Discussion: View Thread

There is in a nutshell, folks. Travis Bradberry says, "The world of
academic research provides important innovation and fuels my thinking as I
consult, but I find that I often have to switch hats before I bring ideas to
the client because they only tend to respond to information when it is
"quick and dirty."" We teach about management. We teach "to" managers or
managers-to-be. We talk to each other about "hard" and "soft" side elements
of leadership and management here, and write lines of text to each othe rin
the trillions about management. And they want it "quick and dirty" once
they are out there doing it! Does anyone wonder what's their rush that
makes us have to put what we know on the head of a pin? I suspect, from
having spent a lot of time out there with our "product" that they want it
fast and simple, because they are drowning in the effluents of badly managed
situations. There's simply no time for slow and clean reflection. Today,
after another week of being as effective a management educator as I can
figure out to be, I have to think that we are either miserable failures or
they are. Or are we both? Or, should I just meander back over to the sunny
side of the street and let "quick and dirty" be good enough for piece work?
David







David S. Fearon, Ph.D.
Professor of Management
467 Vance Academic Center
Central Connecticut State University
New Britain, CT 06057
fearon@ccsu.edu
860 832 3280 Fax 860 832 3289
Cell 860 983 5779

Mostly I agree that it is a wicked shame that managers don't want to think
about management in the way that academics like to write about it and teach
it. Yet when I look at what we have written, and the nonsense that we
teach, I'm not too surprised that managers don't ordinarily bother.

Steven Henderson

Think about this one for a second...

You're the CEO of a large company with a daily operating budget that floats
somewhere in the millions. Your profit margin is already pretty thin and
demands all your management skills to keep things in the black. Suddenly,
something absolutely crazy and totally unexpected for which even your best
contingency planning didn't prepare you hits you dead on, sinking your thin
profit margin into a deep, deep sea of red ink. I'm talking billions here...


No, this isn't a cheap attempt at dramatics. It's a nutshell summary of what
happened to the airline industry after September 11.

We could argue that those are exactly the times when managers really need to
remember what they learned in management school. The truth is, however, that
(a) we don't teach them how to deal with that; and (b) they don't have time
to worry about soft and hard skills, etc. when their pants are on fire.

Bottom line: show me the money!

Rightly or wrongly, management success (as evaluated by shareholders,
company owners, and other people that employ managers) is often evaluated in
terms of money: how much did we earn last quarter, last year, etc. Managers
who can't show consistent good results against this yardstick don't last
long, regardless of how well they understand the concepts.

As long as we teach about concepts and not their application, we'll have
managers who want quick and dirty solutions. I don't agree that the quick
and dirty phenomena is happening because management schools are doing such a
lousy job, at least not from the perspective of understanding what
management is about. Where schools fail is in providing their students with
hard nose skills, things to do when, etc.. One button, all purpose
solutions? No. A solid understanding of processes that support problem
solving and how to cut to the chase to get the job. Yes!

Unless we can build better bridges between the concepts we develop and the
day-to-day management battles, I'm afraid we'll have to get used to quick
and dirty interventions.

Jean-Marc Guillemette

Thank you Jean-Marc. I've thought about what you say for more than one
second, as you suggest. I like the idea that we should be teaching

"A solid understanding of processes that support problem
solving and how to cut to the chase to get the job."

My problem is that I don't know of any such processes that could cope with
the scenario you describe - dramatic as it is. What processes do you teach
in such contexts?

Yours cheerily

Steven

A lead article in the recent Training & Development Journal asks:
"What U.S. institution has remained virtually indistinguishable from its
early 20th century counterpart? Is it banks? No. Grocery stores? No.
Guess again. Hospitals? No. Give up? It's the U.S. educational
system."

It goes on to ask, "How many other places look and feel exactly as they
did 20, 30, or 40 years ago? Step into a high school classroom and
you'll be transported back to your childhood; little has changed beyond
the addition of some technology gadgetry." I would add, the same seems
true of our places of higher learning.

The rest of the world had made phenomenal change, and we are going
through essentially the same thing our parents went through. The only
significant difference is in the number of us doing it.

The article quotes from a book by Daniel Pink, who asks, "Imagine how
we'd prosper if we began educating our children more like we earn our
livings?"

Is it a "soft skill" to teach people how to think? or how we learn?
The neurosciences are teaching us much about how the brain functions.
But how many of those "hard nosed" managers are asking about this? How
many universities are providing it? How many would use the information
if they had it?

