Comments

Strangely, I've been thinking about this myself - although on different lines... so here's a brief digression

I'm a consultant, and over the years (not as many as Tom, but ahem...) I've picked up a few things - that might be considered as elements of being well rounded in how to get things done and run a business...

The thing is... clients (senior management) hire people with very specific skill sets, track record in the skill set and who belong to a strong brand.

Is there actually a market for well rounded professionals? I certainly hope so...

Given what I've seen in big business.. maybe the salvation for folks like me might actually be running a small business somewhere.

Any comments?

Posted by Arun Sadhashivan at November 27, 2007 5:07 PM

Hi Mike - I would say linear thinking is about;

*Rationality.
*Predictability
*Straight lines.
*Using the past to predict the future.
*Feeling in control as manager.
*Being comfortable.
*Having answers to all possible questions.

Ticking the boxes of the above ‘apparently’ made you a good manager a few years ago – although I never actually believed that.

Nowadays I say if managers have job at all it is to make the job easier for front line staff.

Managing now is about coaching and mentoring not simply overseeing the predictable. The big thing that’s changed is managers now cannot tell people what to do and those people will automatically do it. Managers have to give people reasons for their actions. And it is wonderful to see staff questioning managers who then have to justify their existence.

People are less predictable than linear things hence the complexity! I say the answer is still simple – trust your front line staff and give them the power!

‘Because it is the policy is no longer a good enough answer’ – Again I don’t think it ever was!

Yes the current world is full of complexity but the great news is that managers don’t have a monopoly on the right answers because we don't know what those answers are.

This chaos is either wonderful or terrifying depending entirely on one’s mind set.

That’s my 2 pennyworth - 2 cents in your language Mike :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at November 27, 2007 5:30 PM

Agree pretty much Trevor. I do think it is necessary to give the front line folks business literacy .. how we really make money in the org. All too often we do not expose them to the big picture.

and by the way...that 2 pennyworth is more than our 2 cents now..

thanks for contributing Trevor

Posted by Mike Neiss at November 27, 2007 6:06 PM

Mike,

It's more like 3D chess with the rules redefined every year. Having worked at the big companies and now in my fourth startup, the one characteristic I've found of successful executives is the ability to have a clear vision of who the company is / direction and being able to communicate that with everyone in the company. And the company believes in that vision. Managing with a light touch brings out the potential in each individual making a good choice in their day to day activities.

The worst combination is a linear thinker with a "hair on fire" mentality so that the company is in a constant mode of course corrections, which usually means a big circular wake just before sinking. And the employees go into drone mode and build life rafts.

Posted by Bruce Fryer at November 27, 2007 8:43 PM

Absolutely Bruce...

Posted by Mike Neiss at November 27, 2007 9:01 PM

Mike it seems to me that Trevor not only identified what linear thinking is about, but his 7 point description could also serve as an ad for many top MBA programs. Today top firms seek the young star from a top 10 program over someone of equal talent, with less pedigree but more experience. As these new MBA's are placed, the expectation and anticipation of flawless performance inhibits risk taking.

Innovation and "failing forward" are in almost every presentation analysts see these days and yet most large organizations are not prepared for what is required to be successful at innovation or failure. Most of these organizations have cultures that smother innovation or risk taking. Too often the source of the impediment is misaligned compensation plans of senior management teams.

Posted by Dennis Quinn at November 27, 2007 9:13 PM

Mike,
The health care mess reminds me of the complexities and confusion related to our income tax system. I thought the "Flat Tax" was a great idea that would have totally simplifed the tax system. The problem, of course is that many groups have a vested interest in the status quo. Tax attorneys don't want a tax system that anyone can figure out his/her taxes. There is probably an equally simple solution to the health care mess. So the real problem may be how do you present and sell the simple solution to groups that fear change because they may lose power and money.

Posted by Paul Thornton at November 27, 2007 9:21 PM

The problem is that economic predictions about future, which of course are uncertain by defenition, are expressed in the language of mathematics. The formulas are exact, but not the underlying assumptions.

