Discussion: View Thread

Back to discussions
Expand all | Collapse all

Who is qualified to govern?

  • 1.  Who is qualified to govern?

    Posted 04-09-2009 16:43
    Ben, and others,
     
    I would like to give you a couple of current, concrete examples of why I say that students should explore the issue of whether anyone is qualified to govern and should do so before you elect to allow "governments and prudent managers" to play a role.
     
    1. Just this past Monday one of the larger banks asked the U.S. Federal Government how to go about returning the 'bail out' funds they had been given. They were told that returning the funds was not allowed. ASTOUNDING. As a taxpayer I was not in favor of any bailout in the first place but aquiesced to my alected representatives. Now I find out that it is no longer MY money. It has been confiscated by some nameless bureaucrat in the U.S. Treasury Dept.  What do you make of this? Where is the greed? is the greed about money or control? Was it ever Bail-out money or was it always Barge-in money?
     
    2. General Motors is now forced to satisfy an "automotive task force" formed by the U.S. Federal Government executive branch. Care to name the members and their qualifications for steering a billion dollar automobile manufacturing company?  You don't know who they are? What happened to promises of government transparency?
     
    Ben, in systems terms the task of selecting qualified governance is a recurring issue with no outcome-based stopping rule. Be sure to discuss that.
     
    Jack Ring
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 1:44 AM
    Subject: Re: Financial Crash of 9-11-08

    Jack,

    I couldn't agree more that what is needed by business and management students is a balanced, critical discussion of various options in the management of business organizations and economies.  

    I would go further, though, and propose that students must be exposed to various ideologies as part of this discussion.  First and foremost, they must be made aware that the belief that the unfettered "free market" and its claimed ability to promote the general welfare is itself the core of the market fundamentalist ideology --  or the unqualified belief in the "invisible hand".  The ideology is partly founded on the writings of neo-classical economists who used formal mathematical models but, I believe, were stating opinions anyway since the models were based on assumptions which are not based on facts.   Some academics have long argued, including Nobel economists Sen and Stiglitz, that the ideology is essentially unsound because of wrong premises (conditions of perfect competition), wrong facts (complete information; think Greenspan and the Internet bubble) and, therefore, wrong policy conclusions.  To quote Stiglitz::  The invisible hand is either "simply not there, or at least ... if there, it is palsied"  

    I'm not suggesting that free market principles and ideology be abandoned.  But I do suggest that students in economics in business schools who are routinely exposed to the claims of perfect competition models and their variants must also be exposed to the Greenwald-Stiglitz theorem which makes the more balanced and realistic claim that in the presence of imperfect information and incomplete markets, markets usually fail to promote the general welfare.   This should suggest to students that  governments and prudent managers (them, I would hope) have a crucial role to play in complementing the  limitations of the market.  (The G-S theorem was formulated in the 80s but remains undiscussed in most business classes to this day -- not a good sign of objective, pluralistic academic practice to me.  In fact, the Washington Consensus which held sway in the 90s practically ignored it -- leading many developing countries, including my own,  to make painful liberal market adjustments for which we have yet to see benefits but have already been paying the price in misery for some time .)

    Your criterion of fallibility is a good one, and it should be applied to all thought systems, including liberal market ideology.  After all, any belief system where core assumptions are accepted uncritically becomes ideology.

    I agree that management faculty should not impose their views on students.  But I do propose that business faculty cannot escape a basic duty to teach (advocacy, not imposition) their students about certain "shoulds" about business:
    - offerings in the market must be made with sufficient disclosure to enable informed choice by participants in the transactions;
    - only truthful information should be used and promises must be kept; and
    - the ramifications of management decisions for those who will be affected must be thought through and foreseeable harms prevented or made provisions for with adequate information to the vulnerable

    In other words, I propose that management is not merely a positive science but is also a normative profession; for the simple reason that managerial decisions affect the lives and prospects of human beings and communities in significant ways; a practice, as you refer to it.  I believe that, there are core values that managers must commit to, the least of which should be "primum non nocere" or to not knowingly do harm.  Even Adam Smith presumed that civic values of beneficence were in effect for his "invisible hand" to operate -- a free market cannot function well in a moral vacuum.

    My biggest concern is this: For business faculty to not advocate a minimum of moral guidance for students (in order to be academically objective) is NOT avoiding moral advocacy -- by default, in the minds of students, it advocates the morality of the free market and unbridled self-interest in its purest form -- "what is good for me and the market is good".  I would respect a student's decision to take this moral stance but I would advise him to think through the implications of this stance, say, on him or his loved ones.

    If an open, critical discussion of relevant ideologies is engendered in business classrooms in higher education, I'm sure we would have gone a long way in advancing the state of management education and achieving the level of self-managed, reflexive, intelligent thinking you advocate for your students.  I certainly share your concern that management education should not become an assembly line for pre-fabricated industrial robots.  Continuous learning is the goal.

    Regards,

    Ben
     
    -------------------------------
    Benito L. Teehankee, DBA
    Sen. Benigno S. Aquino Jr. associate professor in business and governance
    Ramon V. del Rosario Sr. Graduate School of Business
    De La Salle University
    Manila, Philippines
    Office: +632-5234295


    From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 6:52:52 AM
    Subject: Re: Financial Crash of 9-11-08

    
    Is this interesting multi-party interchange beginning to highlight the possibility of an Academic Standards Crash of 2009? Not the probability, hopefully, only the possibility, however are we seeing signs that scholarly inquiry should give way to manifestations of 'situation ethics' and the use of professor postions to promote ideology rather than scholarly exploration.
     
    Already too many managers have been numbed-down to "what to think" instead of how to think, how to objectively assess business situations and how to devise strategies and courses of action that not only leverage the full strengths of the staff but also promote continual learning by all involved.
     
    All faculty, consultants, coaches, etc., have their own views regarding what an enterprise should be doing and have a right to express themselves. However, academic standards demand that they refrain from imposing such views on students directly or through one-sided course materials or in deciding grades of students who dissent. Mere opinion should not be presented as fact. All theories should be presented with proposals for assessing fallibility. Students not able to conduct scholarly inquiry within the discipline of management should not be granted advanced degrees. After all, management is a practice. Students are not well served if the instructor fails to present students with divergent views on controverial matters or with access to materials that enable students to think intelligently for themselves.
     
