business more likely.
The underlying message of Blink is that first impressions and intuition count more than we realise and can be more valid than more complex analysis and research. As with previous books, Gladwell keeps the reader’s attention with lots of anecdotes and statistics, with sometimes a bit of theory. He keeps our attention because his stories reflect everyday life and cover a wide range of contexts and disciplines. He links them all to what he calls ‘Rapid Cognition’, instant assessment which will produce better results than can be achieved through more considered judgment. The secret is in knowing what to discard and what to keep.
Having advanced the theory, he chooses anecdotes to back it up and, though one would have to agree with academic critics that his scientific method is questionable, he certainly makes you think. He suggests that a four question decision tree has proved to be a better predictor of heart disease than medical examination, that you can better predict a student’s personality by quickly examining their bedroom, compared to interviewing them. I could see this point but was unsure how, with rapid cognition, you can be sure that you have chosen the right factors. Love at first sight is a well-known concept but how valid are the results?
One particularly interesting theory was that you can predict the effectiveness of a teacher by looking at a silent two second video of their appearance in the classroom; I recalled the troubles MTP has had over the years judging effectiveness of potential trainers after a whole series of interviews and trial sessions. But you can see where he is coming from; sometimes you do just know that someone is not going to be a good teacher after those first few seconds, yet, out of politeness, you still have to sit through the full session!
The problem with Gladwell’s books is that you end up unsure whether he is just very good at stating the obvious and backing it up with nice stories or whether he really is making a contribution to management thinking. I described some of the ideas in the book to a marketing colleague and his view was that it was all obvious stuff to marketers, the basis for instance of focus groups and segmentation. But, more than any other management writer of modern times, he makes you think and he makes reading enjoyable. So, despite the criticism, I’m a fan.
Yet the response from some academics has been typically negative, ‘just a colourful story teller’ and ‘cherry picked anecdotes, post-hoc sophistry’ were two typical reactions in reviews of his work. Yet ‘Tipping Point’ sold two million copies. This reaction from the academic world reminded me of the initial response to Peters and Waterman when they published ‘In Search of Excellence’; it smacked of jealousy that it had become the best-selling management book of all time. Academics do not like journalists getting in on their act.
I decided to review ‘Blink’ on a friend’s recommendation that it is the best of his books, even though it is the least well known. After reading it I emerged convinced that there is something in his arguments and was armed with lots of ideas and anecdotes that are useful in both course and dinner table environments. Just as I could initiate debates about whether it takes 10,000 hours practice to be really good at anything after reading Outliers, I can, after reading Blink, quote evidence for my long held belief that being six feet tall makes success in business more likely.
The underlying message of Blink is that first impressions and intuition count more than we realise and can be more valid than more complex analysis and research. As with previous books, Gladwell keeps the reader’s attention with lots of anecdotes and statistics, with sometimes a bit of theory. He keeps our attention because his stories reflect everyday life and cover a wide range of contexts and disciplines. He links them all to what he calls ‘Rapid Cognition’, instant assessment which will produce better results than can be achieved through more considered judgment. The secret is in knowing what to discard and what to keep.
Having advanced the theory, he chooses anecdotes to back it up and, though one would have to agree with academic critics that his scientific method is questionable, he certainly makes you think. He suggests that a four question decision tree has proved to be a better predictor of heart disease than medical examination, that you can better predict a student’s personality by quickly examining their bedroom, compared to interviewing them. I could see this point but was unsure how, with rapid cognition, you can be sure that you have chosen the right factors. Love at first sight is a well-known concept but how valid are the results?
One particularly interesting theory was that you can predict the effectiveness of a teacher by looking at a silent two second video of their appearance in the classroom; I recalled the troubles MTP has had over the years judging effectiveness of potential trainers after a whole series of interviews and trial sessions. But you can see where he is coming from; sometimes you do just know that someone is not going to be a good teacher after those first few seconds, yet, out of politeness, you still have to sit through the full session!
The problem with Gladwell’s books is that you end up unsure whether he is just very good at stating the obvious and backing it up with nice stories or whether he really is making a contribution to management thinking. I described some of the ideas in the book to a marketing colleague and his view was that it was all obvious stuff to marketers, the basis for instance of focus groups and segmentation. But, more than any other management writer of modern times, he makes you think and he makes reading enjoyable. So, despite the criticism, I’m a fan.
‘Nudge’ by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, published by Penguin Books
I chose this book because, during the last few years, its ideas have often been quoted as being behind the thinking of the new government as it tries to change our behaviour in certain areas, without introducing new laws and regulations. The authors are two professors at the University of Chicago who have become well known on the back of this work and its enthusiastic acceptance by politicians in the USA and Europe. I was interested to read about the ideas and consider its application to business.
The underlying assumption behind the book is that most people are lazy when it comes to making choices and, unless they are ‘nudged’, they will take the short-term view or maintain the status quo. My initial reaction to this was that this did not apply to me but then came the killer questions; do you complete questionnaires that will save you money? Do you send back the form that offers the flu jab? Do you walk that extra 50 yards to pick up a free sample?
Therefore, the argument goes, people need to be nudged so that it is easier to make the choice that is in their long-term interests. Many of the examples refer to health issues. Healthy food needs to be at eye level and near to the store entrance; people are encouraged to eat from smaller plates; you have to opt out rather than opt in for injections and free treatments.
This idea is dressed up in rather academic terms by being expressed as ‘choice architecture; the way in which choices are presented so that the ‘best’ choice is the one that is automatic or requires the least effort. The goal is to alter people’s behaviour in a predictable way without imposing rules or sanctions or economic incentives. As an example, putting healthy food at eye level is a nudge but banning or taxing junk food is not.
One problem is that the implementation of this idea causes accusations that governments and do-gooders know what is best for people and that nudging is just another way of creating the dreaded ‘Nanny State’. It can also be an excuse for failing to take decisive action, like recently when Andrew Lansley decided against regulating the food companies and went instead for educating us to eat more healthily.
After reading the book, I was uncertain. My natural inclination is to leave people to make their own choices and let us do what we like to ourselves as long as we are not harming others. But does this mean that people shouldn’t be nudged in the right direction and saved from themselves? I guess it all depends on the issue and the nature of the nudge: OK to put cigarettes out of sight but not chocolate; OK to remind us of the risks but not to forbid us to take them.
The book also raises some interesting issues for business; should employers adopt what the book calls ‘libertarian paternalism’ and nudge their employees to make additional pension arrangements, organise life assurance, have health checks and eat the right foods? Is it any of their business to extend their influence in this way? In the end each company and each government has to make its own choices and, based on the culture it wishes to create, strike the right balance between liberty and paternalism.
The underlying assumption behind the book is that most people are lazy when it comes to making choices and, unless they are ‘nudged’, they will take the short-term view or maintain the status quo. My initial reaction to this was that this did not apply to me but then came the killer questions; do you complete questionnaires that will save you money? Do you send back the form that offers the flu jab? Do you walk that extra 50 yards to pick up a free sample?
Therefore, the argument goes, people need to be nudged so that it is easier to make the choice that is in their long-term interests. Many of the examples refer to health issues. Healthy food needs to be at eye level and near to the store entrance; people are encouraged to eat from smaller plates; you have to opt out rather than opt in for injections and free treatments.
This idea is dressed up in rather academic terms by being expressed as ‘choice architecture; the way in which choices are presented so that the ‘best’ choice is the one that is automatic or requires the least effort. The goal is to alter people’s behaviour in a predictable way without imposing rules or sanctions or economic incentives. As an example, putting healthy food at eye level is a nudge but banning or taxing junk food is not.
One problem is that the implementation of this idea causes accusations that governments and do-gooders know what is best for people and that nudging is just another way of creating the dreaded ‘Nanny State’. It can also be an excuse for failing to take decisive action, like recently when Andrew Lansley decided against regulating the food companies and went instead for educating us to eat more healthily.
After reading the book, I was uncertain. My natural inclination is to leave people to make their own choices and let us do what we like to ourselves as long as we are not harming others. But does this mean that people shouldn’t be nudged in the right direction and saved from themselves? I guess it all depends on the issue and the nature of the nudge: OK to put cigarettes out of sight but not chocolate; OK to remind us of the risks but not to forbid us to take them.
The book also raises some interesting issues for business; should employers adopt what the book calls ‘libertarian paternalism’ and nudge their employees to make additional pension arrangements, organise life assurance, have health checks and eat the right foods? Is it any of their business to extend their influence in this way? In the end each company and each government has to make its own choices and, based on the culture it wishes to create, strike the right balance between liberty and paternalism.
Monday 5 September 2011
‘Think Different’ from the Schumpeter Column, Economist, August 6th 2011
As usual, Schumpeter’s column contains more insights than many articles twice as long. It is based around a new book about innovation by Clay Christensen, Harvard’s guru in this area - ‘The Innovator’s DNA - ’ following on from his earlier widely acclaimed work, ‘The Innovator’s Dilemma’.
Christensen’s approach is to look for characteristics that outstanding innovators tend to possess and he quotes these as associating, questioning, observing, experimenting and - perhaps the most surprising - networking. The article also advocates that those wishing to innovate must broaden their experiences and quotes a number of fascinating examples of ideas coming in the most unlikely places - for example when swimming with dolphins or tasting fruit in foreign countries.
The networking skill is not necessarily the ability to interact with people but to hang around in the right places, observing what’s going on and picking up ideas. Combined with this they have to be constantly questioning and challenging the status quo of their own businesses, experimenting with new developments picked up on their travels.
