When Managers talk of people they actually mean the Knowledge and experience they carry in their heads. However, since access is only through the ‘emotional interface’, the Knowledge interest is confused with what tempts people to voluntarily part with their Knowledge. The result is a dangerous loss of reality.
The conflict between people and their knowledge has arisen because of the rising importance of Knowledge in the past few decades. McKinsey studies reveal:
“…70 percent of all US jobs created since 1998—4.5 million, or roughly the combined US workforce of the 56 largest public companies by market capitalization—require judgment and experience.”
Knowledge is a possession. It is applied at the discretion of the owner. Drucker has defined the conventional wisdom on the application of Knowledge:
“The goal has to be to build responsibility for productivity and performance into every knowledge and service job.……In Knowledge and service work partnership with the responsible worker is the only way; nothing else will work at all.”
A method has yet to be found for the partnership to flourish. Uncertainty of action due to poor coordination in chaos, the growing gap between cause and effect, and work overload give free play to the incoherence in human thought (Bohm, Factor, & Garrett, 1991).
In the absence of control over the process of applying Knowledge, to assure itself of performance, the establishment has incentivised results achieved by the individual. The measure has produced results but perhaps at the cost of the society at large. The recent meltdown is an example:
- The genesis of the recent meltdown can be traced to the myopia that people must be managed for results. Bankers engaged in creating securities and instruments that had meaning only in the transaction world. They had powerful incentives for the success of the instruments created. At the first sign of reality the transactions turned worthless. They are referred to as bad-debts today, a word devoid of the convulsions that daily living was subjected to. Quite callously, the term disregards the bumper pay-outs made as bonus to the perpetrators of the transactions in the months leading to the meltdown.
Lafley, chairman of P&G in 2009, the year the world saw the bottom of the meltdown, made a telling point about Knowledge work and personnel when he pointed out in ‘Leadership lessons for hard times’: “Take trust. We only ever talked about it in relation to employees. But what matters most now is that consumers trust our brand, that shareholders trust our stock, that customers trust us to be the best supplier, and that suppliers trust us to be their best customer.” I interpret this to mean that the focus is not the happiness of the employee but the delivery of value.
The mess that Knowledge work is descending into is defined rather well by the observations of Pfeffer and Sutton in their Knowing Doing Gap (2000): Outdated culture, fear of change, false analogies, internal competition, empty talk, mindless measurements, etc.,and are common. They prevent conversion of knowledge as in best practices, insights, well laid plans, etc., to action, leading to billions in extra cost and failures….. Incentives can be counter-productive as they are prone to the ‘smart talk trap’.
It is quite clear that the future of Knowledge work cannot be identified with people. In fact it must be separated from them to give reality a chance. Leaders have become so adept at burying it! Enron, WorldCom, Satyam and the gamut of political scams are an example. It is possible they reflect the extreme. Yet they reflect a deep malaise. Most governments are run by the educated elite. They suffer from poor Knowledge application and can do far far better with the same resources.
Peter Scholtes has pin-pointed the symptom of the basic malaise rather well in his ‘The Leader’s Handbook’:
-
In the age of sound bites and bumper stickers we are encouraged to look for slogans and scapegoats, not the deep, system based explanations of what is happening and why.
Scholtes goes on to articulate the root cause in a blistering passage:
-
All of the empowered, motivated, teamed-up, self-directed, incentivized, accountable, re-engineered, and re-invented people you can muster cannot compensate for a dysfunctional system. When the system is functioning well, these other things are just foofaraw. When the system is not functioning well, these things are still only empty, meaningless twaddle.
What is this system that manages people and will set things right? What is its essence? Is it a culture where certain values and attitudes can be expected? The gurus proselytize about people rising beyond themselves and engaging in systems thinking to become better Knowledge workers as if listening can be practiced with a snap of the fingers or assumptions questioned as a matter of course without causing friction, and the reference framework expanded or contracted at will.
Is it heresy to think of a System that will separate the flow of Knowledge from its ‘emotional’ ownership by people? It should not be as inconceivable as may appear from a cursory reading of Drucker. All that is needed is systematic capture of the genuine interactions of Knowledge workers: they must interact to emerge decisions just as any person must progress towards the finish line once she/he takes on the role of a long distance runner in a marathon.
