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
Monday 5 September 2011
‘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.