It is the rare individual I meet who tells me that they have had any
formal training in how to think--other than a course in logic. Still
rarer is the individual who expresses a sincere interest or even
curosity in knowing how we think. I don't believe the answer lies in
giving people solutions to problems they might encounter at some future
date. Rather, I think it is time to hold them accountable for learning
to think for themselves. Nor am I suggesting that we need to encourage
them to climb a mountain top to contemplate their navel. But we need to
seriously begin to teach people how to think; how the brain functions;
the differences in how people perceive and process information; how we
learn from experience...or are doomed to repeat it.



GUILLEMETTE Jean-Marc wrote:
>
> Think about this one for a second...
>
> <snip>
>
> As long as we teach about concepts and not their application, we'll have
> managers who want quick and dirty solutions. I don't agree that the quick
> and dirty phenomena is happening because management schools are doing such a
> lousy job, at least not from the perspective of understanding what
> management is about. Where schools fail is in providing their students with
> hard nose skills, things to do when, etc.. One button, all purpose
> solutions? No. A solid understanding of processes that support problem
> solving and how to cut to the chase to get the job. Yes!
>
> Unless we can build better bridges between the concepts we develop and the
> day-to-day management battles, I'm afraid we'll have to get used to quick
> and dirty interventions.
>
> Jean-Marc Guillemette

Steven,

Like you, I'm still looking for "a process" that could help managers deal
with such phenomenal crisis. Being close to the airline industry, over the
past few months I've heard much talk about how we should prepare managers to
deal with such events. As time passes and we become better able to distance
ourselves from the tragedy, I'm not so sure anymore that such events should
be the starting point.

I don't think that scenarios, processes, etc. to deal with such incredible
situations that - hopefully - won't happen again for a long time would help
managers deal with daily concerns and the stuff of "quick fixes". I think
the solution lies more in helping managers become much better at the daily
stuff so they'll find themselves on more solid ground overall when a crisis
happens.

I agree that learning to think is critical and that the more we challenge
our students to think about using what we teach to solve problems, the
better they should be prepared to face the challenges ahead. Lecturing won't
do it: building and describing concepts is where we start, not where we
should end. Simulations, discussions, cases studies, internships, problem
solving challenges, etc. come closer to that end point. The "processes" I
have in mind are more about heuristics than hard rules. Just like good chess
players develop heuristics to more quickly understand their game and develop
strategies, managers should learn to manipulate and adapt concepts,
principles, etc. into a more comprehensive set of informal rules.

Mine is a goal, not a well developed recipe. I'll be the first to line up
and learn!

Jean-Marc

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Henderson [mailto:Steven.Henderson@solent.ac.uk]
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 11:02 AM
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: Re: [MG-ED-DV] Quick and Dirty


Thank you Jean-Marc. I've thought about what you say for more than one
second, as you suggest. I like the idea that we should be teaching

"A solid understanding of processes that support problem
solving and how to cut to the chase to get the job."

My problem is that I don't know of any such processes that could cope with
the scenario you describe - dramatic as it is. What processes do you teach
in such contexts?

Yours cheerily

Steven

I am enjoying reading the discussion quite a bit.

The degree I'm a year away from is a Ph.D. in Clinical and
Industrial-Organizational Psychology, so I am being trained in conducting
and interpreting research, business fundamentals (though not quite like an
MBA), and how to be a consultant. Indeed, I work as a consultant at the
same time I'm conducing and interpreting research (my dissertation).

Here's the dilemma as I see it. I watch researchers like Mayer and Salovey
in the early 90's develop wonderful insight into the human condition that
has profound implications for leadership. They even "coin" a catchy term
for it, Emotional Intelligence. However, no one does anything with it. For
5 years the academic community, and some students, are about the only ones
who know anything about it. 5 years later, Daniel Goleman makes it quick
and dirty in a flashy book and suddenly organizations around the globe are
improving the emotional intelligence of their leaders through training and
coaching.

This process isn't perfect. I'm sure these leaders aren't transformed by EI
but I do believe they are better leaders because of their new understanding
of emotional intelligence. I know it because I've seen it myself when I
consult. Academic research and understanding is what the public needs but,
despite the free availability of such information, the public rarely gets
their hands on it.

Travis Bradberry

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Hear hear. I wrote in an article a few months back that technology and
management practices have improved out of sight over the past fifty years
but the way we teach them hasn't moved one inch. Thanks for reaffirming my
experience.