Normally I would not have attempted this barrier for it has stood impregnable for too long a time and many hobby horses have developed around the sensitive topic of people. Gary Hamel has stated just 16% employees are engaged. It is a reality that has developed over years and has consistently defeated the gurus. They did succeed within their circle of influence but could not roll their wisdom out. Successful companies have a lifespan of just about 10 to 15 years with very few exceptions. We have given up on collective thinking which lies at the core of the value added by systems.
I have attempted this barrier because I came across a plausible answer to the core problem of collective thinking. It is the conversion of IT from a tool into intelligent energy for organizing and driving superior application of knowledge by a collective. Mr.Raj Kumar, the creator of the conversion, has summarized it in his hack ‘Compelling energy for a quantum jump in organization performance’. However, I must emphasize why I see it as an answer. Perhaps that is my only claim to originality in this write-up.
I see Systems as organization AND energy. Perhaps the last great System was the one run by colonials. Its development probably commenced under Phillip II of Spain after 1556. He insisted on direct control over his vast kingdom. It reached its zenith under the British in India. They used it to efficiently administer the vast and remote hinterlands of India. Any Indian businessman would be conversant with it for it runs India even today. Its engine is the Section, which performs all the organization and moves the Cases across the bureaucracy for opinion formation and a decision. The decision too is acted upon by the Section. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of Independent India, is known to have once quipped that the Section perhaps ran the Government Of India. The Colonial System may have turned sluggish today but its effectiveness in its heyday, as pointed out by Mr.Raj Kumar, was lauded by Drucker in his review of a new organization for the 21st century. Drucker in fact concluded it was the best model for management in the 21st century.
Bill Nobles has presented a counter model for the conduct of management in the 21st century in his hack ‘Overcoming the management hierarchical control mindset—the key to re-inventing management and resolving 20 moonshots’. It is derived from the proven philosophy of David Packard ,Ken Iverson, and to a fair extent of Sam Walton, Max De Pree and Herb Kelleher. In effect it makes the mind and mental energy of the administrator the engine. Administrators become self-ordering, self-directed and self-driving units. The outstanding performance of Hewlett Packard, Nucor Steel, Wal Mart, Herman Miller and Southwest Airlines is presented as support. With such excellent support the validity of the model cannot be denied. However, the fact remains that the model has not lasted much beyond the driving energy of its top level support in the respective companies. It is a top down model that perhaps depends on its leaders for survival.
Finally, at the end of all this talk of barriers and Systems the need that must be satisfied is:
- People must choose to commit and work
- The organization must be able to mobilize the collective thinking and acting power of its personnel
- The responsibility for innovation is spread throughout the organization
- The organization must possess the confidence it is doing what is needed to get what it wants
In particular, the organization should not be hoping it will get there by gratifying its people.
After reading about intelligent energy I believe it is best placed to evolve managements and do it without disruption for all practical purposes. The beauty is that it is possible even Mr.Raj Kumar may not know what model for creative thinking the utter flexibility of his work will enable. He has only assured constructive evolution of management and leveraging of the accumulated wisdom with his concept of intelligent energy.It needs to be appreciated that in the change mix Power and Will are very capricious elements.
The System solution belongs to Mr.Raj Kumar but its interpretation for people and the place of people as secondary to the System that harnesses their Knowledge is mine. I have specifically mentioned the authors whose works I have leveraged to express my views. The McKinsey study referred by me is available at:
McKinsey Studies:
Employee interactions: creating competitive advantages
Peter Drucker: Coming of the new organization. Harvard Business Review, January-February, 1988.
Hello,
Found my way here tio read up on Foofaraw. Totally agree with its sound and content.
Half the problems of this world arise because of possession. However, i am inclined to believe that the flow of Knowledge generated by Raj Kumar is more to do with consensus and less to do with an impersonal tide.
Regards,
P.Singh
- Log in to post comments
Thanks for taking interest,
Nayantara
- Log in to post comments
Hi!
Your anger at the phantom of the MIX has been honorably mentioned at http://www.managementexchange.com/hack/cracking-code-group-trust-team-tr... . Also you may like to take advantage of an excellent opportunity for debate there with Dan. I have enjoyed my interaction with him.
Regards,
Raj Kumar
- Log in to post comments
Will have a look. Thanks for informing.