It's like having a beatutifully constructed and complex steel construction on a foundation of clay...

Of course, when everything goes wrong, one can say "... but the model predicted...", "...it's an anomaly..."

Posted by Alexander Hangaas at November 28, 2007 2:05 AM

I don't think we can limit this disease to just senior executives - it seems to apply to just about anybody you can think of. We the public are guilty of thinking in this way too.

Without getting too controversial, the improvements in Iraq are commonly traced back to the Big Push with the additional troops. Oh yes? And it was nothing to do with a host of other smaller initiatives, a change of emphasis etc?

And front line staff have all the answers? Well, they often have some very good suggestions but put them pretty simplistically and without a business context. Upshot, a good manager cherry picks from them - and tries to explain why he has or hasn't picked up an idea, of course.

And the current economic concerns are due to the sub-prime crisis in the US? Well, what about some dreadful decisions by banks elsewhere in the system who perhaps didn't quite appreciate what they were buying?

And the problem is: the followers seem to want the explanation neatly summarised and packaged up for easy consumption. Until followers are prepared to accept complexity and ambiguity from their leaders, I see no prospect of change.

Posted by Mark JF at November 28, 2007 8:13 AM

I can't argue with your thoughts there Mark. But I do feel it is the senior executives job to package the solution in a storyline that compels others to want to be part of it. They need to shape the ambiguity into a cohesive and understandable plan. Sure, they may get it wrong at times, but I can't let them off the hook. They need to define reality from the tea leaves. This maybe a bit harsh on the execs, but being a bit old fashioned here...if an exec is making 7 figures and a front line sup is making 5 figures..well, they need to be held to a much higher standard. If the metrics show solid execution and results are not good, then sr management truly owns the problem.

Posted by Mike Neiss at November 28, 2007 8:30 AM

This article reminds me of Stephen Covey's book "7 habits of highly effective people".

He said increasingly decision making would get more complex and rapidly changing. What holds true today may not the next day.

Therefore decision making in the future would be less like taking directions on a map as the topography in today's world changes rapidly. Instead decion making would be based more on holding a compass based on our values that would guide us through the maze.

Posted by Gaurav Sethi at November 28, 2007 8:44 AM

Mike - I agree with you about ultimate responsibility and about separating reality from the tea leaves. But there are plenty of times when, in my view, it is plain wrong to say or suggest that A follows B follows whatever else in a direct causal relationship. I also think it does followers no good to be told so. They need to know what the variables are, what the risks are etc. Maybe they don't need the 50 page business plan but they do need to know the key points around it, the downside as well as the upside and not to assume (or believe) that A follows B etc...

We have a bank in the UK called Northern Rock that is tottering on the edge of collapse and the reason we are given is the American sub-prime problem. To me, that's too simplistic and too jingoistic. What about the people at NR who purchased the debt? What about their judgement and their strategy? What controls did they have around very complex financial instruments few people truly understand? How much did they tell investors and savers about their exposure to this type of investment?

Call me naive but if leadership fails to explain the main points about the complexity and ambiguity of their situation, we perpetuate a society that carries thinks in a linear way and comes a cropper when it doesn't work out that way. I don't want everything to be overly complex and I certainly don't want obfuscation but I do want a little more than a 30 second elevator speech and I want things clear but not simplistic.

Of course, that easier said than done sometimes!

Posted by Mark JF at November 28, 2007 9:54 AM

I am with you here Mark. I think leadership often misses a chance to teach...I am amazed at how little business literacy there is at times. It's messy out there...not an A+B=C world

Posted by Mike Neiss at November 28, 2007 10:18 AM

by the way Mark...at the risk of being blatantly self promoting here...click on that box to the left that says future shape of the winner. It is our attempt to recognize complexity, yet provide some road map for navigating the turbulence. Our UK team is largely responsible for this, I think, brilliant piece of work

Posted by Mike Neiss at November 28, 2007 10:21 AM

This is why we need "Systems Thinking" which Tom completely trashed the other week.