Phil Rutherford


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Carr" <bcarr@wfubmc.edu>
To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 2:33 AM
Subject: Re: [MG-ED-DV] Quick and Dirty


> A lead article in the recent Training & Development Journal asks:
> "What U.S. institution has remained virtually indistinguishable from its
> early 20th century counterpart? Is it banks? No. Grocery stores? No.
> Guess again. Hospitals? No. Give up? It's the U.S. educational
> system."
>
> It goes on to ask, "How many other places look and feel exactly as they

Hmm. I'm not so sure that "they" want it "quick and dirty" in the
pejorative sense in which that phrase is typically used.

"They," of course, are the powers that be; namely, execs, senior execs,
managers, senior managers, clients, customers and so on. It's clearly the
case that they often want it quickly but I've also had them ask me, "When
can I have it?", and we've proceeded on that basis. They hardly ever want
it dirty although, on occasion, dirty will do (usually found in the company
of quick).

"Quick," to me, means ASAP or within some specified, abbreviated time
frame. "Dirty" refers to some minimally acceptable level of effectiveness
in light of the objectives of the action being taken as well as an absence
of the usual accompaniments of action in organizational settings (e.g.,
selling the action, enlisting support, careful analysis of likely
second-order effects, an elaborate change management plan, etc,
etc.). "Really dirty" has all manner of known, undesirable side effects
and just makes matters worse. I've seen few who were interested in racing
down that path (except for the panic-stricken).

Does "satisficing" ring a bell? People who are caught up in acting on and
reacting to a fluid, turbulent or volatile situation rarely seek optimum
solutions; viable will do. March & Simon's example is instructive: "An
example is the difference between searching a haystack to find the sharpest
needle in it and searching the haystack to find a needle sharp enough to
sew with." (Organizations by March & Simon, p. 141). This is especially
true when time is of the essence (and time seems to be of the essence more
and more nowadays).

What I'm saying is that "quick and dirty" ain't all that bad -- and before
y'all go charging down the "ain't it awful" path, you might give some
thought to degrees of "quick and dirty" instead of proceeding on the basis
of lumping everything that isn't clean and elegant under that heading,
especially in light of the pejorative connotations of "quick and dirty."

One of the greatest compliments ever paid me came from my CEO when I was
senior VP for systems and operations at a financial services firm. He said
to me one morning, "You come more quickly to the heart of a matter than
anyone I've ever met." Hurrah for me and hurrah for "quick." Now, how do
you teach people or develop their ability to get quickly to the heart of a
matter? I think it's a matter of the range of models one has available for
analyzing or diagnosing the situations one encounters as well as the
criteria one uses in choosing which model or models to employ.

Nope; "quick and dirty" ain't all that bad.


Regards,

Fred Nickols
740.397.2363
nickols@att.net
"Assistance at A Distance"
http://home.att.net/~nickols/articles.htm

David Fearon writes:

>There [it] is in a nutshell, folks. Travis Bradberry says, "The world of
>academic research provides important innovation and fuels my thinking as I
>consult, but I find that I often have to switch hats before I bring ideas to
>the client because they only tend to respond to information when it is
>"quick and dirty.""

As I've elaborated upon in a separate post, "quick and dirty" ain't all
that bad.

>We teach about management. We teach "to" managers or
>managers-to-be. We talk to each other about "hard" and "soft" side elements
>of leadership and management here, and write lines of text to each othe rin
>the trillions about management. And they want it "quick and dirty" once
>they are out there doing it! Does anyone wonder what's their rush that
>makes us have to put what we know on the head of a pin?

Their rush, I suspect, stems from being under incredible pressure to
produce in very short time frames. I also don't know that they want what
you know put on the head of a pin. I do believe they want the essentials
in as distilled a manner as they can get them. After all, if time is of
the essence, why should education be exempt? More important, why shouldn't
it model and simulate what they're going to encounter?

>I suspect, from
>having spent a lot of time out there with our "product" that they want it
>fast and simple, because they are drowning in the effluents of badly managed
>situations.

Although what you say is clearly true of some situations, I'd be more
inclined to say that most of the time they're drowning in the effluents of
unmanageable situations. Like rodeo riders, they're simply trying to hang
on until the buzzer sounds. Next rider up, please; we've got a rodeo to
run and a crowd to please!

>There's simply no time for slow and clean reflection.

Clearly, there's no time in situ, but there is time for reflection, even if
you are not afforded a leisurely pace or large chunks of dedicated
time. Reflection, like everything else, occurs in bits and pieces at
opportune moments. Over time, this can add up to extended reflection, even
if it doesn't occur in one large, dedicated chunk of time.

>Today,
>after another week of being as effective a management educator as I can
>figure out to be, I have to think that we are either miserable failures or
>they are. Or are we both? Or, should I just meander back over to the sunny
>side of the street and let "quick and dirty" be good enough for piece work?