Regards,
Nayantara
- Log in to post comments
Dear Nayantara,
I admire the strength of your opinion and the clarity of your thinking about Systems. It has enabled you to progress far in the direction my work has taken.
I must agree that in a professional work place people gain identity by the quality and value added by their work. The world ignores work that does not deliver value and curses the incompetent.
Take the Delhi Metro Project. The Chief Minister banks on it to give her Government identity. The people do not take its service for granted as for any other public utility. They were starved for standards and are proud of the public service standards established by the construction and operation of the Metro. Sridharan, the man behind it, has become an icon and his organization a recognized and respected institution. The same cannot be said of a dozen other public services that play as important a role in our daily lives. We do not know their leaders and are dismissive of their organizations.
The Metro both proves your point of the importance of Systems and places a rider on it. Sridharan established a great System but it worked because he gave it principles with the force of his personality. When tested he refused to compromise on his principles and on more than one occasion was willing to resign. Yes, a System is the heart and soul of operations but its own heart comes from the strength of purpose and direction. My intelligent energy can only help purpose deliver its value.
Thank you for developing the meaning of my work.
Regards,
Raj Kumar
- Log in to post comments
Hello again,
I think you have made a very important point in your description of the problem that is also deeply provocative:
"It is quite clear that the future of Knowledge work cannot be identified with people. In fact it must be separated from them to give reality a chance"
Since it is made in context of my breakthrough, as is clear from the content of your Solution, I confirm my work will impart the flow of Knowledge an identity independent from the persons contributing to the flow. The reason for this is the second premise of my work that the Knowledge 'Worker must interact for decision-making'. My work provides a compellng way to work and interact and captures all Kowledge exchanged together with its categorization as determined by the subject business event. Workers thus use the System in their interest. The flow of Knowledge is a reliable by-product.
Sadly, the power of the Knowledge flow may be compromised by a finding of Marcus Buckingham in the study quoted by my hack: 25% of the personnel work against the interests of the organization! However, it also needs to be considered that a contrary opinion will stimulate the emergence of reality in a debate well organized for conduct on basis of evidence and experience.
Deep regards,
Raj Kumar
- Log in to post comments
Hello Rajkumar,
I am happy to note that the concept of dialogue as concieved by you will prevent the system from being rendered dysfunctional by adversarial forces .
However,I expect you will agree that the tradition for the system to follow has to be established independantly with great diligence and care.
Your breakthrough has the potential to significanly advance the practice of management and I wish it all the very best.
With Regards,
Nayantara
- Log in to post comments
Hello Mireille,
I had a debate with David a few years back when Cynefin was under IBM. We finally came to a single point of contention and agreed to take it up in a personal meeting, which regretfully never transpired. I argued that complexity was in our heads. The reality was made up of interactions between motives, insights, experiences and points of view brought on by interpretation of facts and the background action of assumptions and generalizations. Of course there is also the impact of events hidden in time. Senge has done breakthrough work in interpreting the reality and has reduced it to understanding just about 12 patterns. Read his "The Fifth Discipline" to appreciate really how simple it is to practice the surfacing of reality. For starters, there is no absolute reality. It depends upon the people participating. With dialogue they can reach a consensus on reality. Perhaps that is what is important for embarking on constructive action.
As for the relevance of IT to complexity I note your familiarity wity the writings of Stacey. I quote a commentary:
“Stacey's work, and others', make it clear that the primary function of complex adaptive systems is to make it possible for their inhabitants to survive by learning; and that learning in such systems is performed by self-organized ‘learning structures’ composed of individuals and communities, who persistently interact with one another in certain characteristic ways (i.e., in accordance with their learning-related ‘tendencies’) through which individuals and groups, or communities, perform the production, diffusion and application of organizational knowledge. These structures and dynamics are most evident in human social systems, which are regarded by complexity scientists as a special class of CAS (i.e., social CASes).”
I would like to explain to you how my work in harnessing IT rewrites some of the conventional wisdom assumed by Stacey but remains true to his understanding of complex human systems. To enable me engage in this explanation kindly repeat your query in my hack. This will enable me leverage my hack to explain the possible as well as respond to your statement on experience of IT and Knowledge Management.
Thank you for your interest and hope to have the opportunity to establish my breakthrough with you. I remember my last conclusion with you: Your work interest is Apples while I am engaged with Oranges. Perhaps there is sufficient overlap to make it worth your while.