    Onward,
    Jack Ring
     
     



  • 2.  Who is qualified to govern?

    Posted 04-09-2009 22:33
    Jack,
     
    In a message dated 4/9/2009 5:42:25 P.M. Central Daylight Time, jring@AMUG.ORG writes:
    Ben, and others,
     
    I would like to give you a couple of current, concrete examples of why I say that students should explore the issue of whether anyone is qualified to govern and should do so before you elect to allow "governments and prudent managers" to play a role.
     
    1. Just this past Monday one of the larger banks asked the U.S. Federal Government how to go about returning the 'bail out' funds they had been given. They were told that returning the funds was not allowed. ASTOUNDING. As a taxpayer I was not in favor of any bailout in the first place but aquiesced to my alected representatives. Now I find out that it is no longer MY money. It has been confiscated by some nameless bureaucrat in the U.S. Treasury Dept.  What do you make of this? Where is the greed? is the greed about money or control? Was it ever Bail-out money or was it always Barge-in money?
    The big bank CEOs were told to agree to take the bail out money or they could not leave the room. This was their punishment--Mother-in-law has moved in for a long stay. They were bad boys.
     
     
     
    2. General Motors is now forced to satisfy an "automotive task force" formed by the U.S. Federal Government executive branch. Care to name the members and their qualifications for steering a billion dollar automobile manufacturing company?  You don't know who they are? What happened to promises of government transparency?
     
    SAME STORY AS ABOVE.
     
    Ben, in systems terms the task of selecting qualified governance is a recurring issue with no outcome-based stopping rule. Be sure to discuss that.
    Regulatory governance is here to stay. Sorry Jack, but your prefered cowboy actions will be reigned in by the State. Your frat boys broke their CCXs.
    Jack Ring
     

    New Deals on Dell Netbooks - Now starting at $299


  • 3.  Who is qualified to govern?

    Posted 04-10-2009 01:04
    Jack,

    Thanks for the follow-up comments.

    Allow me to clarify my point about governments and managers.  The role I was arguing for governments and prudent managers is complementary to the tendency of markets to be relatively insensitive to human rights and the plight of the vulnerable because markets rely mainly on information and pricing mechanisms and many people have little information (or access to it) or the resources to bargain for prices.

    However, I see your point that there is no guarantee that particular managers or bureaucrats will do a better job than the market.   In fact, as your examples show, there are cases when managers or bureaucrats may do a really bad job but, with the required  transparency as you argue, they can be held accountable and penalized and/or replaced.

    I agree that governance is a complex affair (a recurring issue, as you call it) with plenty of unintended consequences hiding here and there.  Systems thinking is indeed essential.  There is no silver bullet but I would be more comfortable having fallible but clearly identifiable human beings (managers/bureaucrats) governing companies than leaving it to a faceless entity we call the market.  Perhaps I overestimate the capacity of humans for dialogue and reflection which enables learning.  I am as surprised as you are about your Treasury Department's stance but then again much research on bureaucratic behavior tends to show that the tendency for bad decisions is always there.   I can think of no cure for bureaucratic idiocy other than the vigilance and involvement of caring citizens.

    Who is qualified to govern?  I'd go for people with competence in understanding the operating and strategic nature of the business and the judgment to make prudent decisions for the common good of the company and its stakeholders.  I realize that such people are not easy to find but I humbly submit that developing such people is where business schools can contribute.

    Regards,

    Ben

    -------------------------------
    Benito L. Teehankee, DBA
    Sen. Benigno S. Aquino Jr. associate professor in business and governance
    Ramon V. del Rosario Sr. Graduate School of Business
    De La Salle University
    Manila, Philippines
    Office: +632-5234295


    From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:42:30 AM
    Subject: Who is qualified to govern?

    
    Ben, and others,
     
    I would like to give you a couple of current, concrete examples of why I say that students should explore the issue of whether anyone is qualified to govern and should do so before you elect to allow "governments and prudent managers" to play a role.
     
    1. Just this past Monday one of the larger banks asked the U.S. Federal Government how to go about returning the 'bail out' funds they had been given. They were told that returning the funds was not allowed. ASTOUNDING. As a taxpayer I was not in favor of any bailout in the first place but aquiesced to my alected representatives. Now I find out that it is no longer MY money. It has been confiscated by some nameless bureaucrat in the U.S. Treasury Dept.  What do you make of this? Where is the greed? is the greed about money or control? Was it ever Bail-out money or was it always Barge-in money?
     
    2. General Motors is now forced to satisfy an "automotive task force" formed by the U.S. Federal Government executive branch. Care to name the members and their qualifications for steering a billion dollar automobile manufacturing company?  You don't know who they are? What happened to promises of government transparency?
     
    Ben, in systems terms the task of selecting qualified governance is a recurring issue with no outcome-based stopping rule. Be sure to discuss that.
     
    Jack Ring
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 1:44 AM
    Subject: Re: Financial Crash of 9-11-08

    Jack,

    I couldn't agree more that what is needed by business and management students is a balanced, critical discussion of various options in the management of business organizations and economies.  

    I would go further, though, and propose that students must be exposed to various ideologies as part of this discussion.  First and foremost, they must be made aware that the belief that the unfettered "free market" and its claimed ability to promote the general welfare is itself the core of the market fundamentalist ideology --  or the unqualified belief in the "invisible hand".  The ideology is partly founded on the writings of neo-classical economists who used formal mathematical models but, I believe, were stating opinions anyway since the models were based on assumptions which are not based on facts.   Some academics have long argued, including Nobel economists Sen and Stiglitz, that the ideology is essentially unsound because of wrong premises (conditions of perfect competition), wrong facts (complete information; think Greenspan and the Internet bubble) and, therefore, wrong policy conclusions.  To quote Stiglitz::  The invisible hand is either "simply not there, or at least ... if there, it is palsied"  

    I'm not suggesting that free market principles and ideology be abandoned.  But I do suggest that students in economics in business schools who are routinely exposed to the claims of perfect competition models and their variants must also be exposed to the Greenwald-Stiglitz theorem which makes the more balanced and realistic claim that in the presence of imperfect information and incomplete markets, markets usually fail to promote the general welfare.   This should suggest to students that  governments and prudent managers (them, I would hope) have a crucial role to play in complementing the  limitations of the market.  (The G-S theorem was formulated in the 80s but remains undiscussed in most business classes to this day -- not a good sign of objective, pluralistic academic practice to me.  In fact, the Washington Consensus which held sway in the 90s practically ignored it -- leading many developing countries, including my own,  to make painful liberal market adjustments for which we have yet to see benefits but have already been paying the price in misery for some time .)