These ideas are transferred from a personal to company context by what Christensen and his co-authors call an ‘Innovation Premium’, calculated by comparing stock market value to the calculated value of current products (there is no detail on the calculation and I plan to follow up on this, maybe a future book review?). The conclusion of their research is that managers from companies with this premium tend to show the above five characteristics more than other companies and this is the reason for their success.
Christensen also expresses the view that these innovation skills can be learned but then qualifies this with evidence that it requires just one more thing - a touch of genius! The bad news for Apple shareholders in the light of Steve Jobs recent illness and resignation, is that their ‘Innovation Premium’ fell significantly when he left the company before, and has nearly doubled since he re-joined. The rather demotivating conclusion is that the innovator’s DNA is ‘impossible to clone’. Maybe I won’t read the book after all!
Click here to read the article in full:
http://www.economist.com/node/21525350
Christensen’s approach is to look for characteristics that outstanding innovators tend to possess and he quotes these as associating, questioning, observing, experimenting and - perhaps the most surprising - networking. The article also advocates that those wishing to innovate must broaden their experiences and quotes a number of fascinating examples of ideas coming in the most unlikely places - for example when swimming with dolphins or tasting fruit in foreign countries.
The networking skill is not necessarily the ability to interact with people but to hang around in the right places, observing what’s going on and picking up ideas. Combined with this they have to be constantly questioning and challenging the status quo of their own businesses, experimenting with new developments picked up on their travels.
These ideas are transferred from a personal to company context by what Christensen and his co-authors call an ‘Innovation Premium’, calculated by comparing stock market value to the calculated value of current products (there is no detail on the calculation and I plan to follow up on this, maybe a future book review?). The conclusion of their research is that managers from companies with this premium tend to show the above five characteristics more than other companies and this is the reason for their success.
Christensen also expresses the view that these innovation skills can be learned but then qualifies this with evidence that it requires just one more thing - a touch of genius! The bad news for Apple shareholders in the light of Steve Jobs recent illness and resignation, is that their ‘Innovation Premium’ fell significantly when he left the company before, and has nearly doubled since he re-joined. The rather demotivating conclusion is that the innovator’s DNA is ‘impossible to clone’. Maybe I won’t read the book after all!
Click here to read the article in full:
http://www.economist.com/node/21525350
‘Saving Capitalism from Itself’ by Simon Caulkin, Management Today, September 2011
This article does what magazines like Management Today do very well; it fixes upon a subject that is topical and provides an overview of what a number of leading figures are saying on the current trend to blame the capitalist system for the financial crisis and to offer alternatives that will avoid another one.
The article starts by quoting a number of well-known management thinkers who have, since the financial crisis, questioned the capitalist model. The initial name dropping is quite selective - including some left of centre behavioural gurus like Handy and Mintzberg who would be expected to feel that way - but the author then moves on to focus on a number of other writers who are leading the challenge. These include Michael Porter of Harvard and Dominic Barton Head of McKinsey, both of whose articles on this topic I have reviewed in recent blogs. There is also reference to another leading strategy guru Gary Hamel -well known for his glorification of Enron - and someone else who I had not heard of by the name of Umair Haque. Haque is apparently a ‘cult figure in the blogosphere’ but is conventional enough to also write columns for the Harvard Business review.
The article contains useful summaries of the thinking of these top names, under the headings of diagnosis and treatment. They are all saying much the same thing in a number of different ways, that capitalism has been found wanting and that modern economies need a new model, with less emphasis on maximising shareholder value and more on society’s long term interests. Porter titles this as ‘Shared Value’ and has made it his new theme for latest writing and research. He wants companies to look for innovative ways to create value by solving societies’ problems and to create competitive advantage by so doing.
The other writers put over similar views in different language and to different extremes; Haque says ‘Twentieth Century business, you’re fired’; Hamel blames governments for light touch regulation, Barton says that business schools are partly to blame and have to engage in ‘deep introspection’ (presumably McKinsey and other consultancies have no similar need!).
One thing in common with all these ideas is that they are short on how change is going to be made to happen because, without some form of compulsion, CEOs geared to short term targets are unlikely to change their way of thinking. Hamel makes the valid point that ‘the question is whether we as consumers are prepared to change what we want’. It is not clear what he means by consumers but, if he includes in that every person who has an insurance policy or pension and wants a superior return on investment, he is getting close to the real problem. Unless there is a way to persuade shareholders and those who measure their performance to think differently, this seems just like a bandwagon for gurus to jump on and feel good about themselves.
This is however a very good article for anyone who wants a broad overview of the current arguments and those who are making them.
Click here to read the article in full:
http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/features/1086015/saving-capitalism-itself/
The article starts by quoting a number of well-known management thinkers who have, since the financial crisis, questioned the capitalist model. The initial name dropping is quite selective - including some left of centre behavioural gurus like Handy and Mintzberg who would be expected to feel that way - but the author then moves on to focus on a number of other writers who are leading the challenge. These include Michael Porter of Harvard and Dominic Barton Head of McKinsey, both of whose articles on this topic I have reviewed in recent blogs. There is also reference to another leading strategy guru Gary Hamel -well known for his glorification of Enron - and someone else who I had not heard of by the name of Umair Haque. Haque is apparently a ‘cult figure in the blogosphere’ but is conventional enough to also write columns for the Harvard Business review.
The article contains useful summaries of the thinking of these top names, under the headings of diagnosis and treatment. They are all saying much the same thing in a number of different ways, that capitalism has been found wanting and that modern economies need a new model, with less emphasis on maximising shareholder value and more on society’s long term interests. Porter titles this as ‘Shared Value’ and has made it his new theme for latest writing and research. He wants companies to look for innovative ways to create value by solving societies’ problems and to create competitive advantage by so doing.
The other writers put over similar views in different language and to different extremes; Haque says ‘Twentieth Century business, you’re fired’; Hamel blames governments for light touch regulation, Barton says that business schools are partly to blame and have to engage in ‘deep introspection’ (presumably McKinsey and other consultancies have no similar need!).
One thing in common with all these ideas is that they are short on how change is going to be made to happen because, without some form of compulsion, CEOs geared to short term targets are unlikely to change their way of thinking. Hamel makes the valid point that ‘the question is whether we as consumers are prepared to change what we want’. It is not clear what he means by consumers but, if he includes in that every person who has an insurance policy or pension and wants a superior return on investment, he is getting close to the real problem. Unless there is a way to persuade shareholders and those who measure their performance to think differently, this seems just like a bandwagon for gurus to jump on and feel good about themselves.
This is however a very good article for anyone who wants a broad overview of the current arguments and those who are making them.
Click here to read the article in full:
http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/features/1086015/saving-capitalism-itself/
The Merger Dividend by Ron Ashkenas, Suzanne Francis and Rick Heinick, Harvard Business Review, July-August 2011
Sometimes the HBR can go months without any interesting articles, at other times there are several within one edition. This latest edition is one of the latter category and we feature another review below.
This article makes the valid point that the integration of mergers and acquisitions creates unique challenges for managers, way outside their normal day to day responsibilities. This is nothing new but the main gist of the article is new and interesting - that mergers and acquisitions should be seen as opportunities to develop managers and provide them with new skills. There is criticism of the common practice of hiving off the integration process to consultants or internal specialists, rather than choosing high potential managers to lead the process.
The authors identify three main skills that are necessary for the integration process and that are also essential for future leaders; these are:
• Getting everyone on the same page
• Executing with discipline
• Building an A Team
Each of these skills is examined in some detail with explanations of what is involved. There are said to be many parallels between the skills that are required post acquisition and what is necessary to run a complex company over the long term. The basic argument is that managing a post-acquisition scenario is a microcosm of, and a crash course for, the job of CEO of a major company.
A particularly good feature of the article is a number of good examples from highly regarded companies from different sectors, like ING, Merck and Timken, all of whom have used acquisitions as opportunities for management development. As a former supplier of management training to Timken, I was particularly taken by their decision to use the integration of a major acquisition as a development opportunity for a member of the Timken family, as a ‘developmental step before becoming chairman’. This raises the key issue of by whom and how the assessment should be made!
This leads on to my main concern with the article and the main danger of applying its arguments. The language used highlights the potential problem - ‘teaching tool, testing ground, learning opportunity - and does not seem to contemplate the possibility that the chosen potential leaders might screw up. Learning frequently involves mistakes and mergers and acquisitions can be expensive testing grounds with millions of pounds and corporate reputations at stake. You may have found out who should be - or shouldn’t be - the next CEO but you may have destroyed much shareholder value in the process.
So the article presents an interesting idea for the management developer but falls short when it comes to risk assessment. One would have thought that an HBR article would have been more balanced in this respect.
Click here to read the article in full:
http://hbr.org/2011/07/the-merger-dividend/ar/1
This article makes the valid point that the integration of mergers and acquisitions creates unique challenges for managers, way outside their normal day to day responsibilities. This is nothing new but the main gist of the article is new and interesting - that mergers and acquisitions should be seen as opportunities to develop managers and provide them with new skills. There is criticism of the common practice of hiving off the integration process to consultants or internal specialists, rather than choosing high potential managers to lead the process.
The authors identify three main skills that are necessary for the integration process and that are also essential for future leaders; these are:
• Getting everyone on the same page
• Executing with discipline
• Building an A Team
Each of these skills is examined in some detail with explanations of what is involved. There are said to be many parallels between the skills that are required post acquisition and what is necessary to run a complex company over the long term. The basic argument is that managing a post-acquisition scenario is a microcosm of, and a crash course for, the job of CEO of a major company.
A particularly good feature of the article is a number of good examples from highly regarded companies from different sectors, like ING, Merck and Timken, all of whom have used acquisitions as opportunities for management development. As a former supplier of management training to Timken, I was particularly taken by their decision to use the integration of a major acquisition as a development opportunity for a member of the Timken family, as a ‘developmental step before becoming chairman’. This raises the key issue of by whom and how the assessment should be made!
