There has been some discussion on management and measurement at this site. I
did not keep track of every one of the opinions- there was diversity. It
seemed to me that some of the views tended towards an extreme ( If I
misinterpreted, my apologies)- lambasting any form of control, chaos theory
and other such metaphors. Here is my two cents worth. Not all comments are
pertinent to control, and not directed at any one person.
1. Do we as a community need to resort to every available metaphor that
comes around? It is true that metaphorical interpretations are necessary ,
nor can they be prevented. But are we in the danger of becoming the laughing
stock and look pretentious, trying to talk in terms of Chaos just because
Mr. Chaos is the new kid on the block? The most effective usage of metaphors
in our field (well, at least in OT) never alluded to the metaphor itself.
Remember Emery and Trist And causal texture? Justly a classic because it
stood the test of time, preceded strange loops & chaos by years and
increasingly relevant today. When I first read the paper, I was reminded of
my 9th grade or 10th grade lessons in chemistry- kinetic theory of gases and
my thermodynamics classes during engineering. It may have been my bias but
then that is the power of metaphor. Someone else with a different background
would have been remided of something else. Metaphor, in my view, works best
when it is a semi-conscious evocation of something from the past and
something you knew very well. When you consciously pick up the metaphor and
start using the lens without completely understanding the metaphor in the
first instance, it is a double whammy. You have not in the first instance
understood your own subject on any terms, let alone the current metahpor; on
top of it, you are using an ill-suited lens whose properties you have not
understood.
I do not claim to have understood chaos. In fact, I do not know too much.
When I talk to physics professors, they are not too sanguine about what
chaos can do for business. I know that there is a lot of activity on wall
street for people knowing chaos but then there has been a lot of criticism
of that too lately. And these are finance and economics people who know
their math, and who can deal with complexity and non-linearity very well.
Not all of us working OT/OB/Policy can be so confident about that. After all
this, one may claim that one is capable of thinking non-linearly and so on.
To that, I do not have a response. Moreover, the insights of chaos , right
from the time of Lorenz, are being used to increase (help /hope to increase)
the precision of prediction than to junk all predictive efforts.
Turbulent environments or not, I think managerial life is much more mundane
than the indeterminacy of cosmic systems or the beat of that wonderful
instrument called the heart. We may not need grandiose metaphors or theories
to understand, diagnose and help managerial behavior. We can allude to them
to hold the attention of the class and for their shock value but beyond
that, it becomes rubbish. I fear that we will certainly not help ourselves
or the field by turning to all "new" things for discourse. On the contrary,
we may end up helping the sales of "Witch Doctors."
2. I had the feeling- you may disagree- that the discussion thread was a
redesign effort for basic transportation mechanisms. Measurement has
obsessed management theorists and economists for decades now. And there are
quite a few insights. That some managers make foolish mistakes in
measurement and planning is a well documented fact. AME reprinted in 1996
the classic piece by Steve Kerr (Folly of rewarding A..). Control theory has
always been sensitive to this problem. Ouchi, Kaplan and so many others have
done good work on that.
Now, just because some managers do not execute their plans very well does
not mean that all managers do not like planning, that all managers do not
execute plans well, and that managers are junking all measurement; nor does
it tell us as academics or advisors that measurement is bad. It is just that
measurement is complex, and managers are acutely aware of that. Simple
comments from experienced but non-bizschool managers ("Oh, we can't use too
many incentive plans! Measurement, you see!", or "No, you can't attribute
that to him," ) show (me at least) that they practice our theories
instinctively. We and they keep refining the tools. Then, there are
somethings which are best left unmeasured. It is best to leave such items
out since we already know that they cannot be measured at least for now. Or,
the discussion can take the route of the possibility of measuring certain
hitherto intangible things.
It is possible that a large number of managers put too much faith in
planning and not execution, but then theory has been stressing
implementation for years now. Neither is indispensable; nor are they the
last word on good management. But why go to the extreme of saying that it is
all over? Even sceptical managers are not saying that! Not the ones I meet
anyway.
And like any other profession, there are excellent managers in small
pockets, many above average managers, and then there are those who became
managers by chance or by biding their time in some corner. So, even if the
tools are correct, and are proved (as in testing machinery) by the excellent
managers, there will be enough around to screw up and give the tools a bad
name.
N. Rao Kowtha
Graduate School of Business
National University of Singapore
10 Kent Ridge Crescent
Singapore 119260, Singapore
Tel: (65)8743049
Fax: (65)775 5571
Email:
fbarnk@nus.edu.sg
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Automatic digest processor [mailto:
LISTSERV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU]
> Sent: Friday, December 11, 1998 12:30 PM
> To: Recipients of MG-ED-DV digests
> Subject: MG-ED-DV Digest - 9 Dec 1998 to 10 Dec 1998 (#1998-238)
>
> << Message: MG-ED-DV Digest - 9 Dec 1998 to 10 Dec 1998 (#1998-238) >>
> << Message: Re: Management and Measurement >> << Message: "Whether"
> Forecasting >> << Message: European AIR Forum 1999 - Call for Proposals
> >> << Message: (Fwd) Re: BAM 1999 Conference >> << Message: How
> Assertive Are You? >> << Message: Re: How Assertive Are You? >> <<
> Message: Re: How Assertive Are You? >> << Message: Re: How Assertive Are
> You? >> << Message: Re: How Assertive Are You? >> << Message: Re: How
> Assertive Are You? >> << Message: Re: How Assertive Are You? >> <<
> Message: Drucker Course Call for Proposals >> << Message: Re: Drucker
> Course Call for Proposals >> << Message: Re: How Assertive Are You? >>
> << Message: Re: Business Plans >>