    Your criterion of fallibility is a good one, and it should be applied to all thought systems, including liberal market ideology.  After all, any belief system where core assumptions are accepted uncritically becomes ideology.

    I agree that management faculty should not impose their views on students.  But I do propose that business faculty cannot escape a basic duty to teach (advocacy, not imposition) their students about certain "shoulds" about business:
    - offerings in the market must be made with sufficient disclosure to enable informed choice by participants in the transactions;
    - only truthful information should be used and promises must be kept; and
    - the ramifications of management decisions for those who will be affected must be thought through and foreseeable harms prevented or made provisions for with adequate information to the vulnerable

    In other words, I propose that management is not merely a positive science but is also a normative profession; for the simple reason that managerial decisions affect the lives and prospects of human beings and communities in significant ways; a practice, as you refer to it.  I believe that, there are core values that managers must commit to, the least of which should be "primum non nocere" or to not knowingly do harm.  Even Adam Smith presumed that civic values of beneficence were in effect for his "invisible hand" to operate -- a free market cannot function well in a moral vacuum.

    My biggest concern is this: For business faculty to not advocate a minimum of moral guidance for students (in order to be academically objective) is NOT avoiding moral advocacy -- by default, in the minds of students, it advocates the morality of the free market and unbridled self-interest in its purest form -- "what is good for me and the market is good".  I would respect a student's decision to take this moral stance but I would advise him to think through the implications of this stance, say, on him or his loved ones.

    If an open, critical discussion of relevant ideologies is engendered in business classrooms in higher education, I'm sure we would have gone a long way in advancing the state of management education and achieving the level of self-managed, reflexive, intelligent thinking you advocate for your students.  I certainly share your concern that management education should not become an assembly line for pre-fabricated industrial robots.  Continuous learning is the goal.

    Regards,

    Ben
     
    -------------------------------
    Benito L. Teehankee, DBA
    Sen. Benigno S. Aquino Jr. associate professor in business and governance
    Ramon V. del Rosario Sr. Graduate School of Business
    De La Salle University
    Manila, Philippines
    Office: +632-5234295


    From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 6:52:52 AM
    Subject: Re: Financial Crash of 9-11-08

    
    Is this interesting multi-party interchange beginning to highlight the possibility of an Academic Standards Crash of 2009? Not the probability, hopefully, only the possibility, however are we seeing signs that scholarly inquiry should give way to manifestations of 'situation ethics' and the use of professor postions to promote ideology rather than scholarly exploration.
     
    Already too many managers have been numbed-down to "what to think" instead of how to think, how to objectively assess business situations and how to devise strategies and courses of action that not only leverage the full strengths of the staff but also promote continual learning by all involved.
     
    All faculty, consultants, coaches, etc., have their own views regarding what an enterprise should be doing and have a right to express themselves. However, academic standards demand that they refrain from imposing such views on students directly or through one-sided course materials or in deciding grades of students who dissent. Mere opinion should not be presented as fact. All theories should be presented with proposals for assessing fallibility. Students not able to conduct scholarly inquiry within the discipline of management should not be granted advanced degrees. After all, management is a practice. Students are not well served if the instructor fails to present students with divergent views on controverial matters or with access to materials that enable students to think intelligently for themselves.
     
    Onward,
    Jack Ring
     
     




  • 4.  Who is qualified to govern?

    Posted 04-10-2009 02:28
    George,
    Your views are not news. We have seen regulatory governance before. Many times. World wide. And many times it has failed to serve the citizens.
    Delusions of adequacy.
    The interesting aspect is that you don't pose it as an experiment and offer a fallibility test. You really seem to believe there are those qualified to govern.
    Time wounds all heels.
    Jack
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 7:32 PM
    Subject: Re: Who is qualified to govern?

    Jack,
     
    In a message dated 4/9/2009 5:42:25 P.M. Central Daylight Time, jring@AMUG.ORG writes:
    Ben, and others,
     
    I would like to give you a couple of current, concrete examples of why I say that students should explore the issue of whether anyone is qualified to govern and should do so before you elect to allow "governments and prudent managers" to play a role.
     
    1. Just this past Monday one of the larger banks asked the U.S. Federal Government how to go about returning the 'bail out' funds they had been given. They were told that returning the funds was not allowed. ASTOUNDING. As a taxpayer I was not in favor of any bailout in the first place but aquiesced to my alected representatives. Now I find out that it is no longer MY money. It has been confiscated by some nameless bureaucrat in the U.S. Treasury Dept.  What do you make of this? Where is the greed? is the greed about money or control? Was it ever Bail-out money or was it always Barge-in money?
    The big bank CEOs were told to agree to take the bail out money or they could not leave the room. This was their punishment--Mother-in-law has moved in for a long stay. They were bad boys.
     
     
     
    2. General Motors is now forced to satisfy an "automotive task force" formed by the U.S. Federal Government executive branch. Care to name the members and their qualifications for steering a billion dollar automobile manufacturing company?  You don't know who they are? What happened to promises of government transparency?
     
    SAME STORY AS ABOVE.
     
    Ben, in systems terms the task of selecting qualified governance is a recurring issue with no outcome-based stopping rule. Be sure to discuss that.
    Regulatory governance is here to stay. Sorry Jack, but your prefered cowboy actions will be reigned in by the State. Your frat boys broke their CCXs.
    Jack Ring
     

    New Deals on Dell Netbooks - Now starting at $299


  • 5.  Who is qualified to govern?