This leads on to my main concern with the article and the main danger of applying its arguments. The language used highlights the potential problem - ‘teaching tool, testing ground, learning opportunity - and does not seem to contemplate the possibility that the chosen potential leaders might screw up. Learning frequently involves mistakes and mergers and acquisitions can be expensive testing grounds with millions of pounds and corporate reputations at stake. You may have found out who should be - or shouldn’t be - the next CEO but you may have destroyed much shareholder value in the process.
So the article presents an interesting idea for the management developer but falls short when it comes to risk assessment. One would have thought that an HBR article would have been more balanced in this respect.
Click here to read the article in full:
http://hbr.org/2011/07/the-merger-dividend/ar/1
Making Training Work, by Shirine Voller, Training Journal, July 2011
The author is Associate Director of Research at Ashridge and the article offers some sensible and practical guidance, though I would not expect there to be much that is new for the experienced L&D person. Nevertheless there are some good pointers for the less experienced and an excellent checklist to assess own performance in the area of learning transfer.
This topic is always likely to be of interest to L&D specialists, because of its link to evaluation of training effectiveness. It is also obviously true that, without learning transfer of some kind - short or long term - training investment is wasted. The article rightly points out that the responsibility has to be shared between four parties - learner, trainer, senior manager and L&D - yet often the accountability is vague. Too often the training provider or the L&D department feel rather exposed, because they are held accountable but are not in control at the point of transfer.
The article puts forward three factors as being critical to learning transfer:
• Learner Characteristics
• Training Design
• Work Environment
Under learning characteristics an interesting factor is the need for confidence among those that are learning, something that trainers can frequently overlook. When I looked at a new course in my days of delivery, I used to remind myself that, even if I was nervous, the course members were probably even more so; they were in a foreign environment, maybe worried about being found lacking, unsure about what was coming. And the required confidence will only come from being fully briefed beforehand about what to expect and how to make the best of the opportunity. This clearly links to the importance of pre-course communication by L & D and line manager.
There is also emphasis on the importance of training providers who are prepared to be flexible in course design and who will build in opportunities for the process of learning transfer to begin. But, as you might expect from someone writing from the supplier perspective, the acid test is still whether there is a supportive environment back at the workplace, with opportunities for feedback and discussion of application opportunities.
The checklist offers a number of practical tips, the best of which were:
• Participants to ensure a light schedule on return from the course (often one hears quite the opposite)
• Teach someone else something you learned (MTP also offers this advice)
• Managers to familiarise themselves with course content
• L&D to prompt formal review sessions with participants and managers
Cynics might see this article as a way of saying that Ashridge and other suppliers cannot be fully accountable for learning transfer; they can only recommend and do everything to set things up. From an MTP perspective, we have much sympathy for this view and we share the author’s desire to put over the message about shared accountability.
But we should always be looking for better ways of achieving the transfer by imaginative course designs and continued assertiveness about the responsibility of others to deliver their part of the bargain.
Click here to read the article in full:
http://www.trainingjournal.com/search/?pageName=tj-free-trial&formName=fSearch&query=Making+Training+work%2C+shirine+Voller
This topic is always likely to be of interest to L&D specialists, because of its link to evaluation of training effectiveness. It is also obviously true that, without learning transfer of some kind - short or long term - training investment is wasted. The article rightly points out that the responsibility has to be shared between four parties - learner, trainer, senior manager and L&D - yet often the accountability is vague. Too often the training provider or the L&D department feel rather exposed, because they are held accountable but are not in control at the point of transfer.
The article puts forward three factors as being critical to learning transfer:
• Learner Characteristics
• Training Design
• Work Environment
Under learning characteristics an interesting factor is the need for confidence among those that are learning, something that trainers can frequently overlook. When I looked at a new course in my days of delivery, I used to remind myself that, even if I was nervous, the course members were probably even more so; they were in a foreign environment, maybe worried about being found lacking, unsure about what was coming. And the required confidence will only come from being fully briefed beforehand about what to expect and how to make the best of the opportunity. This clearly links to the importance of pre-course communication by L & D and line manager.
There is also emphasis on the importance of training providers who are prepared to be flexible in course design and who will build in opportunities for the process of learning transfer to begin. But, as you might expect from someone writing from the supplier perspective, the acid test is still whether there is a supportive environment back at the workplace, with opportunities for feedback and discussion of application opportunities.
The checklist offers a number of practical tips, the best of which were:
• Participants to ensure a light schedule on return from the course (often one hears quite the opposite)
• Teach someone else something you learned (MTP also offers this advice)
• Managers to familiarise themselves with course content
• L&D to prompt formal review sessions with participants and managers
Cynics might see this article as a way of saying that Ashridge and other suppliers cannot be fully accountable for learning transfer; they can only recommend and do everything to set things up. From an MTP perspective, we have much sympathy for this view and we share the author’s desire to put over the message about shared accountability.
But we should always be looking for better ways of achieving the transfer by imaginative course designs and continued assertiveness about the responsibility of others to deliver their part of the bargain.
Click here to read the article in full:
http://www.trainingjournal.com/search/?pageName=tj-free-trial&formName=fSearch&query=Making+Training+work%2C+shirine+Voller
The New Psychology of Strategic Leadership by Giovanni Gavetti, Harvard Business Review, July-August 2011
The author is an associate professor at Harvard, clearly junior to the Harvard strategy doyen, Michael Porter. In this article he makes the potentially career limiting step of producing an ‘interpretation of the competitive game that differs from Porter’s’. His basic contention is that Porter’s thinking, particularly his early ‘five forces’ framework, is based too much on economic logic and rational thinking and does not sufficiently address the psychology of strategy. He suggests that a good strategist must be able to analyse the thought processes of those competing in the same market.
The essential thrust of the article is that there are, in most markets, superior opportunities that most CEOs, thinking in the conventional terms encouraged by Porter and his like, do not normally see. This is because such opportunities require a mental leap and may be in conflict with the image and comfort zones of everyone concerned - Board, Employees, Analysts, Shareholders. And the solution to this problem is to use a technique called ‘Associative Thinking’ which is - surprise, surprise - a major element of Mr Gavetti’s MBA Course.
Associative Thinking is the process of bringing together two separate strands of business life and developing them into a new opportunity; the example which he quotes at length is Merrill Lynch’s move to become a ‘financial supermarket’ after seeing the way in which the retail market was developing. Another less convincing example is Yahoo seeing itself as a media rather than a technology company in the early part of this century. I would like to have seen more and better examples, particularly as both these companies have fallen from grace in recent years. Maybe Apple’s insight that it could be in the music business would have been more convincing.
When assessing articles on strategy, I like to defer to MTP’s own specialist in this area, Chris Goodwin who is, to say the least, not easily impressed with new strategy concepts. However Chris agrees that the author’s fundamental point is valid, that opportunities are often missed because of a rational rather than intuitive approach. Chris’s main concern about the article is that it does not emphasise enough the need for sustainable competitive advantage; it is one thing to have the idea, you also have to be able to prevent others copying it. The example of South West Airlines is quoted in the article but there is no reference to how they created an operating system that others could not copy.
The article is worth reading for strategy specialists, particularly for those who are interested in the psychological aspects; it is however rather wordy and unnecessarily long so this review will probably be enough for most.
Click here to read the article in full:
http://hbr.org/product/the-new-psychology-of-strategic-leadership/an/R1107K-PDF-ENG
The essential thrust of the article is that there are, in most markets, superior opportunities that most CEOs, thinking in the conventional terms encouraged by Porter and his like, do not normally see. This is because such opportunities require a mental leap and may be in conflict with the image and comfort zones of everyone concerned - Board, Employees, Analysts, Shareholders. And the solution to this problem is to use a technique called ‘Associative Thinking’ which is - surprise, surprise - a major element of Mr Gavetti’s MBA Course.
Associative Thinking is the process of bringing together two separate strands of business life and developing them into a new opportunity; the example which he quotes at length is Merrill Lynch’s move to become a ‘financial supermarket’ after seeing the way in which the retail market was developing. Another less convincing example is Yahoo seeing itself as a media rather than a technology company in the early part of this century. I would like to have seen more and better examples, particularly as both these companies have fallen from grace in recent years. Maybe Apple’s insight that it could be in the music business would have been more convincing.
When assessing articles on strategy, I like to defer to MTP’s own specialist in this area, Chris Goodwin who is, to say the least, not easily impressed with new strategy concepts. However Chris agrees that the author’s fundamental point is valid, that opportunities are often missed because of a rational rather than intuitive approach. Chris’s main concern about the article is that it does not emphasise enough the need for sustainable competitive advantage; it is one thing to have the idea, you also have to be able to prevent others copying it. The example of South West Airlines is quoted in the article but there is no reference to how they created an operating system that others could not copy.
The article is worth reading for strategy specialists, particularly for those who are interested in the psychological aspects; it is however rather wordy and unnecessarily long so this review will probably be enough for most.
Click here to read the article in full:
http://hbr.org/product/the-new-psychology-of-strategic-leadership/an/R1107K-PDF-ENG
‘Reckless Endangerment’ by Gretchen Morgensen and Joshua Rosner, published by Times Books
I first heard about this book when listening to the National Public Radio - NPR - station in the USA (if you visit the States, do try to find it, their equivalent to Radio 4). Gretchen Morgensen was being interviewed and I was amazed at her outspokenness and clear thinking. I went to buy the book next day.