Regards,
Raj Kumar
- Log in to post comments
Dear Nayaranta and Raj,
I have tried to understand what you mean. Am I right that you talk about IT-systems to capture and re-distribute 'knowledge'?
Many current thinkers on & practitioners of knowledge management have moved away from information management (the management of written physical and online resources) and from the initial divide between explicit, implicit and tacit knowledge. They have come to reflect on when you can re-use former insights and when you have to muddle your way through to get at new solutions, new thoughts. That is where complexity thinking comes in, among others.
Here is a nice 4 minute introduction to a complexity model by David Snowden: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mqNcs8mp74
I now think your solutions may be apt for the ordered domain: simple and (perhaps a bit) complicated, but not for complex and chaos. Plus your use of the term 'knowledge' may need some clarification. But as I said: I have tried to understand what you mean. Perhaps I am completely off mark?
Best, Mireille
- Log in to post comments
Thank you Mireille for your interest.
My starting point is that intelligent energy can replace personnel energy for organizing and driving Knowledge interactions to surface the reality. Your comment questions this basic premise. Raj Kumar is the best authority to satisfy your query. I note he has invited you to his hack. I for one shall keenly follow the interaction. In a way it will decide whether management in the 21st century will be as individualistic or as top down or as confused and helpless as it was in the last century.
With the conversion of IT from a tool for interactions to intelligent energy for organizing and driving interactions, irrespective of chaos, distribution, content, structure, discretion, or even connectivity there is a clear possibility that Knowledge flows will be separated from ownership. I believe resolution of this core problem will liberate Managements to organize and act to get what they want.
The present day thinkers in Knowledge Management are constrained by the Conventional Wisdom. Perhaps that is why you are concerned about HOW Raj Kumar can claim systematization of something as complex as Knowledge flows. It violates the Conventional Wisdom that only decision-makers can organize their flows since Knowledge is a possession. I accepted Raj Kumar’s breakthrough that he had found a way to conduct Knowledge flows and progress learning per the accumulated wisdom of the 20th century. Once learning is assured the problem created by the ignorance of people has a resolution. Managements can expect to evolve.
I wish you an open mind in approaching Raj Kumar’s hack. I had concluded his work deserved a pilot. The stakes are high for personnel energy has perhaps reached the limit of its ability to manage. Raj Kumar’s breakthrough is supported by successful prototypes. Your conversation will reveal whether he has the philosophy right. That is very important to the success of any change effort.
Best wishes,
- Log in to post comments
Thanks all -- an interesting discourse and a few compelling reasons why innovation is needed.
Further reflection will help me to visualize more of the parts and meanings raised here -- but I’d like to comment on the notion that we are often constrained by conventional wisdom, as this gets at the heart of the problem of change, as I have observed it nationally and on a on a global arena.
It's true that we default to ruts, and we tend to tie our minds and workplaces to traditions long after they wear out fall short. We can literally blame it on the brain, which defaults to ruts we have wired in over time. Thirty years ago I began to work on a program to counter this fact and, after a lifetime of research and global traveling to learn extensively from many cultures – I’ve come to a few key conclusions – that seems to relate to your interesting pilot and research.
Each step to renew a workplace ethically and with the brain in mind – casts lights on mental barriers that prevent change in stagnant organizations. How so?
To rethink old approaches is also to take a stand against Hebbian hardwired thought that defaults back to ruts and routines.
To upgrade motivation and achievement at a university is to identify and remove mental myths that shape current university systems.
To open access to brilliant thinkers is also to convert toxic workplaces into brainier centers for innovation, risk taking and opportunity.
To invoke brilliant solutions from diverse angles is also to build goodwill with those who disagree.
To ensure workplace harmony is also to confront tragic toxins that pollute innovation daily with every spill from cynics’ minds.
To increase profitability is also to remove conventional jargon that covers transparency, diminishes much needed brainpower and covers corruption in bureaucracies.
To adjust with times and win (as MITA has come to understand it) is to create neuron pathways forward so that chemical and electrical circuitry of collective brainpower offers tools for dynamic solutions to past problems. If no isolated program can take us there, I believe that keen thinkers from diverse fields holds parts of the puzzle that will create the next era. One organization may start blogs so that communication can help solve complex problems across silos of traditionally isolated departments, for instance. Another expert group may start a discourse – such as the MIX – to meld answers from diverse sectors. Folks need a practical strategy to start facilitating wisdom for a new world – together and across diverse thinkers – would you agree?