    Posted 04-10-2009 02:44
    Ben,
     
    I read your views as saying that smarter or more 'humane' markets would be one approach to mediating the current problematic situation. How about we help markets value more than pricing mechanisms.  This is being done in 'green' investment funds, microlending, etc. and seems to be working quite well, especially among those who have access to the world wide web. Certainly business schools could be educating people in this direction.
     
    Another approach would be identifiable and accountable governors, not politicians and civil servants who cannot be indicted for malfeasance and malpractice. Certainly business schools could be educating people for these roles.  It seems to me that they would be the kind called Reflective Practitioners by Donald Schon, MIT. His book on Educating the Reflective Practitioner gives good clues regarding what such a business school would have to know, be and do. A key question, here, is "How many role models do you think we could find?"
     
    Onward,
    Jack Ring 
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 10:03 PM
    Subject: Re: Who is qualified to govern?

    Jack,

    Thanks for the follow-up comments.

    Allow me to clarify my point about governments and managers.  The role I was arguing for governments and prudent managers is complementary to the tendency of markets to be relatively insensitive to human rights and the plight of the vulnerable because markets rely mainly on information and pricing mechanisms and many people have little information (or access to it) or the resources to bargain for prices.

    However, I see your point that there is no guarantee that particular managers or bureaucrats will do a better job than the market.   In fact, as your examples show, there are cases when managers or bureaucrats may do a really bad job but, with the required  transparency as you argue, they can be held accountable and penalized and/or replaced.

    I agree that governance is a complex affair (a recurring issue, as you call it) with plenty of unintended consequences hiding here and there.  Systems thinking is indeed essential.  There is no silver bullet but I would be more comfortable having fallible but clearly identifiable human beings (managers/bureaucrats) governing companies than leaving it to a faceless entity we call the market.  Perhaps I overestimate the capacity of humans for dialogue and reflection which enables learning.  I am as surprised as you are about your Treasury Department's stance but then again much research on bureaucratic behavior tends to show that the tendency for bad decisions is always there.   I can think of no cure for bureaucratic idiocy other than the vigilance and involvement of caring citizens.

    Who is qualified to govern?  I'd go for people with competence in understanding the operating and strategic nature of the business and the judgment to make prudent decisions for the common good of the company and its stakeholders.  I realize that such people are not easy to find but I humbly submit that developing such people is where business schools can contribute.

    Regards,

    Ben

    -------------------------------
    Benito L. Teehankee, DBA
    Sen. Benigno S. Aquino Jr. associate professor in business and governance
    Ramon V. del Rosario Sr. Graduate School of Business
    De La Salle University
    Manila, Philippines
    Office: +632-5234295


    From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:42:30 AM
    Subject: Who is qualified to govern?

    
    Ben, and others,
     
    I would like to give you a couple of current, concrete examples of why I say that students should explore the issue of whether anyone is qualified to govern and should do so before you elect to allow "governments and prudent managers" to play a role.
     
    1. Just this past Monday one of the larger banks asked the U.S. Federal Government how to go about returning the 'bail out' funds they had been given. They were told that returning the funds was not allowed. ASTOUNDING. As a taxpayer I was not in favor of any bailout in the first place but aquiesced to my alected representatives. Now I find out that it is no longer MY money. It has been confiscated by some nameless bureaucrat in the U.S. Treasury Dept.  What do you make of this? Where is the greed? is the greed about money or control? Was it ever Bail-out money or was it always Barge-in money?
     
    2. General Motors is now forced to satisfy an "automotive task force" formed by the U.S. Federal Government executive branch. Care to name the members and their qualifications for steering a billion dollar automobile manufacturing company?  You don't know who they are? What happened to promises of government transparency?
     
    Ben, in systems terms the task of selecting qualified governance is a recurring issue with no outcome-based stopping rule. Be sure to discuss that.
     
    Jack Ring
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 1:44 AM
    Subject: Re: Financial Crash of 9-11-08

    Jack,

    I couldn't agree more that what is needed by business and management students is a balanced, critical discussion of various options in the management of business organizations and economies.  

    I would go further, though, and propose that students must be exposed to various ideologies as part of this discussion.  First and foremost, they must be made aware that the belief that the unfettered "free market" and its claimed ability to promote the general welfare is itself the core of the market fundamentalist ideology --  or the unqualified belief in the "invisible hand".  The ideology is partly founded on the writings of neo-classical economists who used formal mathematical models but, I believe, were stating opinions anyway since the models were based on assumptions which are not based on facts.   Some academics have long argued, including Nobel economists Sen and Stiglitz, that the ideology is essentially unsound because of wrong premises (conditions of perfect competition), wrong facts (complete information; think Greenspan and the Internet bubble) and, therefore, wrong policy conclusions.  To quote Stiglitz::  The invisible hand is either "simply not there, or at least ... if there, it is palsied"  

    I'm not suggesting that free market principles and ideology be abandoned.  But I do suggest that students in economics in business schools who are routinely exposed to the claims of perfect competition models and their variants must also be exposed to the Greenwald-Stiglitz theorem which makes the more balanced and realistic claim that in the presence of imperfect information and incomplete markets, markets usually fail to promote the general welfare.   This should suggest to students that  governments and prudent managers (them, I would hope) have a crucial role to play in complementing the  limitations of the market.  (The G-S theorem was formulated in the 80s but remains undiscussed in most business classes to this day -- not a good sign of objective, pluralistic academic practice to me.  In fact, the Washington Consensus which held sway in the 90s practically ignored it -- leading many developing countries, including my own,  to make painful liberal market adjustments for which we have yet to see benefits but have already been paying the price in misery for some time .)

    Your criterion of fallibility is a good one, and it should be applied to all thought systems, including liberal market ideology.  After all, any belief system where core assumptions are accepted uncritically becomes ideology.