Nuff said.

Posted by Steve Prevette at November 28, 2007 12:22 PM

Please see http://www.managementwisdom.com/goodnews.html

Posted by Steve Prevette at November 28, 2007 12:24 PM

Mike,
My experience is that often with executives it's a matter of perspective. Theirs is generally very, very narrow. They have very well defined social and professional networks that are relatively homogeneous. They all look the same, go to the same functions, belong to the same clubs, went to the same schools and share the same business beliefs.

Unfortunately, they almost never see the world as their average employees and customers do. My recommendation to executives is to do whatever it takes to get some perspective. Read publications that cross the spectrum of views and beliefs. Travel to small towns - and fly coach. Spend time - real time - with front line employees, doing their jobs, living off their benefits and feeling their pains.

It seems so often that when we hear of great success stories, the executives at those companies spend lots of time experiencing their company, and not just running it. Howard Schultz of Starbucks gets to as many stores as possible. Sam Walton used to spend a tremendous amount of time in his stores. Jim Goodnight at SAS still spends lots of time with average programmers at users conferences.

All of these guys were/are very close to their customers and employees and understand what drives people to buy their products. I know a lot of executives claim they don't have time to be out of the office and away from the critical decisions that they have to make. My question is 'how can they not spend time away from the office?' gaining perspective and a more complete understanding of what it is that really drives their company's success.

It's not necessarily rocket science, but it is brain surgery.

My two cents.

Posted by Andrew Hayden at November 28, 2007 2:26 PM

Always a pleasure to have your two cents Andrew. I certainly agree. When I was at UPS, Jim Casey (founder and CEO) made regular visits to the delivery centers and treated us as truly an equal. Mike Volkema (Chairman of the Board, Herman Miller) implores emerging leaders to learn to see around corners by reading and taking on new experiences outside of the office furniture industry. It is about perspective, and maybe even wisdom. Hard to learn that in business school....

Posted by Mike Neiss at November 28, 2007 2:45 PM

The main reason we have executives who practice "linear thinking" is that's what we teach them in business school. The model we teach goes something like this.

Start with the facts. Define a solution. Implement. There are several things wrong with this model, which has its roots in the engineering thinking that underlies much management theory.

It assumes that we all know what the problem is. Often, we don't. When researched how top engineers and geologists solved problems we found that the top performers resisted setting a problem definition in concrete too soon. But most managers don't.

The model presumes we start with the facts. We don't. We start with biases and opinions and those often dictate the facts we choose to use.

The model is often presented as a straight-through process rather than an iterative one. Managers are expected to come up with the right solution on paper and then implement it, instead of designing experiments to figure out what works.

Posted by Wally Bock at November 28, 2007 5:47 PM

I recently read an article online about the problems with the U.S. healthcare and potential ways to fix it. They proposed grouping healthcare by "routine" healthcare and by "non-routine". The author proposed grouping the routine healthcare as a mass group meeting with the doctor. This would open up alot of doctor/patient time and allow for rather casual health items to be handled all at once.

If I find the link again I'll show you guys.

Good blog!

Posted by Lean Six Sigma Training at November 28, 2007 5:54 PM

To me, everyone is breaking their back to pay the bill. The bill is the problem. Health care individuals(the entire structure is salary-wise are out of wack)make individually to much. You don't walk or get carried into a emergency unless there is a extreme need!

Posted by Mike Sweeney at November 28, 2007 6:22 PM

We have the same problem in the UK with healthcare. Demand exceeds supply. The emphasis has to be on prevention of ill-health and promotion of wellness rather than on the treatment of illness.

That is a nettle most health managers and politicians are terrified to grasp. People want to know that when they are ill, there will be a service available and hence the greatest investment goes into the treatment end.