- Log in to post comments
Hello Mireille,
I submit to your desire for mounting my defence in third territory. However, that does confuse my goals a bit – am I just engaging in the ‘foofaraw’ of Scholtes or are you really a concrete presence querying my position? Besides, it does deprive me of content from my hack that could simplify or bolster my explanation and robs me of Notes that may explain my position to the traffic at my hack. At the same time perhaps my invitation was unchivalrous of me: our exchange here will contribute to Nayantara’s ratings.
The explanation itself cannot be simple for you, for you are simultaneously interested in the science of the breakthrough and its impact (your impatience at play? {The emoticon P}).
I have decided to update explanatory screens to my hack to hand-hold a person wishing to appreciate the HOW. Give me a few days. Meantime I shall focus on communicating the impact and explaining the tautologies { :) }.
The impact: The context of my hack is defined by the McKinsey study unearthed by Nayantara, and the need by the Gary Hamel/Lowell Bryan interview at http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Strategy/Innovation/Innovative_manageme... . My work fulfills the need.
The work is modeled on the fifth labor of Hercules. Alone he could not clean out the Augean stables in a single day. So he redirected the mighty energy of the rivers Alpheus and Peneus to do the job for him. He did not have to plan for the cleaning of the stables or the enrichment of the valley below with the rich cattle dung. They followed from the flow.
I am not casting myself as Hercules for the gigantis task of cleaning out the practice of management every day. There are three steps involved in the context of satisfying the stated need for interactions:
Step 1: Creating a sustained natural force to sweep away individualism, top down, confusion and helplessness.
Step 2: Creating a path to the minds of personnel so that they accept the flow.
Step 3: Getting the contract to clean out the stables from an Augeus!
I have only worked on the first step and converted IT from a tool to inexhaustible intelligent energy for creating the natural flow of meaningful dialogue. My hack recounts why dialogue will deliver the need surfaced by Hamel and Bryan.
Now for the tautologies: It is possible we are influenced by the legacy of our sages. Some spoke in tautologies for that reduced their task to explaining only the leading word or thought. The rest followed!
'Success follows reality': This is my interpretation of Sun Tzu. I have stated his “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles” as the starting point of my solution. It defines Knowledge for me. Thus, if you can generate the Knowledge to emerge the reality (see later) then success follows. I have banked on Senge to conclude on the nature of Knowledge that emerges the reality. Senge in turn draws on the cumulative wisdom of the 20th century. I have equated this Knowledge with Learning. I trust this also defines Reality: It is what lies behind the obvious. It is hidden by our default assumptions, unknown generalizations or mental sets and our wishes. In brief, the world may not be what we believe it to be or see for we see what we want to see. Such is human nature.
'Once learning is assured the problem created by the ignorance of people has a resolution’: You cannot deny me this once I can create means for Learning as explained.
'Policy and strategy are the main instruments for results': Yes, you have explained China’s success – they execute { :) } Policy and Strategy. I would say Policy and Strategy is what “a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens” can do, i.e., define the direction and how it will be followed. That is the substance of your hack. What they need is the means and the energy to get the personnel to walk the talk. That is the substance of my hack. I would say that my hack also provides the means and the energy to the small group to define the Agenda for developing policy without loosing costly time in meetings of the kind defined by you. Each member develops the Agenda items in his or her own time with full access to the others thinking. The Agenda may be finally concluded in perhaps a single face to face meeting.
Conventional Wisdom: For me Galbraith defined the term. It is what is postulated by the accepted wise men. The world follows their footsteps. Thus Drucker perhaps launched the conventional wisdom that only personnel can drive Knowledge flows. Stacey has built this wisdom into his understanding by observing ‘learning in such systems is performed by self-organized ‘learning structures’’. I have re-written this wisdom by getting IT to organize and drive the learning structures.
Thank you for your sustained interest. I have done my best but if you feedback I will try to do better. However, contemplation may also help for I have a different background and my work tests the imagination as it re-writes the possible.