    I agree that management faculty should not impose their views on students.  But I do propose that business faculty cannot escape a basic duty to teach (advocacy, not imposition) their students about certain "shoulds" about business:
    - offerings in the market must be made with sufficient disclosure to enable informed choice by participants in the transactions;
    - only truthful information should be used and promises must be kept; and
    - the ramifications of management decisions for those who will be affected must be thought through and foreseeable harms prevented or made provisions for with adequate information to the vulnerable

    In other words, I propose that management is not merely a positive science but is also a normative profession; for the simple reason that managerial decisions affect the lives and prospects of human beings and communities in significant ways; a practice, as you refer to it.  I believe that, there are core values that managers must commit to, the least of which should be "primum non nocere" or to not knowingly do harm.  Even Adam Smith presumed that civic values of beneficence were in effect for his "invisible hand" to operate -- a free market cannot function well in a moral vacuum.

    My biggest concern is this: For business faculty to not advocate a minimum of moral guidance for students (in order to be academically objective) is NOT avoiding moral advocacy -- by default, in the minds of students, it advocates the morality of the free market and unbridled self-interest in its purest form -- "what is good for me and the market is good".  I would respect a student's decision to take this moral stance but I would advise him to think through the implications of this stance, say, on him or his loved ones.

    If an open, critical discussion of relevant ideologies is engendered in business classrooms in higher education, I'm sure we would have gone a long way in advancing the state of management education and achieving the level of self-managed, reflexive, intelligent thinking you advocate for your students.  I certainly share your concern that management education should not become an assembly line for pre-fabricated industrial robots.  Continuous learning is the goal.

    Regards,

    Ben
     
    -------------------------------
    Benito L. Teehankee, DBA
    Sen. Benigno S. Aquino Jr. associate professor in business and governance
    Ramon V. del Rosario Sr. Graduate School of Business
    De La Salle University
    Manila, Philippines
    Office: +632-5234295


    From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 6:52:52 AM
    Subject: Re: Financial Crash of 9-11-08

    
    Is this interesting multi-party interchange beginning to highlight the possibility of an Academic Standards Crash of 2009? Not the probability, hopefully, only the possibility, however are we seeing signs that scholarly inquiry should give way to manifestations of 'situation ethics' and the use of professor postions to promote ideology rather than scholarly exploration.
     
    Already too many managers have been numbed-down to "what to think" instead of how to think, how to objectively assess business situations and how to devise strategies and courses of action that not only leverage the full strengths of the staff but also promote continual learning by all involved.
     
    All faculty, consultants, coaches, etc., have their own views regarding what an enterprise should be doing and have a right to express themselves. However, academic standards demand that they refrain from imposing such views on students directly or through one-sided course materials or in deciding grades of students who dissent. Mere opinion should not be presented as fact. All theories should be presented with proposals for assessing fallibility. Students not able to conduct scholarly inquiry within the discipline of management should not be granted advanced degrees. After all, management is a practice. Students are not well served if the instructor fails to present students with divergent views on controverial matters or with access to materials that enable students to think intelligently for themselves.
     
    Onward,
    Jack Ring
     
     




  • 6.  Who is qualified to govern?

    Posted 04-10-2009 06:11
    Jack and others,

    Many proposals for improving markets make sense (especially as information becomes more widely available) and I'm certainly for pinning governance responsibility clearly on accountable individuals. 

    I have always tried to inculcate reflectiveness in my students ala Schon -- double-loop learning and even triple-loop (Nielsen) which links well with reflections on values and ethics.  They do complain that the market-driven environments they are in give little time for dialogue and reflection.  They need tools for creative problem-solving in conflicted, multi-stakeholder contexts. Students find Goldratt's Theory of Constraints and Ackoff's Creativity approaches helpful when we work on case problems with them.

    I don't think there are enough role models.  Which is why I think that the modern corporation (at least, the Anglo-Saxon variety) is really extremely difficult to govern well.  It is much too powerful with too little fail-safes installed in it.   It's like a nuclear reactor when we don't have enough professional nuclear engineers around.   The systemic weaknesses have to be addressed even as we educate more appropriate governors.  The required changes will take generations (including the governance of business schools themselves) but you mentioned some good approaches that are already happening. 

    I like capitalism and the way it can encourage initiative in the provision of important goods and services and the efficient use of resources.  I just believe that it must answer to a higher purpose which is human and social development.  Also, accountability is easier with proprietorships and partnerships since the individuals are held liable.  With large corporations, the accountabilities have become more difficult to trace and enforce.  If the best of capitalism is to be preserved, serious reforms are in order for corporate governance systems.

    Just my two cents.

    Regards,

    Ben
    -------------------------------
    Benito L. Teehankee, DBA
    Sen. Benigno S. Aquino Jr. associate professor in business and governance
    Ramon V. del Rosario Sr. Graduate School of Business
    De La Salle University
    Manila, Philippines
    Office: +632-5234295


    From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:43:32 PM
    Subject: Re: Who is qualified to govern?

    
    Ben,
     
    I read your views as saying that smarter or more 'humane' markets would be one approach to mediating the current problematic situation. How about we help markets value more than pricing mechanisms.  This is being done in 'green' investment funds, microlending, etc. and seems to be working quite well, especially among those who have access to the world wide web. Certainly business schools could be educating people in this direction.
     
    Another approach would be identifiable and accountable governors, not politicians and civil servants who cannot be indicted for malfeasance and malpractice. Certainly business schools could be educating people for these roles.  It seems to me that they would be the kind called Reflective Practitioners by Donald Schon, MIT. His book on Educating the Reflective Practitioner gives good clues regarding what such a business school would have to know, be and do. A key question, here, is "How many role models do you think we could find?"
     
    Onward,
    Jack Ring 
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 10:03 PM
    Subject: Re: Who is qualified to govern?

    Jack,

    Thanks for the follow-up comments.

    Allow me to clarify my point about governments and managers.  The role I was arguing for governments and prudent managers is complementary to the tendency of markets to be relatively insensitive to human rights and the plight of the vulnerable because markets rely mainly on information and pricing mechanisms and many people have little information (or access to it) or the resources to bargain for prices.

    However, I see your point that there is no guarantee that particular managers or bureaucrats will do a better job than the market.   In fact, as your examples show, there are cases when managers or bureaucrats may do a really bad job but, with the required  transparency as you argue, they can be held accountable and penalized and/or replaced.