Most of the books I have read about the financial crisis stress the multi-faceted nature of the causes, with no clear conclusion about the dominant reason. Ms Morgensen and her co-author are quite different. They trace the causes back to the Clinton era and the decision to extend home ownership to the American masses, and to the development of two organisations Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Fannie Mae is an abbreviation of Federal National Mortgage Corp (and Freddie Mac something similar) and they both started life as government agencies to support house ownership before being privatised in the 1960s.
The story of what happened is a good lesson in the principles of moral hazard, the belief that if an organisation is seen as too big to fail, then those involved will act irresponsibly. The management of Fannie Mae - and in particular James A Johnson its CEO - encouraged the belief that the government would stand any losses and set about trying to achieve Clinton’s target of 70% of Americans owning their own homes, at any cost and by any means.
The book makes it clear that the drive by Johnson and his willingness to finance the sub-prime mortgages that we have heard so much about, was the underlying cause of all that followed. He was motivated both by personal aggrandisement and hefty bonus incentives to finance almost any property loan, based on flimsy assurances and dodgy documentation. He then followed this up by initiating the complex instruments that enabled them to sell on their liabilities to unsuspecting investors; he also deceived the ratings agencies into giving these securities a ridiculously credit rating which provided the trades with unjustified legitimacy.
Of course there are other guilty parties mentioned in the book, from Clinton to Alan Greenspan to incompetent bankers, but the authors focus on Fannie, Freddie and Johnson in particular. He was undoubtedly allowed to get away with it all because of unknowing accomplices in the banking sector and a much too light touch in regulation. The co-author Joshua Rosner claims to have raised a number of early warnings that were ignored by regulators.
This book is well written and sometimes it feels like reading a novel. If it was a work of fiction, you would probably keep saying - ‘surely that couldn’t really happen, people couldn’t be that stupid’. But they were!
Most of the books I have read about the financial crisis stress the multi-faceted nature of the causes, with no clear conclusion about the dominant reason. Ms Morgensen and her co-author are quite different. They trace the causes back to the Clinton era and the decision to extend home ownership to the American masses, and to the development of two organisations Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Fannie Mae is an abbreviation of Federal National Mortgage Corp (and Freddie Mac something similar) and they both started life as government agencies to support house ownership before being privatised in the 1960s.
The story of what happened is a good lesson in the principles of moral hazard, the belief that if an organisation is seen as too big to fail, then those involved will act irresponsibly. The management of Fannie Mae - and in particular James A Johnson its CEO - encouraged the belief that the government would stand any losses and set about trying to achieve Clinton’s target of 70% of Americans owning their own homes, at any cost and by any means.
The book makes it clear that the drive by Johnson and his willingness to finance the sub-prime mortgages that we have heard so much about, was the underlying cause of all that followed. He was motivated both by personal aggrandisement and hefty bonus incentives to finance almost any property loan, based on flimsy assurances and dodgy documentation. He then followed this up by initiating the complex instruments that enabled them to sell on their liabilities to unsuspecting investors; he also deceived the ratings agencies into giving these securities a ridiculously credit rating which provided the trades with unjustified legitimacy.
Of course there are other guilty parties mentioned in the book, from Clinton to Alan Greenspan to incompetent bankers, but the authors focus on Fannie, Freddie and Johnson in particular. He was undoubtedly allowed to get away with it all because of unknowing accomplices in the banking sector and a much too light touch in regulation. The co-author Joshua Rosner claims to have raised a number of early warnings that were ignored by regulators.
This book is well written and sometimes it feels like reading a novel. If it was a work of fiction, you would probably keep saying - ‘surely that couldn’t really happen, people couldn’t be that stupid’. But they were!
‘The PowerPoint Fallacy’ by Matthias Poehm, published by Poehm
When I first came across this book I was uncertain how serious it would be. Mr Poehm is a German speaking trainer based in Switzerland and obviously an effective publicist; he calls himself the founder of the Anti PowerPoint Party and was willing to provide a discount on his book if you joined up; I did not do so.
I have a lot of sympathy with the essential thrust of the book - that PowerPoint has become far too dominant in business life; the author quotes 95% of presentations using this medium and our own observations would confirm this. He makes the pertinent point that Barack Obama manages to get over his messages without PowerPoint and that we should be able to do the same. This ignores the point that we do not have the President’s charisma or speaking skills.
My view from experience is that PowerPoint is not the problem, it is how people use it. So many times I have sat through presentations by company finance people who show loads of unreadable figures which add no value at all; and I have often been asked by clients to produce PowerPoint slides that we will not use but which they need to satisfy themselves that we have ‘prepared’.
Where I would disagree with the author is that it is all or nothing, that we should do without PowerPoint altogether. Indeed I would argue that the growth of on-line meetings and virtual training has increased the need, because it provides a focal point for discussions. The challenge however is to use the PowerPoint method as the basis for encouraging interaction, not as an excuse for one way communication.
Despite its all or nothing approach, the book does provide useful tips and guidance. He supports the informality of the flipchart and many of us would agree, though he fails to take into account the fact that many of us are not as neat and legible as he seems to be (am I the only one who yearns for the overhead projector which you could write and draw on? I know you can now do something similar in virtual classrooms but it’s not quite the same)
He is also right in his analysis that you devalue a statement when you show it on a screen and then read it out. At MTP we try to work to the principle that every entry on a PowerPoint slide must be capable of being added to, and the additions are there in the speaker notes if needed. The speaker notes can, for the less experienced trainer, also provide questions to be asked and triggers to be fired to encourage discussion and questioning.
So, despite my criticism of the author’s dogmatic approach, I recommend the book to any trainer who is concerned about ‘Death by PowerPoint’ and is unsure how to address the problem. It could also be a gift to those colleagues who love to produce 100+ slide decks and use them to bore the pants of everyone.
I have a lot of sympathy with the essential thrust of the book - that PowerPoint has become far too dominant in business life; the author quotes 95% of presentations using this medium and our own observations would confirm this. He makes the pertinent point that Barack Obama manages to get over his messages without PowerPoint and that we should be able to do the same. This ignores the point that we do not have the President’s charisma or speaking skills.
My view from experience is that PowerPoint is not the problem, it is how people use it. So many times I have sat through presentations by company finance people who show loads of unreadable figures which add no value at all; and I have often been asked by clients to produce PowerPoint slides that we will not use but which they need to satisfy themselves that we have ‘prepared’.
Where I would disagree with the author is that it is all or nothing, that we should do without PowerPoint altogether. Indeed I would argue that the growth of on-line meetings and virtual training has increased the need, because it provides a focal point for discussions. The challenge however is to use the PowerPoint method as the basis for encouraging interaction, not as an excuse for one way communication.
Despite its all or nothing approach, the book does provide useful tips and guidance. He supports the informality of the flipchart and many of us would agree, though he fails to take into account the fact that many of us are not as neat and legible as he seems to be (am I the only one who yearns for the overhead projector which you could write and draw on? I know you can now do something similar in virtual classrooms but it’s not quite the same)
He is also right in his analysis that you devalue a statement when you show it on a screen and then read it out. At MTP we try to work to the principle that every entry on a PowerPoint slide must be capable of being added to, and the additions are there in the speaker notes if needed. The speaker notes can, for the less experienced trainer, also provide questions to be asked and triggers to be fired to encourage discussion and questioning.
So, despite my criticism of the author’s dogmatic approach, I recommend the book to any trainer who is concerned about ‘Death by PowerPoint’ and is unsure how to address the problem. It could also be a gift to those colleagues who love to produce 100+ slide decks and use them to bore the pants of everyone.
‘Bounce’ by Matthew Syed, published by Harper Collins
Syed is an unusual example of a top sportsman who has become a high class journalist with a reputation that owes nothing to his previous career; his articles in the Times have for some time shown that he thinks deeply about the way sports people perform.
The reason I have chosen this book for review is twofold; it builds on a book that was reviewed in one of last year’s blogs - The Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell - and even though its major focus is sport, it has clear relevance to anyone involved in talent management.
The overriding theme of the book is that the concept of ‘natural talent’ is seriously over-rated and in many cases does not exist at all. Sometimes Syed goes too far in this argument and you feel that his arguments are almost semantic; for instance he argues that black athletes do not have natural talent but are instead the beneficiaries of their specific circumstances and those of their ancestors, for instance the altitude, climate and customs of a particular region of East Africa led to the dominance of Kenyan distance runners.
This thesis could be challenged by arguing that if someone inherits physical characteristics from previous generations, that could be described as natural talent even if its original source was the unique environment in which ancestors lived. He makes a similar argument for the superiority of black sprinters which is rather less convincing and you sometimes get the impression that he is selecting evidence to support his theory, rather than presenting a range of objective information.
Nevertheless he present a powerful case for the view that natural talent is frequently overrated and is confused with opportunity and practice. He subscribes to Gladwell’s theory that you can only become world class at most skills if you have at least 10,000 hours practice; he suggests that usually ‘child prodigies’ are not naturally talented but have just been given early opportunities to practice more than their peers; then they are picked out for even more practice and greater opportunities. Though I was broadly convinced by the 10,000 argument, Syed takes it even further by implying that anyone who puts in 10,000 hours can develop high class skills; on the radio I heard him say that he could convert almost anyone into a county class tennis player with the right amount and quality of practice. This seems to me to ignore the essential need to have minimum standards of inbuilt physical characteristics (the four S’s of size, speed, strength and stamina) which can only be improved up to a certain point.
Syed’s style of writing is excellent and makes you really want to move on, starting with his fascinating description of his own career and how it was a unique set of circumstances and opportunities that made him British champion, not inbuilt talent. His argument is justified by the amazing number of people in the same area who became high class table tennis players at the same time. It is also impressive that, like Gladwell, he doesn’t confine his evidence to sport; for instance, he believes that areas where natural talent is overrated extend to chess, music and memory tests.
