Readers may remember my concerns about the focus on symptom management implicit in the UK governments seemingly blind adoption of CBT out of the many talking therapies that exist. Mind you are government that can contemplate the appointment of a happiness czar and then give the post to an economist are probably themselves in need of therapy. There are a couple of excellent letters in the Observer today (the size 6 shoe is especially good). Now I am no advocate of personal self interest as my three month ban from direct editing of the Ayn Rand article on WIkipedia testifies. I think government has a role to play, but that role is not to massage the symptoms of a wider set of problems with one simplistic and cult like solution.
Mind you this desire for the simplistic seems to be an excuse for thinking. Mary Boone and I are encountering a problem with some (my emphasis) editors of the HBR who thought our last article was too theoretical (Isn't Harvard meant to be a major centre for learning?) and seem to only want material with a few quick 1,2,3 step recipes using the familiar in the face of the unusual. This despite facing a series of problems that require a paradigm shift in the way we think and conceive the world let along create meaning. It is very similar to the CBT issue, wanting something really simple that avoids having to address difficult and substantial issues.
In both cases it's rather like a conclave of dinosaurs sitting down in the wreckage of their world post impact, demanding more simple articles on dental hygiene to cope with the fur of these strange new things, the early mammals. Or if you want another illustration, playing that old familiar fiddle while the world burns down around you.
Comments (4)
Your description of HBR sums up why I don't bother reading it anymore. And in particular, I shared your HBR article with someone who had some knowledge of the other Cynefin work (but hadn't done a course, for example). They thought it was a rather mechanical description of the ideas, with most of the richness removed.
But people who are close to the prevailing views of global business leaders and politicians (McKinsey also comes to mind, for some reason) haven't yet worked out the scale of the conceptual problem they're facing from the financial crisis. Many still seem to think that it's a technical issue which will get resolved. It's not. Simon Caulkin's article, also in today's Observer, is good on this.
Posted by Andrew Curry | March 15, 2009 12:44 PM
Posted on March 15, 2009 12:44
You won't woo the US of A away from crass reductionism. Here is Henry Mintzberg on the topic:
FIVE EASY STEPS TO DESTROYING A RICH CULTURE
(any one will do)
(adapted from Mintzberg, 1996b)
•Step 1: Manage the bottom line (as if you make money by managing money).
•Step 2: Make a plan for every action: no spontaneity please, no learning.
•Step 3: Move managers around to be certain they never get to know anything but management well (and kick the boss upstairs - better to manage a portfolio than a real business).
•Step 4: Always be objective, which means to treat people as objects (in particular, hire and fire employees the way you buy and sell machines - everything is a "portfolio").
•Step 5: Do everything in five easy steps.
From ‘Strategy Safari’ by Henry Mintzberg, Bruce Ahlstrand, Joseph Lampel
Posted by Brian Sherwood Jones | March 16, 2009 8:48 PM
Posted on March 16, 2009 20:48
Heh ...
What Andrew said.
Posted by Jon Husband | March 19, 2009 1:53 AM
Posted on March 19, 2009 01:53
Interestingly I use the HBR article as a trojan horse in my teaching. Because it is in the HBR they're not put off by the theory. It seems to work. And I know at one level thats terrible and I'd love to use more practical theory and my experience says it doesn't work. Particularly with Master level students.
Posted by Dermot | March 19, 2009 12:41 PM
Posted on March 19, 2009 12:41