    I agree that governance is a complex affair (a recurring issue, as you call it) with plenty of unintended consequences hiding here and there.  Systems thinking is indeed essential.  There is no silver bullet but I would be more comfortable having fallible but clearly identifiable human beings (managers/bureaucrats) governing companies than leaving it to a faceless entity we call the market.  Perhaps I overestimate the capacity of humans for dialogue and reflection which enables learning.  I am as surprised as you are about your Treasury Department's stance but then again much research on bureaucratic behavior tends to show that the tendency for bad decisions is always there.   I can think of no cure for bureaucratic idiocy other than the vigilance and involvement of caring citizens.

    Who is qualified to govern?  I'd go for people with competence in understanding the operating and strategic nature of the business and the judgment to make prudent decisions for the common good of the company and its stakeholders.  I realize that such people are not easy to find but I humbly submit that developing such people is where business schools can contribute.

    Regards,

    Ben

    -------------------------------
    Benito L. Teehankee, DBA
    Sen. Benigno S. Aquino Jr. associate professor in business and governance
    Ramon V. del Rosario Sr. Graduate School of Business
    De La Salle University
    Manila, Philippines
    Office: +632-5234295


    From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:42:30 AM
    Subject: Who is qualified to govern?

    
    Ben, and others,
     
    I would like to give you a couple of current, concrete examples of why I say that students should explore the issue of whether anyone is qualified to govern and should do so before you elect to allow "governments and prudent managers" to play a role.
     
    1. Just this past Monday one of the larger banks asked the U.S. Federal Government how to go about returning the 'bail out' funds they had been given. They were told that returning the funds was not allowed. ASTOUNDING. As a taxpayer I was not in favor of any bailout in the first place but aquiesced to my alected representatives. Now I find out that it is no longer MY money. It has been confiscated by some nameless bureaucrat in the U.S. Treasury Dept.  What do you make of this? Where is the greed? is the greed about money or control? Was it ever Bail-out money or was it always Barge-in money?
     
    2. General Motors is now forced to satisfy an "automotive task force" formed by the U.S. Federal Government executive branch. Care to name the members and their qualifications for steering a billion dollar automobile manufacturing company?  You don't know who they are? What happened to promises of government transparency?
     
    Ben, in systems terms the task of selecting qualified governance is a recurring issue with no outcome-based stopping rule. Be sure to discuss that.
     
    Jack Ring
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 1:44 AM
    Subject: Re: Financial Crash of 9-11-08

    Jack,

    I couldn't agree more that what is needed by business and management students is a balanced, critical discussion of various options in the management of business organizations and economies.  

    I would go further, though, and propose that students must be exposed to various ideologies as part of this discussion.  First and foremost, they must be made aware that the belief that the unfettered "free market" and its claimed ability to promote the general welfare is itself the core of the market fundamentalist ideology --  or the unqualified belief in the "invisible hand".  The ideology is partly founded on the writings of neo-classical economists who used formal mathematical models but, I believe, were stating opinions anyway since the models were based on assumptions which are not based on facts.   Some academics have long argued, including Nobel economists Sen and Stiglitz, that the ideology is essentially unsound because of wrong premises (conditions of perfect competition), wrong facts (complete information; think Greenspan and the Internet bubble) and, therefore, wrong policy conclusions.  To quote Stiglitz::  The invisible hand is either "simply not there, or at least ... if there, it is palsied"  

    I'm not suggesting that free market principles and ideology be abandoned.  But I do suggest that students in economics in business schools who are routinely exposed to the claims of perfect competition models and their variants must also be exposed to the Greenwald-Stiglitz theorem which makes the more balanced and realistic claim that in the presence of imperfect information and incomplete markets, markets usually fail to promote the general welfare.   This should suggest to students that  governments and prudent managers (them, I would hope) have a crucial role to play in complementing the  limitations of the market.  (The G-S theorem was formulated in the 80s but remains undiscussed in most business classes to this day -- not a good sign of objective, pluralistic academic practice to me.  In fact, the Washington Consensus which held sway in the 90s practically ignored it -- leading many developing countries, including my own,  to make painful liberal market adjustments for which we have yet to see benefits but have already been paying the price in misery for some time .)

    Your criterion of fallibility is a good one, and it should be applied to all thought systems, including liberal market ideology.  After all, any belief system where core assumptions are accepted uncritically becomes ideology.

    I agree that management faculty should not impose their views on students.  But I do propose that business faculty cannot escape a basic duty to teach (advocacy, not imposition) their students about certain "shoulds" about business:
    - offerings in the market must be made with sufficient disclosure to enable informed choice by participants in the transactions;
    - only truthful information should be used and promises must be kept; and
    - the ramifications of management decisions for those who will be affected must be thought through and foreseeable harms prevented or made provisions for with adequate information to the vulnerable

    In other words, I propose that management is not merely a positive science but is also a normative profession; for the simple reason that managerial decisions affect the lives and prospects of human beings and communities in significant ways; a practice, as you refer to it.  I believe that, there are core values that managers must commit to, the least of which should be "primum non nocere" or to not knowingly do harm.  Even Adam Smith presumed that civic values of beneficence were in effect for his "invisible hand" to operate -- a free market cannot function well in a moral vacuum.

    My biggest concern is this: For business faculty to not advocate a minimum of moral guidance for students (in order to be academically objective) is NOT avoiding moral advocacy -- by default, in the minds of students, it advocates the morality of the free market and unbridled self-interest in its purest form -- "what is good for me and the market is good".  I would respect a student's decision to take this moral stance but I would advise him to think through the implications of this stance, say, on him or his loved ones.

    If an open, critical discussion of relevant ideologies is engendered in business classrooms in higher education, I'm sure we would have gone a long way in advancing the state of management education and achieving the level of self-managed, reflexive, intelligent thinking you advocate for your students.  I certainly share your concern that management education should not become an assembly line for pre-fabricated industrial robots.  Continuous learning is the goal.

