Management Advice: Which 90% is Crap? [the broken link was removed] by Bob Sutton, Stanford University:
At first, I couldn’t believe that someone as well-read as Hamel claimed an old idea was new and that he had invented it. But I eventually realized the problem wasn’t Gary Hamel, or any other individual making claims of originality. Rather, his column reflected a prevailing practice in the business knowledge business. I asked two former Fortune columnists why “Hamel’s Law” and similar claims that old ideas are brand new appear so often in the business press.Both emphasized that you couldn’t blame Hamel – that was just how things were done. Both writers even speculated that some Fortune editor probably had inserted the phrase, “Hamel’s Law,” to create the impression that the magazine publishes exciting new ideas. After all old news doesn’t sell magazines!
I share this frustration with declaring old ideas new: Management Improvement, Better and Different, Quality, SPC and Your Career, Deming and Six Sigma, Management Lessons from Terry Ryan, Everybody Wants It, Toyota’s Got It, Fashion-Incubator on Deming’s Ideas and on and on.
Why does this matter? Two reasons, most importantly to me is that when we fail to value the best ideas, instead valuing the new ideas, we are not as effective as we could be. We often accept pale copies of good old ideas instead of going to the good old ideas – which will often lead to a much richer source of knowledge. When I compare copyrighted versions of management thinking to ideas from people like Ackoff, Deming, Ohno, Scholtes, McGreggor the depth and richness of those I admire is much greater than the packaged solutions, as I see it (and they are often more concerned with furthering the practice of management than further their brand). Second, it is often dishonest, or at least sloppy thinkers, that don’t acknowledge the history of management ideas.
There is a huge body of research that shows they are ineffective, yet no one seems to remember these policies have failed over and over in the past.
Pingback: CuriousCat: New Rules for Management? No!
Pingback: Curious Cat Management Improvement Blog » Toyota Management Develops the New Camry
Pingback: Curious Cat Management Improvement Blog » Evidence-based Management
Pingback: Curious Cat Management Improvement Blog » Doing the Wrong Things Righter
Pingback: Curious Cat Management Improvement Blog » Ackoff’s F-laws: Common Sins of Management
Pingback: Curious Cat Management Improvement Blog » Open Source Management Terms
Pingback: Messiness is Good?
Pingback: CuriousCat: Breakthrough Thinking the Toyota Way
Pingback: CuriousCat: Toyota, Lean, Consultants…
Pingback: CuriousCat: Innovation Thinking with Christensen
Pingback: CuriousCat: New - Different - Better
Pingback: Curious Cat Management Improvement Blog » Making Changes and Taking Risks
Pingback: Curious Cat Management Improvement Blog » Federal Government Chief Performance Officer
Pingback: Curious Cat Management Blog: Harvard’s Masters of the Apocalypse
Pingback: Curious Cat Management Improvement Blog » Ackoff, Idealized Design and Bell Labs
Pingback: Problems with Management and Business Books » Curious Cat Management Blog
Pingback: Why Use Lean if So Many Fail To Do So Effectively » Curious Cat Management Improvement Blog