Regards,
Raj Kumar
- Log in to post comments
Dear Nayaranta and Raj,
Now surely our conversation will not “decide whether management in the 21st century will be as individualistic or as top down or as confused and helpless as it was in the last century”. I for one am much to unimportant and also way to impatient to contribute to such a change. :)
I have read both your comments and Raj's hack again, and really you leave me puzzled.
So many tautological statements there. Like: 'Once learning is assured the problem created by the ignorance of people has a resolution'. 'Success follows reality.' 'Policy and strategy are the main instruments for results'. (Sounds like China). And so many unexplained terms, like reality and knowledge. Your use of capitals, like in 'Conventional Wisdom', as if others would know what you mean because you use Capitals. The abundance of management quotes geared at proving you are right, while one can only falsify hypotheses, not prove them. Your difficult language which seems aimed not at explaining, but at convincing.
Perhaps you could explain what you want and think in simpler terms?
Best, Mireille
PS This is as good a place to converse as anywhere else.
- Log in to post comments
Raj, you have captured and likely lived the reality that change comes slowly and after much sacrifice of those who believe in its possibilities – and collaborated with others for a finer way:-).
I was curious as to why all examples of changes agents you mention are men and would have also named several women we can admire. As we show how gender brains differ we tend to gather leadership examples from both genders on a rather equal footing and with benefits to both genders.
Thank s for your keen insights about brain based approaches, Raj. I was especially interested in your sense that MITA takes the direction of reason and not of nature. These two are integrated as we see and live each in our work. For instance, naturalistic intelligence is one of the 8 that we emphasize daily.
Many models will be needed if we are to draw diverse thinkers of both genders into leadership for a new era. For that reason, I value your offering and am humbled that you see possibilities in mine. The idea of one size fits all should have left the planet when the second human was born into it. Thanks for taking the effort to understand MITA brain based approaches and to see its offering to a world of change and new possibilities.
- Log in to post comments
Hello Mireille,
Good to have your Feedback. I can understand your confusion. I too was confused by Intelligent Energy to organize and drive Knowledge work. What more did it do besides organizing and driving? Then I realized Raj Kumar perhaps meant Energy that organized and drove Knowledge work and was therefore intelligent!
I would say these are labor pains.
Like I have said, once the runner enters the marathon (s)he has no choice but to walk/run towards the finishing line. We are here in MIX to collectively create the future of Management. Might as well set the pace and enjoy ourselves!
Have decided to comment on your hack at your hack.However,I did not understand your distinction between explain and convince.Perhaps both of us are explaining to convince.
Best wishes,
Nayantara
- Log in to post comments
Hello Ellen,
Have just returned from quality time at your hack on Care and Curiosity.
Your use of the term hard-wired reminded me of the excellent book ‘Think Better’ by Tim Hurson. He talks of the Grand Canyon and how the Colorado river and its tributaries have cut channels upto a mile in depth over billions of years. It is near impossible for the river now to change its course. The human mind is no different. The way we respond has been developed in us over many years, some times over generations. We simply follow our channels.
For a fleeting instant I thought, on reading your post here, that you are into developing a neuron machine to fill up the channels! Took my breath away. I thought of E=MC2. Was all that mass necessary? I found later that MITA is engaged in pursuits far more practical but as valuable.
You wonder whether solving the conventional wisdom conundrum will emancipate mankind. The reality is that man has always found a way around constraining wisdom. It is not an insurmountable problem. Yes, a lot of pain, good time and energy is today required for bringing innovations to market. I am reminded of Goodyear who did not see success in his lifetime. Really tragic. His followers made fortunes in tyres.
So what do we do? Do we seek ways to kill the wisdom when it becomes an irritant. It does serve the valuable purpose of defining the frontier for those keen on extending it. It ensures that an innovation, which is a composite of multiple inventions, is complete and not half baked for that may endanger society. Imagine an airliner falling from the sky because its flaps are under-developed! I would say your idea of a collective effort recognizes these value-adds of the Wisdom and seeks to build on the emerging power of connectivity to speed up the delivery of innovation. You may like to have a look at Chris Grams “When considering community engagement strategies, stop thinking like Tom Sawyer”. He is saying the Communities for collective working are here. One just has to discard the sense of ownership and reach out to them. I have spent twenty years on developing my breakthrough. Often I did not know where I was going. Joining a community in a state of ignorance may have accelerated development but would have engaged me in a legal logjam and a decline of my thinking. It sounds similar to building dams for irrigation but hastening ecological disaster. The Nile is an example.