The question for management learning and development is how far we overestimate natural talent when appraising and developing managers. The management of talent is a topical theme and one often hears that there are ‘natural leaders’ or that some managers have a ‘flair for numbers’ or ‘intuitive business nous’. Many of us make assumptions that there are some things you cannot teach and that we should instead concentrate on what we can change.
Reading Syed’s book should at least make readers question many of these assertions though whether anyone can spare 10,000 hours to become a world class manager is open to question!
The reason I have chosen this book for review is twofold; it builds on a book that was reviewed in one of last year’s blogs - The Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell - and even though its major focus is sport, it has clear relevance to anyone involved in talent management.
The overriding theme of the book is that the concept of ‘natural talent’ is seriously over-rated and in many cases does not exist at all. Sometimes Syed goes too far in this argument and you feel that his arguments are almost semantic; for instance he argues that black athletes do not have natural talent but are instead the beneficiaries of their specific circumstances and those of their ancestors, for instance the altitude, climate and customs of a particular region of East Africa led to the dominance of Kenyan distance runners.
This thesis could be challenged by arguing that if someone inherits physical characteristics from previous generations, that could be described as natural talent even if its original source was the unique environment in which ancestors lived. He makes a similar argument for the superiority of black sprinters which is rather less convincing and you sometimes get the impression that he is selecting evidence to support his theory, rather than presenting a range of objective information.
Nevertheless he present a powerful case for the view that natural talent is frequently overrated and is confused with opportunity and practice. He subscribes to Gladwell’s theory that you can only become world class at most skills if you have at least 10,000 hours practice; he suggests that usually ‘child prodigies’ are not naturally talented but have just been given early opportunities to practice more than their peers; then they are picked out for even more practice and greater opportunities. Though I was broadly convinced by the 10,000 argument, Syed takes it even further by implying that anyone who puts in 10,000 hours can develop high class skills; on the radio I heard him say that he could convert almost anyone into a county class tennis player with the right amount and quality of practice. This seems to me to ignore the essential need to have minimum standards of inbuilt physical characteristics (the four S’s of size, speed, strength and stamina) which can only be improved up to a certain point.
Syed’s style of writing is excellent and makes you really want to move on, starting with his fascinating description of his own career and how it was a unique set of circumstances and opportunities that made him British champion, not inbuilt talent. His argument is justified by the amazing number of people in the same area who became high class table tennis players at the same time. It is also impressive that, like Gladwell, he doesn’t confine his evidence to sport; for instance, he believes that areas where natural talent is overrated extend to chess, music and memory tests.
The question for management learning and development is how far we overestimate natural talent when appraising and developing managers. The management of talent is a topical theme and one often hears that there are ‘natural leaders’ or that some managers have a ‘flair for numbers’ or ‘intuitive business nous’. Many of us make assumptions that there are some things you cannot teach and that we should instead concentrate on what we can change.
Reading Syed’s book should at least make readers question many of these assertions though whether anyone can spare 10,000 hours to become a world class manager is open to question!
The Blended Learning Cookbook by Clive Shepherd, published by Onlignment
About a year ago I bought an iPad with a view to using it for my book reviews and, despite good intentions, I have only used it occasionally for that purpose. There were two problems apart from my natural resistance to change; firstly many new books were not immediately available through iBooks and secondly it was difficult to browse (as I would in a book shop) before deciding which to buy and review. I decided this time to make a more determined effort and both books were in fact available online, though the browsing problem still remains. On the more positive side, it is so much easier when travelling and the visibility and convenience of reading is much enhanced.
This book is short and to the point, which makes it easy to read but lacking in depth. The introduction is well written and makes many good points, arguing that, though blended learning is not new, it has become a more powerful and relevant concept as new learning methods have evolved. He points out that the pioneer of blended learning was the Open University nearly 50 years ago though, from his description of the present OU packages, they haven’t changed much since I worked on them. Certainly the combination of text, cassettes, TV and face-to-face training was well ahead of its time back then.
The title of the book relates to the structure of 28 ‘recipes’ which are effectively short, practical case studies of different types of programme which require different blended combinations, depending on the objectives and audience. This makes it an easy book to dip into rather than to read from cover to cover; it is interesting to observe the different approaches even if many are outside one’s normal orbit, for instance the range extends from technical training for air traffic controllers to courses in basic literacy.
I liked the structure by which each programme was described - situation, strategy, blend, rationale - and the framework for structuring the content - preparation, delivery, application, review. I found myself disagreeing with some of the solutions where the type of programme was familiar to me, but in a positive way. I could usually understand the reasoning, recognising that in practice it is impossible to decide a perfect blend without knowing the context and the audience in detail.
I would like to have seen more focus on some of the practical problems - for instance how to ensure that self-driven learning is carried out by busy and less motivated managers - and, because of this weakness, the book has a theoretical rather than practical feel. There are four appendices which just manage to take the content over 100 electronic pages and these provide more useful structure, based on the framework of Clark and Whittrock that I had not come across before; learning methods are divided into Instruction, Exposition, Exploration and Guided Delivery. These different methods are then related to the nature of the topic and the audience. The pros and cons of different learning media are also covered though this is all rather obvious for the experienced learning professional.
Overall this is an easy read and of likely interest for everyone and of benefit for the less experienced learning professional. And if you have an iPad or a Kindle, it’s only a click away.
This book is short and to the point, which makes it easy to read but lacking in depth. The introduction is well written and makes many good points, arguing that, though blended learning is not new, it has become a more powerful and relevant concept as new learning methods have evolved. He points out that the pioneer of blended learning was the Open University nearly 50 years ago though, from his description of the present OU packages, they haven’t changed much since I worked on them. Certainly the combination of text, cassettes, TV and face-to-face training was well ahead of its time back then.
The title of the book relates to the structure of 28 ‘recipes’ which are effectively short, practical case studies of different types of programme which require different blended combinations, depending on the objectives and audience. This makes it an easy book to dip into rather than to read from cover to cover; it is interesting to observe the different approaches even if many are outside one’s normal orbit, for instance the range extends from technical training for air traffic controllers to courses in basic literacy.
I liked the structure by which each programme was described - situation, strategy, blend, rationale - and the framework for structuring the content - preparation, delivery, application, review. I found myself disagreeing with some of the solutions where the type of programme was familiar to me, but in a positive way. I could usually understand the reasoning, recognising that in practice it is impossible to decide a perfect blend without knowing the context and the audience in detail.
I would like to have seen more focus on some of the practical problems - for instance how to ensure that self-driven learning is carried out by busy and less motivated managers - and, because of this weakness, the book has a theoretical rather than practical feel. There are four appendices which just manage to take the content over 100 electronic pages and these provide more useful structure, based on the framework of Clark and Whittrock that I had not come across before; learning methods are divided into Instruction, Exposition, Exploration and Guided Delivery. These different methods are then related to the nature of the topic and the audience. The pros and cons of different learning media are also covered though this is all rather obvious for the experienced learning professional.
Overall this is an easy read and of likely interest for everyone and of benefit for the less experienced learning professional. And if you have an iPad or a Kindle, it’s only a click away.
Wednesday 22 June 2011
‘How P&G tripled its innovation success rate’ by Bruce Brown and Scott D Anthony, Harvard Business Review, June 2011
My long standing contact and previous employment with Unilever has caused any reference to Procter and Gamble to be a combination of hostility and grudging admiration. They have been a formidable competitor over the years yet have also had their ups and downs, and revelations about the way they operate have not always painted a pretty picture.
So I was sceptical about an article which claims that P&G have a formula that increases innovation success rates; I would not dispute that it might work for them but would question whether any formula would work in other less controlling cultures. This scepticism was increased when I read early on that there has been a ‘strategic effort to systematise innovation and growth’. Surely the systemisation of innovation is likely to stifle creative thinking, particularly as the CEO Bob McDonald says ‘There needs to be an emotional component, a source of inspiration that motivates people’.
Clearly P&G had problems in this area in the early 2000s when only 15% of new innovations were achieving targets. They introduced what they called a ‘Connect and Develop’ process with different stage gates but this did not do enough to satisfy senior management. The top management were disappointed that innovations were merely incremental; they were looking for more breakthrough ideas that would change the market place.
The answer was another organisational change, introducing ‘new growth factories’, based on the ideas of a Harvard Professor, Clayton Christensen, who developed the concept of disruptive innovation. The new growth factories were effectively cross-functional teams with the brief to challenge existing thinking; where the opportunity was big enough, these people were taken away from their existing businesses and functions to operate full time.
This seems a good idea even though it is not particularly new - for many years a range of companies have operated such teams outside the normal structure - but the article claims that success is due to the processes operated by the teams. This is where I began to have my doubts and to think how typical this is of a company like P&G, famous for its close top down control. Each of the ‘factories’ had to have the following:
• New growth business guides
• A step-by-step business development process manual
• Specialised project and portfolio management tools
• Innovation and strategy assessments
• Training in key innovation concepts
This may have worked in P&G but it’s hard to see this kind of structured approach working more generally; it seems the complete opposite of the thinking in most other businesses, initially stimulated by ‘In Search of Excellence’ nearly 30 years ago. The general view was that breakthrough innovation is more likely if it is right outside the normal structure, unencumbered by bureaucratic processes.
The article moves on to suggest various lessons that have been learnt from the application of this approach but these are not particularly new or helpful; they mostly relate to the need for a centralised and coordinated approach which is aligned to the P&G culture. One interesting and unexpected point towards the end was that they recognised the need to bring in outside talent, because the effectiveness of these groups was restricted by the practice of promoting from within. A temporary swop of personnel with Google was a particularly eye catching example of this practice.