Ill-health prevention is often considered the ‘woolly and soft’ stuff of healthcare. And yet we all know it is the most crucial part of healthcare for our future and the future of our children.

There is simply not enough money to go round. We have to make some radical decisions in the UK and that will mean closing big unnecessary hospitals so that we can concentrate resources in a few brilliant hospitals. Hospitals are places to go when you are ill - not when you are well.

Then we have to allocate more money to health promotion and ill-health prevention. We have to concentrate on health not illness.

As an aside I’m always interested that many management ‘experts’ outside the healthcare system think they know how to cure the ills of apparently inefficient healthcare systems.

In the 1980’s Margaret Thatcher had a policy of bringing in managers from the private sector who she believed would solve the problems of the National Health Service. Most of those managers did not last more than a year or in the NHS because they found it too difficult to manage.

Criticism without investigation is the easy bit.

Posted by Trevor Gay at November 28, 2007 7:38 PM

"How do we encourage leadership to be more holistic and multi-dimensional in their thinking? How do we excel in a complex world?"

Here's a part of my perspective (heavy on the Eastern Philosophy, as you'll see):

From this lens, this is a fundamental problem in perception among leaders (or, more appropriately, managers).

1. Mental models must shift from linear (Newtonian, industrial age, mechanistic) to non-linear (Quantum, information age, organic), if we wish to truly see the complexity (and simplicity) of our situation.

2. Unfortunately, many [managers] are not aware that a problem in perception exists. Change will not occur until a sufficient sense of urgency or pain is experienced.

3. For those without awareness, we (as leaders) must talk, educate, and model the desired behaviors...with languaging and stories that have meaning for the listener/learner. (Incidentally, this is the same model used for any behavioral change...refer to Prochaska, who developed a "Trans-theoretical Model" for change originally in the context of addiction...yup, addiction applies here too, to a particular world view).

4. Of course, all of this would be a lot easier if it were to start in school...not just in business school, but rather in pre-school (think: Maria Montessori for non-linear thinking).

5. Fear must not be present...true dialogue must take place to uncover, share, and learn about the different mental models of others that "dig deeper" to reveal the true complexity of a situation.

6. Self-awareness is critical...the lack of self awareness leads to the failure to recognize “blindspots” in perception....thus failing to understand the full complexity involved in situations. If I'm convinced that my "world view" is complete and accurate, why would I care what anyone else thinks?

7. Self-management is critical, so that leaders--even if they are aware that they are “locked into” a linear perspective--can go beyond automatic emotional responses to dig deeper, exploring broader dimensions of complex problems. (By the way, self-awareness and self-management are two emotional intelligence competencies.)

8. People are complex...but forget that they (and for that matter, the aspects of our entire universe) are. The Hindu concept of maya touches on this point. We need to remind them, even if it involves some pain (growing pain). It's about false perception versus "right perception"....or if you're a fan of the Matrix, "red pill" versus "blue pill".

9. Don't point fingers...we've got to examine our role (or non-role) in this fundamental problem.

10. Going back to self-awareness & self-management, EGO plays a big role, and when uncontrolled, drives people to be "attached" to particular perspectives and outcomes, even if they are flawed. (Right perception is more conducive to right action, but cannot express itself when strong emotions and/or ego are present). Get it?

FYI...A book by fellow SoL member, Adam Kahane, “Solving Tough Problems” is a good resource on this topic, with specific examples from the author's own experiences in South African politics.

By the way, I'm presenting you with my perspective as a consultant in leadership, OD, and strategy (with an infusion of Eastern wisdom)....and I happen to be a physician. I'll spare my thoughts on the healthcare content for a separate post!