To conclude, I would say think twice before being pro-active and tampering with nature. Let things emerge. If things move slowly it is because they must to retain a balance.
Thank you for the tangent.
Regards,
Raj Kumar
- Log in to post comments
Hello Nayantara,
I noted that bit about labor pains! Had the thought not been exciting I would have felt like a pre-pre-historic dinosaur. An elephant has a delivery time of 22 months from conception as compared to just 20 days for mice, and it is now 20 years since I thought of the possible and set out to pursue it.
Maybe the MIX will progress me. It can also dismiss my work. It is going to be a passage but having come so far and having experienced the energy and infrastructure I speak of, I am praying to stick it out till a pilot. Almost everything I have read at the MIX points towards an acute shortfall of energy and time to propel a happier earth. The way is known. I hope to communicate that ‘intelligent energy’ is the answer. I see it as the next natural step in the evolution of human effort.
Thank you for your support,
Regards,
Raj Kumar
- Log in to post comments
Hello Ellen,
I am going to do two things:
1. Over the weekend I am going to re-write my hack to address the channel I hope to re-direct in the mind of the reader. In the process I hope to reduce the hack to a fraction of its length so that the traffic does not hesitate to read and comment; and
2. I am going to offer a conclusion on our discussion on Conventional Wisdom based on my belief that the human mind is discontinuous. The imagery is that of Tim Hurson:
- One element is the Monkey Mind. The human mind is flighty and capricious. Use it to engage a community to unearth all aspects of the Conventional Wisdom. All genuine aspects must be addressed for a total solution.
- Second element is the Gator Brain. These are the human base instincts. Use them to coat the solution so that it is swallowed hook, line and sinker. It will finally settle the disputes of the Monkey Mind.
- The third element is the Elephant Tether. These are the 'hard-wirings' we began our discussion with. Human's follow patterns of behavior. Their most common purpose is security. Prepare to encounter them in the work-place.
Excuse me for the gender bias of my last post. I am sure there are and were many women leading from the front. Women leaders are written deep into the passages of my country. My statement of examples was entirely second hand from the readily accessible examples of business lore. No gender bias in this post!
Best regards,
- Log in to post comments
There is one that got away in my post of half an hour ago addressed to Ellen.
In Gator Brain the 'human base instincts' should read as 'human basic instincts'.
We can rely on them to lead us on. The direction is another story. :)
Raj Kumar
- Log in to post comments
Raj - I look forward to your newly configured design, but am more deeply impressed with your approach, that models growth, change, and a determination to link to real problems as a way to propose real solutions! Bravo - that in itself leads to mind-bending performances. Thanks for sharing.
- Log in to post comments
MIX is exhibiting at least two of the characteristics of incompetent managements :
1.Opaque practices foster corruption.
2.Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Why I say this:
Yesterday I discovered I was not the only one suffering the whims of the MIX staff. Incensed I spoke my mind and posted it to all of Raj Kumar’s sketches (see http://www.managementexchange.com/hack/compelling-energy-quantum-jump-or... ) as MIX was particularly unkind to the merit of his contributions. I gave facts. Today I discovered MIX has struck back:
- My Barrier: While the average rating is unchanged at 4.5, the rating shown on my barrier page, which is an average of the editor’s and my own rating, has declined to 1,1. The mismatch would have been amusing had it not been blatant abuse of power.
- Raj Kumar’s Hack: One has tumbled from #5 in the listing yesterday to #24 in the listing today though there is no change in the rating shown.
- Raj Kumar’s Story: Has tumbled from #5 yesterday to #20 in the listing today. No change in the rating shown.
- Raj Kumar’s average rating: Unchanged at 4.1.
I fail to understand the victimisation of Mr. Raj Kumar.
Participation in a competition is fun but only when it is conducted per principles.
Nayantara
- Log in to post comments
MIX is exhibiting at least two of the characteristics of incompetent managements :
1.Opaque practices foster corruption.