The article claims that the new approach is working well and describes a number of successful breakthroughs to prove it, the most interesting of which was the launch of Tide Dry Cleaning shops, which was news to me. And the success rate of 15% has grown to 50%, which proves that it is delivering value for P&G. Whether it would deliver value for others is more questionable and this makes the article of passing interest rather than practical value.
Click here to read the article in full:
http://hbr.org/2011/06/how-pg-tripled-its-innovation-success-rate/ar/1
So I was sceptical about an article which claims that P&G have a formula that increases innovation success rates; I would not dispute that it might work for them but would question whether any formula would work in other less controlling cultures. This scepticism was increased when I read early on that there has been a ‘strategic effort to systematise innovation and growth’. Surely the systemisation of innovation is likely to stifle creative thinking, particularly as the CEO Bob McDonald says ‘There needs to be an emotional component, a source of inspiration that motivates people’.
Clearly P&G had problems in this area in the early 2000s when only 15% of new innovations were achieving targets. They introduced what they called a ‘Connect and Develop’ process with different stage gates but this did not do enough to satisfy senior management. The top management were disappointed that innovations were merely incremental; they were looking for more breakthrough ideas that would change the market place.
The answer was another organisational change, introducing ‘new growth factories’, based on the ideas of a Harvard Professor, Clayton Christensen, who developed the concept of disruptive innovation. The new growth factories were effectively cross-functional teams with the brief to challenge existing thinking; where the opportunity was big enough, these people were taken away from their existing businesses and functions to operate full time.
This seems a good idea even though it is not particularly new - for many years a range of companies have operated such teams outside the normal structure - but the article claims that success is due to the processes operated by the teams. This is where I began to have my doubts and to think how typical this is of a company like P&G, famous for its close top down control. Each of the ‘factories’ had to have the following:
• New growth business guides
• A step-by-step business development process manual
• Specialised project and portfolio management tools
• Innovation and strategy assessments
• Training in key innovation concepts
This may have worked in P&G but it’s hard to see this kind of structured approach working more generally; it seems the complete opposite of the thinking in most other businesses, initially stimulated by ‘In Search of Excellence’ nearly 30 years ago. The general view was that breakthrough innovation is more likely if it is right outside the normal structure, unencumbered by bureaucratic processes.
The article moves on to suggest various lessons that have been learnt from the application of this approach but these are not particularly new or helpful; they mostly relate to the need for a centralised and coordinated approach which is aligned to the P&G culture. One interesting and unexpected point towards the end was that they recognised the need to bring in outside talent, because the effectiveness of these groups was restricted by the practice of promoting from within. A temporary swop of personnel with Google was a particularly eye catching example of this practice.
The article claims that the new approach is working well and describes a number of successful breakthroughs to prove it, the most interesting of which was the launch of Tide Dry Cleaning shops, which was news to me. And the success rate of 15% has grown to 50%, which proves that it is delivering value for P&G. Whether it would deliver value for others is more questionable and this makes the article of passing interest rather than practical value.
Click here to read the article in full:
http://hbr.org/2011/06/how-pg-tripled-its-innovation-success-rate/ar/1
‘A match made in heaven’ by Russell Deathridge and Marija Potter, Training Journal, June 2011
I chose this article from TJ because it was a change from the usual repetitive contributions by training consultants who tell us yet again that training needs to be focussed on business needs or that there is a wonderful new approach to evaluation. The authors are from Kenexa, a US consultancy who seem to have established a reputation for leadership development and who are working with several of our clients. They tackle the long standing debate about the difference between management and leadership and then move on to discuss the more practical issue; once you have defined each one, can you and should you separate their training?
The article starts with some useful retracing of the history of management thinking, which took me back to my early Ashridge days (I recall a joke that, if you were five minutes late for the Principal’s lecture on this subject, you missed the first 100 years!) The authors quote Fayol’s definition of management as forecasting, planning, organisation, commanding, coordinating and controlling, thinking which led to management being seen as a scientific process. Only those at the very top were expected to worry about people and culture, which were seen as separate issues.
We are then reminded that it was Mintzberg who first began to see management in behavioural terms with his suggestion of three core areas - interpersonal, informational and decisional. And this thinking gathered pace to the point where it is now taken for granted that managers at almost any level are responsible for the development of their people, and for integrating the hard and the soft elements of the role.
Having made an interesting if rather theoretical start, the article then goes much too deeply into more theory, suggesting eight different theories of leadership which are too obscure and overlapping to be of interest to the average learning professional. The conclusion of all this theory is the assertion that the responsibilities of the average manager today are much more complex and challenging than 50 years ago. In addition to the greater people responsibilities, there is the need to understand a global environment and to be measured by a wider range of KPIs, not just financial metrics.
I was still thinking ‘so what’ when we finally got to the point on the third page of the article. The key argument is that the barriers between management and leadership have broken down and the two elements should be seen as an integrated continuum. This seems rather obvious but the authors then make the point that most management training design assumes that these elements of a manager’s responsibilities can be divided, with either separate courses or an ‘integrated’ programme with separate sessions on hard and soft skills.
This is certainly something that we have seen in a number of companies and business schools and we try very hard to avoid such separations in our course designs and material development. For instance we frequently develop business simulations and exercises/case studies that combine finance with communication skills. The authors accept the importance of integrated design but suggest that their key factor for integration is the way the facilitator operates, acting as instructor for management topics and facilitator for leadership, looking at present day management problems while also looking forward to future strategic issues.
The article makes this point effectively and is well written, but I would have preferred to see less coverage of theory up front and more on the implications for programme design and learning outcomes.
Click here to read the article in full:
http://www.trainingjournal.com/feature/articles-features-2011-06-01-a-match-made-in-heaven/
The article starts with some useful retracing of the history of management thinking, which took me back to my early Ashridge days (I recall a joke that, if you were five minutes late for the Principal’s lecture on this subject, you missed the first 100 years!) The authors quote Fayol’s definition of management as forecasting, planning, organisation, commanding, coordinating and controlling, thinking which led to management being seen as a scientific process. Only those at the very top were expected to worry about people and culture, which were seen as separate issues.
We are then reminded that it was Mintzberg who first began to see management in behavioural terms with his suggestion of three core areas - interpersonal, informational and decisional. And this thinking gathered pace to the point where it is now taken for granted that managers at almost any level are responsible for the development of their people, and for integrating the hard and the soft elements of the role.
Having made an interesting if rather theoretical start, the article then goes much too deeply into more theory, suggesting eight different theories of leadership which are too obscure and overlapping to be of interest to the average learning professional. The conclusion of all this theory is the assertion that the responsibilities of the average manager today are much more complex and challenging than 50 years ago. In addition to the greater people responsibilities, there is the need to understand a global environment and to be measured by a wider range of KPIs, not just financial metrics.
I was still thinking ‘so what’ when we finally got to the point on the third page of the article. The key argument is that the barriers between management and leadership have broken down and the two elements should be seen as an integrated continuum. This seems rather obvious but the authors then make the point that most management training design assumes that these elements of a manager’s responsibilities can be divided, with either separate courses or an ‘integrated’ programme with separate sessions on hard and soft skills.
This is certainly something that we have seen in a number of companies and business schools and we try very hard to avoid such separations in our course designs and material development. For instance we frequently develop business simulations and exercises/case studies that combine finance with communication skills. The authors accept the importance of integrated design but suggest that their key factor for integration is the way the facilitator operates, acting as instructor for management topics and facilitator for leadership, looking at present day management problems while also looking forward to future strategic issues.
The article makes this point effectively and is well written, but I would have preferred to see less coverage of theory up front and more on the implications for programme design and learning outcomes.
Click here to read the article in full:
http://www.trainingjournal.com/feature/articles-features-2011-06-01-a-match-made-in-heaven/
‘Tutors to the world’, Schumpeter column, Economist 11th June
Once again the Schumpeter column covers a management theme that is both relevant and topical - the internationalisation of business schools. It starts with an interesting assertion that intuitively I would have rejected; that academics in business schools lead the way in internationalisation compared to academics in other disciplines and, during the last 10 years, compared to business itself.
I have no knowledge of globalisation in other academic disciplines and have no reason to doubt the assertion, but I am much more sceptical about the comparison to business. Maybe there has been some catching up recently but my experience - and that of our clients - is that the globalisation of business schools has been well behind business generally. It’s true that there are some high profile shining lights such as INSEAD who have opened up in other countries and established relationships with overseas schools, but there are still many in the USA and elsewhere that are highly insular and parochial.
The American schools quoted in the article - Wharton of Philadelphia and Booth of Chicago - may have established campus’s abroad but have they changed the backgrounds of the professors and the way they teach management topics? I have no first hand background to challenge the claims to recent progress but I recall from a past tour of the American schools and from examining their material, that an ‘international case study’ was often a US company looking to move into new markets.
However there are some interesting statistics to back up Schumpeter’s argument. It is no surprise that a large number of participants in American MBA programmes are from other countries - 34% according to the article - as this has long been a rite of passage for bright overseas students wishing to make a career in business. More surprising is the fact that the faculty from outside America are now as high as 26%, though lagging behind European Schools with 46%. These proportions are much higher than I would have expected and perhaps confirm how much needed progress has been made recently. Blog followers may recall my past review of the book by Philip Delves Broughton about his time at Harvard, which quoted the dissatisfaction of many international students with the parochialism and US centric attitudes of the faculty.
The article also makes the excellent point that a mix of nationalities does not necessarily achieve a truly international perspective if the students are cosmopolitans who have grown up working for multi-national businesses. And a visiting American professor running a generic case study will not necessarily focus on local issues, unless there is strong pressure to do so.