    Regards,

    Ben
     
    -------------------------------
    Benito L. Teehankee, DBA
    Sen. Benigno S. Aquino Jr. associate professor in business and governance
    Ramon V. del Rosario Sr. Graduate School of Business
    De La Salle University
    Manila, Philippines
    Office: +632-5234295


    From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 6:52:52 AM
    Subject: Re: Financial Crash of 9-11-08

    
    Is this interesting multi-party interchange beginning to highlight the possibility of an Academic Standards Crash of 2009? Not the probability, hopefully, only the possibility, however are we seeing signs that scholarly inquiry should give way to manifestations of 'situation ethics' and the use of professor postions to promote ideology rather than scholarly exploration.
     
    Already too many managers have been numbed-down to "what to think" instead of how to think, how to objectively assess business situations and how to devise strategies and courses of action that not only leverage the full strengths of the staff but also promote continual learning by all involved.
     
    All faculty, consultants, coaches, etc., have their own views regarding what an enterprise should be doing and have a right to express themselves. However, academic standards demand that they refrain from imposing such views on students directly or through one-sided course materials or in deciding grades of students who dissent. Mere opinion should not be presented as fact. All theories should be presented with proposals for assessing fallibility. Students not able to conduct scholarly inquiry within the discipline of management should not be granted advanced degrees. After all, management is a practice. Students are not well served if the instructor fails to present students with divergent views on controverial matters or with access to materials that enable students to think intelligently for themselves.
     
    Onward,
    Jack Ring
     
     





  • 7.  Who is qualified to govern?

    Posted 04-10-2009 07:47
    In a message dated 4/10/2009 1:33:41 A.M. Central Daylight Time, jring@AMUG.ORG writes:
    George,
    Your views are not news. We have seen regulatory governance before. Many times. World wide. And many times it has failed to serve the citizens.
    Delusions of adequacy.
    The interesting aspect is that you don't pose it as an experiment and offer a fallibility test. You really seem to believe there are those qualified to govern.
    Time wounds all heels.
    Jack

    Jack,

    Thanks for the feedback about your understanding.  I apologize if my theory came across as a defense of the current system in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region>  I tend to write in the active voice. My scholarly intent was to point out where our current system has become dysfunctional and the reasons for inventing a brand new and shiny system.  I attempted to suggest that the current system failed not because our executives and regulators are poorly educated, corrupt, greedy or incompetent, but that the system itself failed catastrophically.  

    I admit that I don't have the perfect model to put in place.  My plea is that we need to invent it using Yankee ingenuity and the protest work ethic.  Last time the economy of tiny <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Thailand</st1:place></st1:country-region> started the financial crash, but this time it was us.  I see the current models of other countries and common markets as flawed as ours.  Ideally, our new system will permit creative wealth creation and at the same time ensure that corporations are good citizens.  I don't have the answers, I only raise the questions.

    Few of us would defend our current system after it crashed and burned in 2008. Let's learn from our mistakes and build a better system.  We are among the world leaders and the world expects us to rebuild our worldwide Katrina-like damage.  I also apologize if my style is too direct, but I'm too old to change it much.

     

    George Graen

    Center for Strategic Management Studies, Inc.

    <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">University</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename w:st="on">Illinois</st1:placename></st1:place> (Ret.)


    A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!


  • 8.  Who is qualified to govern?

    Posted 04-10-2009 09:09
    I debated with myself whether to write again because this conversation seems to have devolved from inquiry and understanding to opinion, often critically expressed, without argument to support that opinion. But, keeping silent on the sidelines may be dangerous to the future.

    Why did the government tell the bank it needed to keep the money a while longer? None of us are privy to the current financial state of that bank, nor do we know if it has a hidden agenda of making payments that are sure to rise the ire of the public or further endanger it. The banks need to get their balance sheets stronger. It will take time. Healing of any sort takes time. And premature return to "business as usual" leave a recovering patient weaker for longer than is necessary.

    Also, none of us knows what would have happened to the economy without the bailout. We may need more information to render an opinion. Let us not jump to opinion without presenting a reasoning that supports that opinion.

    C.

    Carolyn J. Fausnaugh PhD, CPA
    Asst Professor of Strategy & New Ventures
    Florida Institute of Technology
    Melbourne, Florida 32901
    Phone: 321-674-7375; Fax: 321-674-8896
    E-mail: cfausnau@fit.edu

    ________________________________

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of George Graen
    Sent: Thu 4/9/2009 10:32 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Who is qualified to govern?


    Jack,

    In a message dated 4/9/2009 5:42:25 P.M. Central Daylight Time, jring@AMUG.ORG writes:


    Ben, and others,

    I would like to give you a couple of current, concrete examples of why I say that students should explore the issue of whether anyone is qualified to govern and should do so before you elect to allow "governments and prudent managers" to play a role.

    1. Just this past Monday one of the larger banks asked the U.S. Federal Government how to go about returning the 'bail out' funds they had been given. They were told that returning the funds was not allowed. ASTOUNDING. As a taxpayer I was not in favor of any bailout in the first place but aquiesced to my alected representatives. Now I find out that it is no longer MY money. It has been confiscated by some nameless bureaucrat in the U.S. Treasury Dept. What do you make of this? Where is the greed? is the greed about money or control? Was it ever Bail-out money or was it always Barge-in money?

    The big bank CEOs were told to agree to take the bail out money or they could not leave the room. This was their punishment--Mother-in-law has moved in for a long stay. They were bad boys.





    2. General Motors is now forced to satisfy an "automotive task force" formed by the U.S. Federal Government executive branch. Care to name the members and their qualifications for steering a billion dollar automobile manufacturing company? You don't know who they are? What happened to promises of government transparency?


    SAME STORY AS ABOVE.



    Ben, in systems terms the task of selecting qualified governance is a recurring issue with no outcome-based stopping rule. Be sure to discuss that.

    Regulatory governance is here to stay. Sorry Jack, but your prefered cowboy actions will be reigned in by the State. Your frat boys broke their CCXs.


    Jack Ring



    ________________________________

    New Deals on Dell Netbooks - Now starting at $299 <http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220635155x1201407495/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B213771973%3B35379628%3Bw>


  • 9.  Who is qualified to govern?

