• About

The art and science of the possible

~ A celebration of non-zero sum thinking

The art and science of the possible

Tag Archives: strategy

Complexity forces the distinction between strategy and planning

02 Thursday May 2013

Posted by lnedelescu in complexity, design thinking, management, strategy, taxonomy

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Ackoff, business, complexity, Cynefin, Design Thinking, Idealized Design, Martin, Planning, Playing to Win, Roger Martin, Snowden, strategy

Image

Following the publishing of his latest book, “Playing to Win”, Roger Martin has made a paramount distinction between strategy and planning. Having the greatest respect for Roger Martin’s thinking, I usually take his insights as foundational. Since foundational insights are few and far between, there’s a likelihood that other thinkers have come across similar distinctions. I didn’t have to search for long to find echoing insights in the work of Russell Ackoff, systems thinker emeritus, and Dave Snowden, complexity guru.

Continue reading →

Drucker’s “doing the right thing”, Superman’s Lex Luthor and sales strategy

30 Tuesday Apr 2013

Posted by lnedelescu in business, sales, taxonomy

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Ackoff, Apple, Customer Approach, Drucker, Effectiveness vs. Efficiency, Gene Hackman, Lex Luthor, Sales, Steve Jobs, strategy, Superman

Image

Foundational thinkers are often politely dismissed on the excuse that “abstract” insights are difficult to apply to concrete situations. I will make use of Drucker’s paramount distinction between “doing things right and doing the right thing” to counter that popular belief using a concrete example: sales. But before tackling the sales example, let me make use of another foundational thinker of similar caliber, Russell Ackoff, to reinforce Drucker’s distinction. In Ackoff parlance, “doing things right” results in more efficiency, or improving a certain solution, while “doing the right thing” is a matter of effectiveness, or questioning the problem statement.

Now let’s move on to the sales example. In sales we are taught that the customer is king. And as long as the customer knows what he wants and what his problem is, this is great. But in many cases, particularly in today’s increasingly complex world, the customer doesn’t know what his problem is and may not even know what he wants. Continue reading →

Foundational thinkers vs. “how” teachers

12 Friday Apr 2013

Posted by lnedelescu in consulting, human capital, knowledge, learning, taxonomy

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Coaching, Leadership, Learning, strategy, Thought Leadership, Workshops

Image

As the complexity of modern life grows, so does the number of seminars, workshops, coaching sessions and other “learning how to cope” events. Can there be as many “truths” as there are gurus?

To answer that question I introduce a distinction between “foundational thinkers” and “how teachers”. I see foundational thinkers as those advocating “why” models based on key notions associated with a particular issue. These type of thinkers attempt to capture the underlying cause. How teachers on the other hand concentrate on recipes for dealing with an issue, often in the form of steps, frameworks, etc.

In my personal experience and research I have come across much fewer members of the first category. This is also the category that I value the most. That is because “why” models allow and indeed demand that the student use his own problem solving skills to derive the “how” particulars for a given situation. In other words “why” models allow customization and adaption of the methods to the circumstances. “How” teachings on the other hand provide a recipe which the student is to memorize and repeat. This is bad for two reasons: memorization discourages critical thinking, and in a complex world no circumstance is likely to repeat exactly.

Many of the teachers (leadership coaches, high end consultants, etc.) I have come across wisely avoid the “why” question and go straight into “how”. “Why” questions are hard and can even be uncomfortable and what business-savvy teachers know is that many of the customers for these types of sessions come there to feel good and relax, rather than be mentally challenged beyond their abilities. Mental challenges create stress, and a stressed customer is not good for repeat business. “How” teachers are astute observers of human psychology, while foundational thinkers are scholars of knowledge and discovery.

Returning to foundational thinkers, they also come in different echelons of value. The most valuable provide complete and internally consistent ontologies for a pervasive issue. These individuals are a few a century. But in terms of generating a following, “how” teachers definitely hold the upper hand.

When going to the next seminar or workshop or coaching session, do ask yourself what category your teacher fits. If you feel too good about yourself and no hard thinking is required, you’re probably in the “how” teaching zone.

Strategy is…

21 Thursday Mar 2013

Posted by lnedelescu in consulting, design thinking, human capital, strategy

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Accenture, business, creativity, future, Harvard, Harvard Business Review, human, McKinsey, philosophy, Porter, strategy

1974 Robinson's Wrap acrylic

Strategy is adding constitution to an ambiguous mess we call the future. Strategy focuses discernible choices from the fog of ambiguity by way of assertions and assumptions. It reduces the universe’s entropy. Strategy is deliberate choice. Strategy is awareness and self-awareness. Strategy is wisdom: it is a mirror. Strategy is integrative and convergent. Strategy is identity.