The extent to which new business schools are growing worldwide is mind boggling. There are 13,000 in total of which 2,700 are in India and China; Spain’s leading school, IESE, has set up schools in 15 countries. The good news about this is that it will increase competition and hopefully bring down what the article describes as ‘exorbitant costs; the potentially bad news is that quality will suffer as the resources - in particular high calibre faculty - are stretched increasingly thinly. There will also be what the article describes as ‘snake oil salesmen’ falsely claiming global status; an interesting example is the Moscow School of Management offering an MBA with an emphasis on corruption!!
The article should perhaps have mentioned the increasing trend for business schools to run programmes tailored to company needs, where the need to globalise depends on client preference. In this case the globalisation has to be real and practical, something which the more academic business schools find hard to deliver. I cannot pretend to be objective here but my perception is that business schools are increasingly the providers of business education for those who are from smaller businesses and/or want to further their career ambition outside their current situation. Global companies will find more tailored solutions and this may cause a high proportion of those 13,000 schools to have difficulty filling their capacity.
Click here to read the article in full:
http://www.economist.com/node/18802722
I have no knowledge of globalisation in other academic disciplines and have no reason to doubt the assertion, but I am much more sceptical about the comparison to business. Maybe there has been some catching up recently but my experience - and that of our clients - is that the globalisation of business schools has been well behind business generally. It’s true that there are some high profile shining lights such as INSEAD who have opened up in other countries and established relationships with overseas schools, but there are still many in the USA and elsewhere that are highly insular and parochial.
The American schools quoted in the article - Wharton of Philadelphia and Booth of Chicago - may have established campus’s abroad but have they changed the backgrounds of the professors and the way they teach management topics? I have no first hand background to challenge the claims to recent progress but I recall from a past tour of the American schools and from examining their material, that an ‘international case study’ was often a US company looking to move into new markets.
However there are some interesting statistics to back up Schumpeter’s argument. It is no surprise that a large number of participants in American MBA programmes are from other countries - 34% according to the article - as this has long been a rite of passage for bright overseas students wishing to make a career in business. More surprising is the fact that the faculty from outside America are now as high as 26%, though lagging behind European Schools with 46%. These proportions are much higher than I would have expected and perhaps confirm how much needed progress has been made recently. Blog followers may recall my past review of the book by Philip Delves Broughton about his time at Harvard, which quoted the dissatisfaction of many international students with the parochialism and US centric attitudes of the faculty.
The article also makes the excellent point that a mix of nationalities does not necessarily achieve a truly international perspective if the students are cosmopolitans who have grown up working for multi-national businesses. And a visiting American professor running a generic case study will not necessarily focus on local issues, unless there is strong pressure to do so.
The extent to which new business schools are growing worldwide is mind boggling. There are 13,000 in total of which 2,700 are in India and China; Spain’s leading school, IESE, has set up schools in 15 countries. The good news about this is that it will increase competition and hopefully bring down what the article describes as ‘exorbitant costs; the potentially bad news is that quality will suffer as the resources - in particular high calibre faculty - are stretched increasingly thinly. There will also be what the article describes as ‘snake oil salesmen’ falsely claiming global status; an interesting example is the Moscow School of Management offering an MBA with an emphasis on corruption!!
The article should perhaps have mentioned the increasing trend for business schools to run programmes tailored to company needs, where the need to globalise depends on client preference. In this case the globalisation has to be real and practical, something which the more academic business schools find hard to deliver. I cannot pretend to be objective here but my perception is that business schools are increasingly the providers of business education for those who are from smaller businesses and/or want to further their career ambition outside their current situation. Global companies will find more tailored solutions and this may cause a high proportion of those 13,000 schools to have difficulty filling their capacity.
Click here to read the article in full:
http://www.economist.com/node/18802722
‘Before you make that big decision…’ by Daniel Kahneman, Dan Lovallo and Olivier Sibony, Harvard Business Review, June 2011
In the last blog I reviewed an article by Olivier Sibony in the McKinsey Quarterly, covering the ways in which Chief Financial Officers can and should remove bias from major business decisions. This article builds on this coverage in two ways; by involving two academics from Princeton and Sydney Universities (thus helping to get placed in the HBR) and by extending the responsibility for removing bias to all senior management.
The article starts by introducing some of the different types of bias that we at MTP have found to be powerful for our coverage of business case decisions:
• Confirmation bias, ignoring evidence that contradicts their prior view
• Anchoring bias, weighing too heavily the information that justifies that view
• Loss aversion, an overly cautious approach caused by fear of failure
I was however surprised that motivational bias was not highlighted early on, because we find this to be the most common distorting factor in project decisions; the way in which managers fall in love with an idea and lose all sense of objectivity. This is particularly common among those involved in acquisitions and a typical feature is zero tolerance of more pessimistic voices.
The article claims that the removal of bias in decisions makes companies’ return on investment 7% higher, based on McKinsey research of 1,000 businesses. One wonders about the validity of the research and the other factors that impact ROI but the presence of two respected academics presumably means that this is a true correlation. There is then a sweeping assertion that business executives are incapable of recognising and removing their biases, therefore they must look to others and to the use of suitable tools. I wonder how many CEOs would agree with this assertion and how difficult it must be to make them believe it of themselves. They are almost certain to be biased about their own biases!
The argument that bias cannot be removed is based around the division of thinking into ‘System One and System Two’ elements; System One is the intuitive reflex way of seeing the world, System Two is when we adopt rule based reasoning. The authors’ view is that System One determines most of our thoughts and is the inbuilt source of bias; we cannot, on our own, change what is instinctive. Therefore the solution has to be at the organisational level and must involve more than one person, an interesting challenge for CEOs of an autocratic disposition.
The article then introduces three scenarios as examples of major decisions; a radical pricing change, a large capital outlay and a major acquisition. Though it is good to see practical examples, these are anonymous and seem to be fictitious, which makes them less than convincing; they also seem to add little to the argument.
More useful was the checklist of 12 questions which are intended to question for bias and lead the way to it being removed, looking particularly for self-interest, excessive love for the project and dissenting opinions. There is not space to repeat all 12 questions but the following are among the best and should provide a flavour:
• Is diagnosis influenced by salient analogies? (a rather pretentious way of saying, ‘has a recent success made you think you can do it again?’)
• Is there a halo effect, are we attributing past successes to the personalities of those involved?
• Is there an atmosphere of over confidence which causes us to underrate competitors?
The process of asking and answering these questions is inevitably time consuming and disruptive and the article suggest that this approach is only for the big decisions. It is also important that the review and final decision should be organisationally separate from the team that makes the recommendation; it would have been good to hear more about this, in particular the role of the CFO in making sure it is fully objective.
It is good to see such an important and practical topic being aired in the HBR but I was still left wondering how many CEOs would accept the logic and the process when that next vital acquisition target becomes available.
Click here to read the article in full:
http://hbr.org/2011/06/the-big-idea-before-you-make-that-big-decision/ar/1
The article starts by introducing some of the different types of bias that we at MTP have found to be powerful for our coverage of business case decisions:
• Confirmation bias, ignoring evidence that contradicts their prior view
• Anchoring bias, weighing too heavily the information that justifies that view
• Loss aversion, an overly cautious approach caused by fear of failure
I was however surprised that motivational bias was not highlighted early on, because we find this to be the most common distorting factor in project decisions; the way in which managers fall in love with an idea and lose all sense of objectivity. This is particularly common among those involved in acquisitions and a typical feature is zero tolerance of more pessimistic voices.
The article claims that the removal of bias in decisions makes companies’ return on investment 7% higher, based on McKinsey research of 1,000 businesses. One wonders about the validity of the research and the other factors that impact ROI but the presence of two respected academics presumably means that this is a true correlation. There is then a sweeping assertion that business executives are incapable of recognising and removing their biases, therefore they must look to others and to the use of suitable tools. I wonder how many CEOs would agree with this assertion and how difficult it must be to make them believe it of themselves. They are almost certain to be biased about their own biases!
The argument that bias cannot be removed is based around the division of thinking into ‘System One and System Two’ elements; System One is the intuitive reflex way of seeing the world, System Two is when we adopt rule based reasoning. The authors’ view is that System One determines most of our thoughts and is the inbuilt source of bias; we cannot, on our own, change what is instinctive. Therefore the solution has to be at the organisational level and must involve more than one person, an interesting challenge for CEOs of an autocratic disposition.
The article then introduces three scenarios as examples of major decisions; a radical pricing change, a large capital outlay and a major acquisition. Though it is good to see practical examples, these are anonymous and seem to be fictitious, which makes them less than convincing; they also seem to add little to the argument.
More useful was the checklist of 12 questions which are intended to question for bias and lead the way to it being removed, looking particularly for self-interest, excessive love for the project and dissenting opinions. There is not space to repeat all 12 questions but the following are among the best and should provide a flavour:
• Is diagnosis influenced by salient analogies? (a rather pretentious way of saying, ‘has a recent success made you think you can do it again?’)
• Is there a halo effect, are we attributing past successes to the personalities of those involved?
• Is there an atmosphere of over confidence which causes us to underrate competitors?
The process of asking and answering these questions is inevitably time consuming and disruptive and the article suggest that this approach is only for the big decisions. It is also important that the review and final decision should be organisationally separate from the team that makes the recommendation; it would have been good to hear more about this, in particular the role of the CFO in making sure it is fully objective.
It is good to see such an important and practical topic being aired in the HBR but I was still left wondering how many CEOs would accept the logic and the process when that next vital acquisition target becomes available.
