DrContrarian

Another reason for managerial failure is the total under-estimation of emotion; and its corollary, over-estimating the importance of the rational or intellectual. Smart people (as a group) are no more successful than any other group of people at managing. I have no research to back this up, but I would even hazard a guess that they may even be statistically under-represented. (Now there is a thesis for you…) Organisations do not tick on rational decision-making. It ticks on culture. And strategy. And innovation. But it certainly does not tick on objectivity and cold hard facts. Every meaningful decision that is made in an organisation is a compromise. (A camel is a horse designed by a committee is not just humorous – it contains more than a grain of truth.) Decisions are made based on politics and the dispersion of power. Not on who happens to be right. If you stake your career on your ability to find intelligent, rational solutions you are bound to fail. The key success factor is...

There are a host of reasons. I have studies enough, learned enough and failed enough to have some compelling arguments as to why managers fail… Over time I’ll explore a few of those. The obvious one is incompetence – but I will ignore that as a reason. Arguably that is the error of the manager’s manager more than anything, but most importantly; I don’t believe that people reading this would fall into that category. And if you are incompetent – at managing only of course - The number one reason – without any doubt in my mind is misunderstanding or underestimating the nature of POWER. Do you have power? Do you know who (else) has power? Do you know what you derive it from? Do you know why you have it? Do you know how to use it? Do you know when to use it? Do you know how it is used against you? Are you super aware of how it ebbs and flows on a daily basis, from meeting to meeting, from person to person? Are you using power ‘prem...

Read an article by an ex-executive of Shell Corporation. It reports on material and significant findings of research project ( http://www.businessweek.com/chapter/degeus.htm ) that was designed to establish which factors account for the survival of companies (for more than 500 years). Read it - its fascinating. If you are in a hurry - here is a short summary of the findings: 1. Sensitivity to the environment represents a company's ability to learn and adapt. 2. Cohesion and identity, it is now clear, are aspects of a company's innate ability to build a community and a persona for itself. 3. Tolerance and its corollary, decentralization, are both symptoms of a company's awareness of ecology: its ability to build constructive relationships with other entities, within and out-side itself. 4. Conservative financing is a very critical corporate attribute: the ability to govern its own growth and evolution effectively. As usual the research raises further questions, b...

Managing conflict Had an opportunity to do some coaching today. Now it is not my natural/ day job, but I quite enjoyed the experience. The topic du jour was as per this blog title. Later I saw a vlog ( http://blogs.bnet.com/intercom/?p=434 ) on office politics, which referred to the fact that managers spend 42% of their time on this activity (managing conflict) – but no reference to how to actually do it. So here goes the d price methodology: The pre-requisites are: 1. Is it my conflict to solve? If you are fighting someone else’s battle, you are bound to lose it. Don’t go into bat for someone else in the office. You may think you are helping, but you are trespassing. 2. Take a positive view of the conflict. Don’t see it as a negative/battle, see it as an opportunity to clear the air and to rectify misconceptions or clarify an issue. You may well be wrong so you might just learn something. It will also help reduce the tension - before you start. Then stepping into the act...

Innovation as Brand Value

We are presenting on "Brand Me" up on the Gold Coast next week, and is my wont, I have been doing some research. I came across a blog The Buzz Machine (click on the link above) - which does not have anything to do with branding per se, but made a very interesting observation. I quote from the blog: For young people, writes [Dov] Seidman, this means understanding that your reputation in life is going to get set in stone so much earlier. More and more of what you say or do or write will end up as a digital fingerprint that never gets erased. Our generation got to screw up and none of those screw-ups appeared on our first job résumés, which we got to write. For this generation, much of what they say, do or write will be preserved online forever. Before employers even read their résumés, they’ll Google them. If you are a parent, this is pretty important to communicate to your children. Now along with the talk about condoms, drugs and not getting into strangers' cars, you also...

Which is the preferred result? Tom Peters (http://www.tompeters.com/archives.php?date=200706) reckons it is innovation that rocks the world. I agree that it rocks, but he trades it off against the notion of 'Built to Last' - another seminal publication. I disagree with the master: Survival (lasting a long time) is the ultimate testament to ongoing ingenuity and innovation on a scale that might not rock the world but it sure beats the alternative. I am happy to settle for lasting a long time as opposed to rocking a short time. The one takes smarts and the other ... could possibly just be LUCK.