Manoj

Posted by Manoj Pawar at November 28, 2007 9:03 PM

Well said. We have forgotten that we are dealing with the lives of people. We should be talking about health care, not health business. I am one that believes organizations should be sound and not run in the red but seriously wonder about the lack of accountability in the health care industry. Prices are never posted and charges are often buried in complicated bills. No one really wants to eliminate the smoke and mirror exchanges of large sums of money in the business. I know we can save many dollars by simplifying. There is far too many insurance companies, too much paper, and too many hands in the pie. Is there enough money? Yes...if spent wisely. Unfortunately, much of the money is not spent on those providing the care or focused on benefiting the patients.

I am not an advocate of national health care but I am tired of politicians and "pundits" running down and blaming the government for the mess. "How can you trust the government?" "Look at the mess with Medicare." I hear these statements every day. Have you every walked into a federal Medicare hospital. No. The cost overruns, outrageous charges, double billing, and fraud are from private and non-profit hospitals. Who is ripping off the government? The same people being audited and fined now are the same ones who are trying to convince us that private health care is more effective.

It is time for sanity. We can solve this problem if we want to. Guess we will see if all the rhetoric has any teeth the next several months.

Posted by Phil Clark at November 29, 2007 1:22 AM

mike,

great work! i agree with the submission that we need to be fundamental and basic in our approach. we have to appreciate the mess well enough recognising that we all are in some way are part of the mess (wholesome big picture approach really).

As such we need to deepen the concept of leadership to reflect the history of a single inidividual and not just a concept of study and discuss. hopeful maybe we would start having people in these positions appreciating and recognizing that 'leadership'takes the definition that they (we) give to it by way of our involvement. really these things can be as practical as a b c.

Thanks Mike...have a great day..

Posted by Owusi Jerrie at November 29, 2007 2:04 AM

Mike - going back to your original question – ‘How do we encourage leadership to be more holistic and multi-dimensional in their thinking? How do we excel in a complex world?

Retaining the ‘small business mentality’ is the best possible mindset a Chief Executive can have in my view. When the company becomes ‘big’ I feel Chief Executives often lose touch with their customer because of this ‘alleged’ complexity. I say ‘alleged’ because this thing called ‘complexity’ is merely an illusion. Outstanding leaders keep it simple and have an obsessive ‘people focus’ – that is - look after your staff and customers and everything else falls into place. I believe it is that simple.

I will be accused of making the solutions too simplistic – As always I take that as a compliment.

Posted by Trevor Gay at November 29, 2007 4:24 AM

A goodly share of the blame for the way helathcare is today, probably falls to the way incentives are structured. Regardless of warm fuzzy stuff about patients, it still comes down to payments. And there will always be individuals who make headlines by finding ways to get more than others think they should, either by gaming the system or outright fraud.

Another share falls to the fragmentation of healthcare. Physicians, hospitals, hospice, home care, insurors, and clinical groups. If you should stumble onto 'the solution' it would be almost impossible to impose it upon all providers. Oops, make that convince all providers that it was the solution and have them adopt it. Again, the alignment of incentive.

Should governments; federal, state, and local, be involved? They are the safety net, but their presence has expanded and made this more politics than business.

Back to work trying to provide data to get our chunk of the healthcare dollars.

Posted by MikeC at November 29, 2007 9:21 AM

Best set of Comments I've seen at tp.com in our 3+ years of blogging. Thanks, Mike. Thanks to all of you!

Posted by tom peters at November 29, 2007 9:35 AM

Of course, as most all of you know, I share Mike's biases approximately 100.000000% (no rounding error). On one expanatory slide in the Master set I describe myself as a "mess-ist," trained by the world's best "mess-ists" such as Jim March and Karl Weick.

Posted by tom peters at November 29, 2007 9:39 AM

real generic viagra

Version #1 of "Hillarycare" was designed by one of earth's most linear thinkers, who has always thought his brains could overcome the untidiness of the real world. His name is Ira Magaziner--and he is one of the most dangerous unarmed human beings in America.