Click here to read the article in full:
http://hbr.org/2011/06/the-big-idea-before-you-make-that-big-decision/ar/1
‘Dream Schools’, Director Magazine, June 2011
This article continues the theme of the review in my last blog, that a key strategic priority for top management in the modern era is retaining innovative and entrepreneurial people. Gone are the days when such people were long term servants; now they will go where they are motivated to go, and that may be more about excitement and challenge than about money.
Articles in the Director are never short of examples and quotations, often so much that it gets in the way of the argument, and this is no exception. However, unlike other articles, the examples are well chosen, starting with that well known example of innovative success, Innocent Soft Drinks. One of Innocent’s founders, Richard Reed, is philosophical about losing innovative people and is proud of the number of former employees who have founded start-ups after leaving.
This raises a key question, not only can you retain such people over the long-term but should you even try? Reed sees losing innovators and entrepreneurs as the ‘flipside to running a truly entrepreneurial company’. Another modern success story, the Internet company Paypal, has seen former employees found new businesses and the CEO sees his ‘alumni network’ as a source of pride, including the founders of Linked In and You Tube. I wondered however if he would feel the same way if his alumni had opened up in more direct competition in markets with less growth potential.
The article then moves on to describe the common phenomenon of the early entrepreneurial culture which self-destructs as companies get bigger, become bureaucratic and are under pressure to grow profits. Ten years ago Microsoft innovators were becoming frustrated and leaving to join Google, now Google are finding the same problem as their people move to Facebook. How long before Facebook start to lose their people to the next big thing? This is partly technical according to the CEO of software company Red Gate; innovative people are not enthused by developing the fifth or sixth version of Windows but instead need new challenges.
Google has tried to solve this problem by giving 20 days ‘innovation leave’ and have found that this has led to breakthrough innovations. The key to keeping the true innovators is to continue to give them work they feel passionate about, to expose them to risk and excitement; otherwise it’s best just to let them move on to new challenges. Even though Innocent has accepted the eventual loss of some of its innovators, it still does what it can to delay the inevitable. It has developed a start-up incubator programme and the people involved report direct to the CEO, outside the normal organisation structure. This has some similarity to Procter Gamble’s approach above, though I am sure that Innocent would not go for P&G’s highly structured process.
This is an interesting if slightly shallow article which challenges some of the conventional wisdom around retention of people. It suggests that the loss of creative personnel should be managed rather than resisted. It would have been good to see this argument expressed more cogently, rather than presented mainly through examples and quotations.
Click here to read the article in full:
http://www.director.co.uk/
Articles in the Director are never short of examples and quotations, often so much that it gets in the way of the argument, and this is no exception. However, unlike other articles, the examples are well chosen, starting with that well known example of innovative success, Innocent Soft Drinks. One of Innocent’s founders, Richard Reed, is philosophical about losing innovative people and is proud of the number of former employees who have founded start-ups after leaving.
This raises a key question, not only can you retain such people over the long-term but should you even try? Reed sees losing innovators and entrepreneurs as the ‘flipside to running a truly entrepreneurial company’. Another modern success story, the Internet company Paypal, has seen former employees found new businesses and the CEO sees his ‘alumni network’ as a source of pride, including the founders of Linked In and You Tube. I wondered however if he would feel the same way if his alumni had opened up in more direct competition in markets with less growth potential.
The article then moves on to describe the common phenomenon of the early entrepreneurial culture which self-destructs as companies get bigger, become bureaucratic and are under pressure to grow profits. Ten years ago Microsoft innovators were becoming frustrated and leaving to join Google, now Google are finding the same problem as their people move to Facebook. How long before Facebook start to lose their people to the next big thing? This is partly technical according to the CEO of software company Red Gate; innovative people are not enthused by developing the fifth or sixth version of Windows but instead need new challenges.
Google has tried to solve this problem by giving 20 days ‘innovation leave’ and have found that this has led to breakthrough innovations. The key to keeping the true innovators is to continue to give them work they feel passionate about, to expose them to risk and excitement; otherwise it’s best just to let them move on to new challenges. Even though Innocent has accepted the eventual loss of some of its innovators, it still does what it can to delay the inevitable. It has developed a start-up incubator programme and the people involved report direct to the CEO, outside the normal organisation structure. This has some similarity to Procter Gamble’s approach above, though I am sure that Innocent would not go for P&G’s highly structured process.
This is an interesting if slightly shallow article which challenges some of the conventional wisdom around retention of people. It suggests that the loss of creative personnel should be managed rather than resisted. It would have been good to see this argument expressed more cogently, rather than presented mainly through examples and quotations.
Click here to read the article in full:
http://www.director.co.uk/
‘Bounce’ by Matthew Syed, published by Harper Collins
Syed is an unusual example of a top sportsman who has become a high class journalist with a reputation that owes nothing to his previous career; his articles in the Times have for some time shown that he thinks deeply about the way sports people perform.
The reason I have chosen this book for review is twofold; it builds on a book that was reviewed in one of last year’s blogs - The Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell - and even though its major focus is sport, it has clear relevance to anyone involved in talent management.
The overriding theme of the book is that the concept of ‘natural talent’ is seriously over-rated and in many cases does not exist at all. Sometimes Syed goes too far in this argument and you feel that his arguments are almost semantic; for instance he argues that black athletes do not have natural talent but are instead the beneficiaries of their specific circumstances and those of their ancestors, for instance the altitude, climate and customs of a particular region of East Africa led to the dominance of Kenyan distance runners.
This thesis could be challenged by arguing that if someone inherits physical characteristics from previous generations, that could be described as natural talent even if its original source was the unique environment in which ancestors lived. He makes a similar argument for the superiority of black sprinters which is rather less convincing and you sometimes get the impression that he is selecting evidence to support his theory, rather than presenting a range of objective information.
Nevertheless he presents a powerful case for the view that natural talent is frequently overrated and is confused with opportunity and practice. He subscribes to Gladwell’s theory that you can only become world class at most skills if you have at least 10,000 hours practice; he suggests that usually ‘child prodigies’ are not naturally talented but have just been given early opportunities to practice more than their peers; then they are picked out for even more practice and greater opportunities. Though I was broadly convinced by the 10,000 argument, Syed takes it even further by implying that anyone who puts in 10,000 hours can develop high class skills; on the radio I heard him say that he could convert almost anyone into a county class tennis player with the right amount and quality of practice. This seems to me to ignore the essential need to have minimum standards of inbuilt physical characteristics (the four S’s of size, speed, strength and stamina) which can only be improved up to a certain point.
Syed’s style of writing is excellent and makes you really want to move on, starting with his fascinating description of his own career and how it was a unique set of circumstances and opportunities that made him British champion, not inbuilt talent. His argument is justified by the amazing number of people in the same area who became high class table tennis players at the same time. It is also impressive that, like Gladwell, he doesn’t confine his evidence to sport; for instance, he believes that areas where natural talent is overrated extend to chess, music and memory tests.
The question for management learning and development is how far we overestimate natural talent when appraising and developing managers. The management of talent is a topical theme and one often hears that there are ‘natural leaders’ or that some managers have a ‘flair for numbers’ or ‘intuitive business nous’. Many of us make assumptions that there are some things you cannot teach and that we should instead concentrate on what we can change.
Reading Syed’s book should at least make readers question many of these assertions though whether anyone can spare 10,000 hours to become a world class manager is open to question!
The reason I have chosen this book for review is twofold; it builds on a book that was reviewed in one of last year’s blogs - The Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell - and even though its major focus is sport, it has clear relevance to anyone involved in talent management.
The overriding theme of the book is that the concept of ‘natural talent’ is seriously over-rated and in many cases does not exist at all. Sometimes Syed goes too far in this argument and you feel that his arguments are almost semantic; for instance he argues that black athletes do not have natural talent but are instead the beneficiaries of their specific circumstances and those of their ancestors, for instance the altitude, climate and customs of a particular region of East Africa led to the dominance of Kenyan distance runners.
This thesis could be challenged by arguing that if someone inherits physical characteristics from previous generations, that could be described as natural talent even if its original source was the unique environment in which ancestors lived. He makes a similar argument for the superiority of black sprinters which is rather less convincing and you sometimes get the impression that he is selecting evidence to support his theory, rather than presenting a range of objective information.
Nevertheless he presents a powerful case for the view that natural talent is frequently overrated and is confused with opportunity and practice. He subscribes to Gladwell’s theory that you can only become world class at most skills if you have at least 10,000 hours practice; he suggests that usually ‘child prodigies’ are not naturally talented but have just been given early opportunities to practice more than their peers; then they are picked out for even more practice and greater opportunities. Though I was broadly convinced by the 10,000 argument, Syed takes it even further by implying that anyone who puts in 10,000 hours can develop high class skills; on the radio I heard him say that he could convert almost anyone into a county class tennis player with the right amount and quality of practice. This seems to me to ignore the essential need to have minimum standards of inbuilt physical characteristics (the four S’s of size, speed, strength and stamina) which can only be improved up to a certain point.
Syed’s style of writing is excellent and makes you really want to move on, starting with his fascinating description of his own career and how it was a unique set of circumstances and opportunities that made him British champion, not inbuilt talent. His argument is justified by the amazing number of people in the same area who became high class table tennis players at the same time. It is also impressive that, like Gladwell, he doesn’t confine his evidence to sport; for instance, he believes that areas where natural talent is overrated extend to chess, music and memory tests.
The question for management learning and development is how far we overestimate natural talent when appraising and developing managers. The management of talent is a topical theme and one often hears that there are ‘natural leaders’ or that some managers have a ‘flair for numbers’ or ‘intuitive business nous’. Many of us make assumptions that there are some things you cannot teach and that we should instead concentrate on what we can change.
Reading Syed’s book should at least make readers question many of these assertions though whether anyone can spare 10,000 hours to become a world class manager is open to question!