I don't think anyone is failing; most are coping. The occasional, colossal
failure crops up from time to time but when hasn't that been the case?


Regards,

Fred Nickols
740.397.2363
nickols@att.net
"Assistance at A Distance"
http://home.att.net/~nickols/articles.htm

From: Johan Van Tonder [mailto:jvantonder@mhg.co.za]

You will be surprised, never generalise. There are some of us out there
that tackle management as a science and researching EI or the emotional
part of human beings and how it influences their work behavior has been
instrumental in moving forward in the way we handle that feisty animal
called man.

-----Original Message-----

Mostly I agree that it is a wicked shame that managers don't want to
think about management in the way that academics like to write about it
and teach it. Yet when I look at what we have written, and the nonsense
that we teach, I'm not too surprised that managers don't ordinarily
bother.

Steven Henderson

From: deborah [mailto:debnixon@sympatico.ca]

Fascinating: I am in the midst of dealing with just this issue. The
CEO of a major health institute has come to us for help in a strategic
re-direction driven by the demands of their major funder. The
institution is world-renowned and respected for the calibre of their
work, they are staffed by some of the top scientists in their fields in
the world, and the business community and its employees for whom this
work is supposed to benefit, don't feel that what they do is useful to
them on a day to day basis.

The struggle for us as we help this organization attempt to meet the
needs of these other stakeholders is to bridge the great divide between
what the business community sees as "pure" research and the scientists
who believe they do "applied" research. Applied according to whom?

The business organizations are struggling with pervasive and immediate
problems requiring answers. While they can appreciate the value of a
2-5 year longitudinal study, they also need to deliver solutions.
Furthermore, once this study is complete, the bridge to practice is
almost non-existent. The manager asks- so what? Now what do I do? And
the scientists can't tell them. In most cases, they have never worked
in a private sector organization. This is often the case in management
schools as well. Few professors have ever been managers so it is
difficult for them to envisage the practice side. They write for each
other and often guess at how to implement- and that is often where the
criticisms are.

As a doctoral student and consultant, I often hear my fellow students
talk about how the theoretical papers often have no bearing on the world
'out there'. That things just don't happen that way. So, consultants
and businesses continue to try to cobble together solutions without
being able to benefit from some of the fine academic work being done.

Deborah Nixon
University of Toronto

Partner
DNI Group
704 Windermere Avenue
Toronto Ontario M6S 3M1
Ph: (416) 763-6985
Fax:(416) 763-3361
Email:dnixon@dnigroup.ca

From: Conna Condon [mailto:gandolf@cyberverse.com]

Coming from the land of earthquakes (California), FEMA does an excellent
job
working with our local companies, schools, governments, etc., in being
prepared for disasters. Actually, a personal acquaintance was
requested to
come manage the airline crash near Oxnard a few years ago due to her
people
in crises skills and her disaster management skills.

Each week I get my information on disaster management. Out here we do
prepare for it, practice for it, and teach everyone we can to be
prepared
for it.

Some of that is the easy stuff ... prepared people don't have the
critical
materials (like the HR stuff that is missing in NY cause it was in the
towers and so they can't correctly settle the claims) in just one place
in
the same city) backups belong in places that are not likely to share the
same crises.

Even our vets practice disaster triage.

The reason CA earthquake costs are so low is because we do prepare and
anticipate way ahead of the disaster.

Just a li'l case study report.

Conna Condon
DBA Candidate

From: Conna Condon [mailto:gandolf@cyberverse.com]

Anything worth saying can be said in 30 seconds or less.

I teach my students that their manager's time is extremely valuable.
That
they have delegated to the student the work of analysis and they are
looking
to hear the results, not for the information to allow them to re-analyze
it;
not for the justifications, rationalizations and testing.

So, I teach them to think and analyze ... and then to front all of their
work with an Executive Summary.

If that summary does its job, they will hook the readers interest to go
learn more of what they said, or act on their advice.

So, a big part of their grade is their Exec Sum writing.

BTW, in academia a well written abstract can cause me to read further.
So,
I would call it the exec sum of academia.

Conna Condon
DBA candidate

From: j.milliken@ulster.ac.uk [mailto:j.milliken@ulster.ac.uk]

Bob,

Can you supply more specific information on the article?

Many thanks,

John
John Milliken
School of Business, Retail & Financial Services
University of Ulster
Coleraine
N. Ireland
BT52 1SA

j.milliken@ulst.ac.uk