Posted by tom peters at November 29, 2007 9:42 AM

I have a sneaking suspicion that this linear world of business thinking can be self perpetuating. A client I dearly love and have accepted their vision as part of my own, just made a difficult decision to drop about 150 white collar employees ( no factory folk) and wall street rewarded it by improving their share price 24% in one day. The linear thinking doesn't stop in the boardroom. By the way, I am not disagreeing with their reductions. They are part of a necessary reinvention of a terrific company that can't live on past laurels. But I am mystified why the stock didn't go up when the new line was announced or recent diversification of markets. And to join Tom, thanks for the thoughtful comments. In the world of virtual work, you all make an amazing water cooler to chat around....

Posted by Mike Neiss at November 29, 2007 10:11 AM

Mike - do you mind if I change the subject slightly?

Scotland's new Government wanted a new slogan for visitors to Scotland. Six months later – and after lavishing £125,000 ($250,00) on the initiative – the SNP administration yesterday revealed its exciting new slogan: “Welcome to Scotland”.

They couldn't make this stuff up! :-)

The report is at this link Times Online today:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2957875.ece

Posted by Trevor Gay at November 29, 2007 11:42 AM

Trevor,
I liked an earlier slogan they were considering:

"Come have a drink with us, the whiskey's great and affordable" :-)

Just kidding, but I did see the article about the slogan and kind of shook my head at the way that bureaucrats think. I remember just after I graduated from university the school decided it wanted a new logo that would capture the "essence of the institution." They hired a big name NYC agency, spent a minor fortune and got a really, really, really crummy, generic and less than inspiring "S". Several years ago the school went back to what it has in the first place.

how to order viagra online

The sad thing is that the university has one of the best design schools in the US and I, along with any number of my fellow art students would have loved the opportunity to design a new logo. Apparently it was not even considered. I look at it as another example of linear thinking. Everyone in the schools administration at that time came either from the business or technical academic world and never seemed to pay much attention to the art school. Limited perspective.

Posted by Andrew Hayden at November 29, 2007 1:30 PM

andrew, are you sneaking over to scotland during your london honeymoon?

Posted by erik at November 29, 2007 2:13 PM

Erik,
No sneaking about it. We're there for the full blown Hogmanay experience with a week in Edinburgh to drink it all in. Our first week is in Munich and London. ... Where I'm sure we'll drink all that in too. :-)

Posted by Andrew Hayden at November 29, 2007 3:12 PM

I know you will enjoy Edinburgh Andrew. Maybe you should go too Erik to enjoy a wee dram or three :-)

I visited Edinburgh every year until about 5 years ago. The first time I visited Edinburgh it was a novelty to me as a southerner from across the border to see guys in bars drinking 'a pint of heavy' at 7am before work. It is a wonderful City and New Year's Eve in Edinburgh is the centre of the world according to my Scottish mates. Have fun and remember to call in for a civilised glass of Red Wine if you are passing Shakespeare's county

Posted by Trevor Gay at November 29, 2007 5:47 PM

andrew, i must have had a senior moment there. how could i have forgotten about Edinburgh and Hogmanay. i hope you have a great time.
and yes, trevor, Scotland is on my list of places to go, but luckily, i can enjoy a wee dram or three right here at home (though i'm sure the scotch tastes better in scotland).

Posted by erik at November 30, 2007 8:19 AM

Mike,

Having worked for a larger organization and then going back to a more nimble consulting company, I have had a simliar line of thinking. Why does it seem that the more one is promoted the more one thinks they need to act like an Executive? Answer: "Because, well that is the way I am suppose to act, isn't?" It seems at a certain level, one forgets what it was when they worked "on the floor" with the team. They put up gate keepers from people accessing them and make grand appearances at company functions. They seem to lose touch with what is happening in the trenches. I'm not talking about loosing your identity of being a CxO. I am talking about gaining an identity of being a leader! It is about becoming transparent and let the "team" do their thing.

Granted in a larger organization a CxO's time is stretched, but making time to really know what is going on in the trenches has to happen. Otherwise what needs to happen versus what a CxO hears by the time it gets to them is usually not the same. To use Tom's innovation ideas, to be innovative, you have to work innovative. The days of the old corporate ladder and acting like a CxO of days of old are gone. If you don't change your thinking, chances are your competition is.