2.Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Why I say this:
Yesterday I discovered I was not the only one suffering the whims of the MIX staff. Incensed I spoke my mind and posted it to all of Raj Kumar’s sketches (see http://www.managementexchange.com/hack/compelling-energy-quantum-jump-or... ) as MIX was particularly unkind to the merit of his contributions. I gave facts. Today I discovered MIX has struck back:
- My Barrier: While the average rating is unchanged at 4.5, the rating shown on my barrier page, which is an average of the editor’s and my own rating, has declined to 1,1. The mismatch would have been amusing had it not been blatant abuse of power.
- Raj Kumar’s Hack: One has tumbled from #5 in the listing yesterday to #24 in the listing today though there is no change in the rating shown.
- Raj Kumar’s Story: Has tumbled from #5 yesterday to #20 in the listing today. No change in the rating shown.
- Raj Kumar’s average rating: Unchanged at 4.1.
I fail to understand the victimisation of Mr. Raj Kumar.
Participation in a competition is fun but only when it is conducted per principles.
Nayantara
- Log in to post comments
MIX has begun to exhibit at least two of the characteristics of incompetent managements :
1.Opaque practices foster corruption.
2.Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Why I say this:
Yesterday I discovered I was not the only one suffering the whims of the MIX staff. Incensed I spoke my mind and posted it to all of Raj Kumar’s sketches (see http://www.managementexchange.com/hack/compelling-energy-quantum-jump-or... ) as MIX was particularly unkind to the merit of his contributions. I gave facts. Today I discovered MIX has struck back:
- My Barrier: While the average rating is unchanged at 4.5, the rating shown on my barrier page, which is an average of the editor’s and my own rating, has declined to 1,1. The mismatch would have been amusing had it not been blatant abuse of power.
- Raj Kumar’s Hack: One has tumbled from #5 in the listing yesterday to #24 in the listing today though there is no change in the rating shown.
- Raj Kumar’s Story: Has tumbled from #5 yesterday to #20 in the listing today. No change in the rating shown.
- Raj Kumar’s average rating: Unchanged at 4.1.
I fail to understand the victimisation of Mr. Raj Kumar.
Participation in a competition is fun but only when it is conducted per principles.
Nayantara
- Log in to post comments
Hello Nayantara,
It is absolutely important to be open and honest when dealing with Innovation. So its okay. Treat this like a bad hole. There is plenty of stimulation ahead!
Regards,
Raj Kumar
- Log in to post comments
Valuable post. It makes the insight important in its own right. Today the stamp of ownership creates overheads of defensiveness, hurt ego etc., that trammesl debate and delays judgment. To some extent form becomes more important than substance. I am saying this because I found your post handy in making a point with Ellen of MITA. I find she has contributed at your site. You may like to have a look at http://www.managementexchange.com/hack/celebration-innovation-%E2%80%93-....
Top marks for your insights.
Regards,
Dhiraj
- Log in to post comments
Hello Nayantara,
Your Barrier set of a chain of thinking that I have now concluded with my Hack http://www.managementexchange.com/node/10923 on Achieving the ends of Knowledge with Feedback.
It leverages all my contributions to MIX to make a point which progresses your Barrier, namely, that we need to proceed beyond Knowledge Management to the gainful application of Knowledge. Today we take this application for granted when it is the possession of Knowledge that is incidental. Application emphasizes the need for Systems, a point strongly made by you.
Regards,
Raj Kumar
- Log in to post comments
Hello Nayantara,
Your Barrier set of a chain of thinking that I have now concluded with my Hack http://www.managementexchange.com/node/10923 on Achieving the ends of Knowledge with Feedback.
It leverages all my contributions to MIX to make a point which progresses your Barrier, namely, that we need to proceed beyond Knowledge Management to the gainful application of Knowledge. Today we take this application for granted when it is the possession of Knowledge that is incidental. Application emphasizes the need for Systems, a point strongly made by you.
Regards,
Raj Kumar
- Log in to post comments
Hello Nayantara,
I thought of your explosion at the MIX administration when I read Raj Kumar's latest hack on the nature of Knowledge. A certain cussedness was apparent to me in the rating of Raj;s hack. Perhaps you would like to form your own opinion. The value of the hack is evident from the comment Raj Kumar has posted at the hack of Mike which is presently topping the hacks and is no threat of being displaced.
I came to your Barrier in the hope of organizing my thinking. Something wrong is happening. Perhaps your views will help me decide what to do. I do not wish to be impetuous.
Regards,
Dhiraj
- Log in to post comments
You need to register in order to submit a comment.