|
|
|
Fortune recently published an article talking about the “new rules” for management using Jack Welch (GE six sigma) as the focus of the old rules. It seems to me there is nothing new here (once again).
“New” rule: “Agile is best, being big can bite you”
Yeah. Does anyone think this is new. Do they really believe Jack Welch thought agile was not a good thing? Yes, Jack Welch wanted to be number 1 or number 2 in the field or get out of that business line. I still don’t think that he thought being a big un-agile organization couldn’t hurt you.
“New” rule: “Find a niche, create something new.”
Yeah, good idea. I seriously doubt GE was against creating new things. Finding niches in fact is basically what being number 1 or 2 is about. Find those niches you excel in and focus there. I think saying you have to be number 1 or 2 is a silly arbitrary target. But that was just as true 10 years ago as today. Lets look at who the article for these new ideas quotes (with big photos on the main page): Starbucks - number 1 coffee shops, Xerox (I don’t know), Cisco - number 1 switches/routers, Coke number 1 sugar water sellers. Boy this old idea of number 1 or 2 is sure old thinking. Why are those highlighted as experts all perfectly suited to the old rule?
“New” rule: “The customer is king.”
yes. GE would have said the same thing. Shareholders rule as the old rule? Yeah they still seem to. Few companies today, 10 years ago, 50 years ago… understand that there are many stakeholders - all of which the organization should benefit: customers, stock holders, suppliers, workers, the community… I see no evidence there has been any shift in thinking. Deming, The New Economics, 1993, page 51: “The aim proposed here for any organization is for everybody to gain - stockholders, employees, suppliers, customers, community, the environment - over the long term.”
“New” rule: “Look out, not in.”
What kind of rule is that? It is pretty obvious you need to do both. I find it incredible the amount of time that is taken trying to show “new” ideas that amount to absolutely nothing. See comments on: Fast Company Interview: Jeff Immelt.
“New” rule: “hire passionate people”
Wow what a good idea!! I bet no one thought of that before??? The old rule - forced rankings? Now that is something to talk about. Yes that was a bad idea in 1900, 1950, 1990 and 2006. See: problems with forced ranking, performing without appraisal and Dr. Deming on performance appraisal. Even though the old rule was bad I believe GE believed in the new rule. They are not necessarily contradictory - though I believe forced ranking will hobble and force passionate people to leave.
“New” rule: “Hire a courageous CEO”
Meaningless. Of course you want courageous CEOs and charismatic and smart and lucky and knowledgeable and connected and liked and… Both the “new” and “old” world have a huge CEO problem - that of ludicrasly high SEO pay.
“New” rule: “Admire my soul”
Yeah, meaningless. Feel free to read more and disagree with me. Is it dangerous to be seen as a bully? Yes. That has been true for a long time. Is there value in being trustworthy and respected? Yes. Again, true for a long time. Is it a bit more difficult to hide bad behavior today. I think so. Is it a bit more difficult to get away with using might to enforce the will of your organization? Yes, but this is a quantitative not qualitative shift. Is it valuable to have guiding principles? Yes. The value is in truly making that fundamental to how the organization works. Changing with the winds of fads does nothing to make this a reality.
Jack Welsh responds the article: Welch fires back. He makes much better points than the original article.
Some of my thoughts on six sigma - Six Sigma Won’t Fix Bad Management?
and from - Deming and Six Sigma:
Basically I believe six sigma is a good but management improvement strategy that could be much better. That was true ten years ago and is true today. Acting as though six sigma was great 10 years ago and is no good now is a bad idea - and the type of thing the media seems to encourage. If you are trying to apply six sigma ideas read and be guided by the work of Roger Hoerl, Soren Bisgaard, Forrest Breyfogle III, Ron Snee, Bill Hill… and learn and apply what they talk about as six sigma (since what people call six sigma varies so much).
My response to an article similar to the Fortune new rules article: Secrets of the World’s Best Companies.
Many other blogs have commented on this article (which might very well suit the aim of Fortune regardless of what I think of the article):
Curious Cat Management Improvement Blog © curiouscat.com 2005-2008 powered by WordPress
August 15th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
Six Sigma News Roundup: July 14, 2006…
Fortune senior writer Betsy Morris, lists seven of the old rules (some attributed to Jacks teachings) and seven replacement rules. The article has stirred up quite a bit of debate…
Kevin Meyer at Evolving Excellence has written his thoughts …
August 17th, 2006 at 10:33 am
[...] So true, see: New Rules for Management? No!. The desire to act as if we have new watersheds every year is misguided and is an ineffective view for managers. Managers should understand that the “new ideas” presented in magazines and books are very rarely new, see: (Quality and Innovation). Managers should study the great amount of excellent thought on management that has existed for decades and continues to be the best guidance. New twists on old ideas are worthwhile and the rare new good ideas are also great. But managers are better off if they understand the best old ideas and the they can incorporate new twists instead of just accepting a new superficial fad. Imagine this. Until recently, team members building Camrys and Avalons had to choose between 24 variations of sun visors. Twenty-four! And this is just one example of hundreds of variations we deal with. [...]
October 9th, 2006 at 11:50 am
[...] Related: Failed Practice: Forced Ranking - New Rules for Management? No! - Performance Appraisal Problems - Deming on Performance Appraisals - Problems Caused by Performance Appraisal “The performance-management system tells you what it is in this company that we value and reward,” said Herman Aguinis, a professor of management at the University of Colorado at Denver Business School, and author of a recent book on the topic. “If you’re changing the things that you value and reward, people are going to change their behaviors accordingly, so it is a very powerful tool to change a company’s culture.” [...]
June 1st, 2007 at 7:42 am
[...]Yes execution of six sigma often focused too much on cost reduction, optimizing short term projects (which resulted in sub-optimizing the entire system), ranking and rating employees… But innovation is not harmed by a good six sigma program [...]
April 29th, 2008 at 8:40 am
[...] Obscene CEO Pay - Management Excellence - Management Advice Failures - Data Can’t Lie - New Rules for Management? No! - Be Careful What You Measure - Tilting at Ludicrous CEO [...]