Posted by Cyle Dibble at November 30, 2007 1:51 PM

Mike,
You hit quite a nerve!
I am skeptical of our love of creativity, intuition and innovation. I thrive on it and some would say excel at it. But I wouldn't want a whole organization of me! And I'm not sure in a complex organization I would want me at the top. As Tom writes about the Atlantic story on the night owls, maybe you need a creative night owl for CEO and a linear early-riser as COO. To me, it's more important that you have both, that they work together and respect each other's strengths and limits, than that one or the other be at the top.
Innovation without alignment is chaos. And even with the "business literacy" you talk about teaching, sometimes someone does have to rationalize decisions. Sometimes someone "higher up" dialy sees complexities that others "down" the food chain can't see. Two people in parallel shops innovating in opposite directions can make an horrific mess. There's something very valuable about the semblance of the "line" in "linear."
To return to the top: MANY of us who write and teach are iNtuiters in the Myers-Briggs scheme, right-brain thinkers, night owls, etc. We want the world to be like us. Solving the health care madness will take a whole lot of concrete, linear thinkers as well as some big picture artists.
Great conversation!

Posted by Dan Mulhern at December 1, 2007 5:21 PM

"How do we encourage leadership to be more holistic and multi-dimensional in their thinking? How do we excel in a complex world?"

How about accountability? Real accountability. Rapid accountability. Words won't work if person who has at worst, a multi-million dollar pay-out to look forward to if terminated for their incompetence...where's the incentive to change? Linear thinker or non-linear thinker, the flaws manifest into performance and results. Mr. Gay's observations about coaching and mentoring being critical and Mr Hayden's on perspective are absolutely things that, if leaders do better, would improve results and really make the point moot. Did Sam Walton, Herb Kelleher, Jim Casey really base their decision to be out and accessible because they were non-linear thinkers? Don't know.....maybe they just knew, based on their own experience, it was the right and smart thing to do. There are many benefits to "mingling with" the folks on the frontline and a wealth of information you won't tap into unless you ask. Seems like the label "communicating" isn't used, but it's always worked well...and the technological tools of today make it much easier to more frequent, far reaching, and effective way. Guess that's why the line between leaders and managers really isn't a fine one at all....Maybe they remain in isolation because the prospect of the interaction is one that provokes fear.....

Posted by Dave W at December 1, 2007 5:44 PM

Dan...I think we might be in violent agreement here. I was raised in the linear world of operations management at UPS, so I do indeed appreciate cause and effect thinking. My point however is that, gasp, I don't find an awful lot of depth in the strategic thinking of many executives. Perhaps if we expanded our metrics beyond cost quality and safety...to include things like brand equity, retention of talent, etc..We just might make more studied decisions. Dan look at our state...Chrysler goes through a major transition and brings in cost cutter extraordinaire Nardelli...can you see any other strategy at Chrysler other than cutting costs?? seems they have been trying that for years. And John Snow in charge of the equity firm that owns Chrysler?? Doesn't anybody remember his business judgment and what he did to CSX? I just expect more from those that make it to those terribly responsible positions. Enough...hey, be careful out there...on my side of the state we are getting our first winter butt kicking...lots of ice.

Posted by Mike Neiss at December 1, 2007 6:54 PM

Dan - great points - as a fully signed up member of the ‘ENFP Myers Briggs Club’ I dread the thought of having a company full of people like me! The key is a good balance between people and process and the most ‘stuck’ and boring organisations are those with too many linear thinkers in my view – but as an ENFP I would say that wouldn’t I? :-)

Dave W – thank you for your kind comments and please do call me Trevor. I worry when I am called ‘Mr Gay’ that I have done something wrong :- )

Posted by Trevor Gay at December 1, 2007 8:11 PM