- Does a requisitely/naturally organized company have managers that can make better performance evaluations?
- Does performance matter? More specifically, does what American corporations currently call performance matter? Is this not just a cover for failure to declare clear accountability?
- Why, when I agree with so much of the Emergence people, do I get so ticked off reading their stuff? (For example, Complexity Science: A Worldview Shift, EMERGENCE, 1(4), 5�19). I mean, I agree with so many of this guy’s complaints but his conclusions are drawn from what seems like absolutely no data. But perhaps that’s OK because “problem solving” doesn’t work any more. Take his stuff about Strategic Planning on pages 12-14. I agree: the way that most strategic planning occurs is wrong. I also agree (with Russell Ackoff, whom he cites) that you can’t send a problem down the ladder and expect a solution. You have to solve the problem at the right level. Solving a mechanical problem at the boardroom is as inefficient and useless as solving a strategic problem with shopfloor folks. Everything is interrelated, but Ackoff didn’t argue that problem solving was useless, just that the problem solving is a normal part of management and that managers had better start doing their jobs. Most of this article is confusing and doesn’t actually say anything. It’s as he couldn’t understand something, so therefore no one can understand it. It’s so irritating to agree with someone so much (merit pay is usually abused, strategy is hard to do, problems shouldn’t be shoved down the ladder, etc.) and disagree with everything he seems to be saying.
About the Author