Strategy is not political correctness, nor is it group consensus. It is selective and competitive. It does not agree well with bell curves. Strategy is neither nice nor nasty. Yet it will be deemed heretic and non-compassionate, unfair. Good strategy is controversial. Good strategists will be called dictators, non-team players, naive, inconsiderate. Strategy is participatory only as a common pursuit of a better state of affairs. Strategy is fair to those who wish for better. It is unfair to those who hang on to the past. Strategy is change.

Strategy is creative. It is substantive. It is pleasing to the eye. It appeals to common sense and it is not information overload. It is a straight-forward perception of an in-achievable ideal: truth. It exposes cowardliness, laziness, hypocrisy, envy, falseness by denying them opportunity to hide behind the curtain of ambiguity. Strategy is accountability. Strategy is transparency. It is risk and courage. Strategy is sacrifice. Strategy is long term and it makes things worse before so they can be better. Strategy is responsibility. It is leadership. It is patience and self-control. Strategy builds character and nourishes morality and ethics.

Strategy is narrative. It is forged of convictions and ideals and desires. It is biased. It is ideological and not technocratic. Strategy is subjective and incomplete, but not superficial. Strategy makes leaps of fact and logic. Strategy is not planning and it cannot be proved. Strategy is not a simple process with discrete steps that spews guaranteed and repeatable results – it isn’t an algorithm (sorry Professor Porter, HBR, McKinsey and others). Sustainable strategy is not imitation. It isn’t bench-marking, performance, metrics and measurements (sorry Accenture, CapGemini and others). Strategy isn’t statistics. Strategy is not business process re-engineering. It is discontinuous. Strategy is organic. Strategy is adaptive and resilient. It is educated trial and error. Strategy is real and surreal: surreal because it describes what does not yet exist, real because the future is always born of the inference between what is and what could be.

Strategy is personal and quintessentially human. Strategy is enlightenment and fulfillment and wisdom. Sustainable strategy is the ambition to better oneself while not wishing others ill. Sustainable strategy is not playing zero sum games. Strategy is humbleness. It is observation, empathy, comparison, categorization. Strategy is artful design. It is meditation and self-reflection. Strategy is play. It is fun and thrill and adrenaline. Strategy is loneliness and hopelessness. It is pain and failure and rebirth. Strategy is cumulative. Strategy is a liberating journey. It is a quest for purpose and meaning with no room for regrets.

Russell Ackoff: the Albert Einstein of Management

24 Wednesday Oct 2012

Posted by lnedelescu in consulting, knowledge, learning, management, problem solving, strategy

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Ackoff, business, Einstein, Leadership, Learning, management, problem solving, strategy

image

Russell Ackoff is likely the Albert Einstein of management. The reasoning is this: he created what is in essence a Generalized Ontology of Problem Solving just as Einstein created the Generalized Theory of Relativity.

By comparison,  most management gurus, consulting principals and executives only master a special case problem solving heuristic. Lower level managers and consultants are only able to reproduce a priori defined special case problem solving algorithms.

Professor John Geto of Krasnow Institute of Advanced Study cautions that without an ontology we are liable to continually reinvent new terms for existing knowledge, making it difficult to achieve a strong foundation on which to build. Management in general and management consulting in particular can in large part be paraphrased as problem solving common sense; yet, the generalized problem solving ontology carefully crafted by the genius of Ackoff has not been widely adopted. In a hierarchy management masters Ackoff’s generalized and universal thinking pedestal is permanent and situated on significantly higher ground than the altars at which most of us currently worship: innovation and Clayton Christiansen, Design Thinking and Roger Martin, Gary Hamel and Management 2.0, etc.

As in the popular “Matrix” movies, Ackoff is “the one”. But, it appears we may need a Morpheus character like advocate within the management discipline. And we need to overcome our latest infatuation with progress only possible in teams; the Theory of General Relativity could not have been a crowd sourced innovation on Facebook. Sometimes it takes “the one”.

Newer posts →

Categories

business capitalism Communication complexity consulting Crisis democracy design thinking Emerging Markets future human capital innovation Investment knowledge learning management Organizational Development paradox philosophy problem solving sales science society strategy taxonomy technology Uncategorized

Latest

  • Intelligence is Intentional
  • Plenty of Room at the Top: the case for a viable man-machine economic future
  • What does an “innovation economy” really mean?
  • Lightfoot strategy
  • Capital: a brief philosophy

Archives

  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • August 2014
  • June 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012

Blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • The art and science of the possible
    • Join 151 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • The art and science of the possible
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...