    Posted 04-10-2009 11:39
    George,
    No need to apologize about tone or voice. It is the substance to which I respond.
     
    For instance, the notion of "current system" may be an unsupportable presumption. Would that be a Monte-carlo montage such as the public school system in the U.S. or a goal-seeking system or a rules-driven system or a rules-making system?
     
    There is zero evidence that mankind knows how to build a shiny new system despite the several attempts to do so. c.f., John Gall's Systemantics and his later Systems Bible. Striving to evolve the one we have may pay off. Meanwhile, presuming competency for governance is highly suspect.  According to Ashby's rule of requisite variety the governor must have a bit more agility than the system under governance. If the governance  function attempts this by dumbing-down the basic system then the law of unintended consequences serves up the opposite of what you desired.
     
    There is evidence that successful larger systems are composed of successful small systems. Self-discipline to abide by principles works better than commissioning governors. Trouble is, humans learn from role models so the pacing item may be the availability of role models in business schools.
     
    Cheers,
    Jack Ring
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:47 AM
    Subject: Re: Who is qualified to govern?

    In a message dated 4/10/2009 1:33:41 A.M. Central Daylight Time, jring@AMUG.ORG writes:
    George,
    Your views are not news. We have seen regulatory governance before. Many times. World wide. And many times it has failed to serve the citizens.
    Delusions of adequacy.
    The interesting aspect is that you don't pose it as an experiment and offer a fallibility test. You really seem to believe there are those qualified to govern.
    Time wounds all heels.
    Jack

    Jack,

    Thanks for the feedback about your understanding.  I apologize if my theory came across as a defense of the current system in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region>  I tend to write in the active voice. My scholarly intent was to point out where our current system has become dysfunctional and the reasons for inventing a brand new and shiny system.  I attempted to suggest that the current system failed not because our executives and regulators are poorly educated, corrupt, greedy or incompetent, but that the system itself failed catastrophically.  

    I admit that I don't have the perfect model to put in place.  My plea is that we need to invent it using Yankee ingenuity and the protest work ethic.  Last time the economy of tiny <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Thailand</st1:place></st1:country-region> started the financial crash, but this time it was us.  I see the current models of other countries and common markets as flawed as ours.  Ideally, our new system will permit creative wealth creation and at the same time ensure that corporations are good citizens.  I don't have the answers, I only raise the questions.

    Few of us would defend our current system after it crashed and burned in 2008. Let's learn from our mistakes and build a better system.  We are among the world leaders and the world expects us to rebuild our worldwide Katrina-like damage.  I also apologize if my style is too direct, but I'm too old to change it much.

     

    George Graen

    Center for Strategic Management Studies, Inc.

    <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">University</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename w:st="on">Illinois</st1:placename></st1:place> (Ret.)


    A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!


  • 10.  Who is qualified to govern?

    Posted 04-10-2009 12:39
    OR ----
    Let us not jump to bail-out without a refereed model of the ramifications of
    bail-out.
    What superior intelligence does the government have to be telling the bank
    anything?
    Maybe it wasn't about the money. Maybe it was simply about who gets to tell
    who what to do.

    OBTW ---
    There was no indication of "premature return to business as usual." Business
    as usual featured making real estate loans to borrowers who were clearly not
    qualified but doing so to keep the government regulators and their ACORN
    storm troopers out of the bank and off their front porches at night.

    Isn't it great that every theory has a dual? http://www.brainrules.net/
    helps.

    cheers,
    Jack Ring

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Carolyn Fausnaugh" <cfausnau@FIT.EDU>
    To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:09 AM
    Subject: Re: Who is qualified to govern?


    >I debated with myself whether to write again because this conversation
    >seems to have devolved from inquiry and understanding to opinion, often
    >critically expressed, without argument to support that opinion. But,
    >keeping silent on the sidelines may be dangerous to the future.
    >
    > Why did the government tell the bank it needed to keep the money a while
    > longer? None of us are privy to the current financial state of that bank,
    > nor do we know if it has a hidden agenda of making payments that are sure
    > to rise the ire of the public or further endanger it. The banks need to
    > get their balance sheets stronger. It will take time. Healing of any
    > sort takes time. And premature return to "business as usual" leave a
    > recovering patient weaker for longer than is necessary.
    >
    > Also, none of us knows what would have happened to the economy without the
    > bailout. We may need more information to render an opinion. Let us not
    > jump to opinion without presenting a reasoning that supports that opinion.
    >
    > C.
    >
    > Carolyn J. Fausnaugh PhD, CPA
    > Asst Professor of Strategy & New Ventures
    > Florida Institute of Technology
    > Melbourne, Florida 32901
    > Phone: 321-674-7375; Fax: 321-674-8896
    > E-mail: cfausnau@fit.edu
    >
    > ________________________________
    >
    > From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of George
    > Graen
    > Sent: Thu 4/9/2009 10:32 PM
    > To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    > Subject: Re: Who is qualified to govern?
    >
    >
    > Jack,
    >
    > In a message dated 4/9/2009 5:42:25 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
    > jring@AMUG.ORG writes:
    >
    >
    > Ben, and others,
    >
    > I would like to give you a couple of current, concrete examples of why I
    > say that students should explore the issue of whether anyone is qualified
    > to govern and should do so before you elect to allow "governments and
    > prudent managers" to play a role.
    >
    > 1. Just this past Monday one of the larger banks asked the U.S. Federal
    > Government how to go about returning the 'bail out' funds they had been
    > given. They were told that returning the funds was not allowed.
    > ASTOUNDING. As a taxpayer I was not in favor of any bailout in the first
    > place but aquiesced to my alected representatives. Now I find out that it
    > is no longer MY money. It has been confiscated by some nameless bureaucrat
    > in the U.S. Treasury Dept. What do you make of this? Where is the greed?
    > is the greed about money or control? Was it ever Bail-out money or was it
    > always Barge-in money?
    >
    > The big bank CEOs were told to agree to take the bail out money or they
    > could not leave the room. This was their punishment--Mother-in-law has
    > moved in for a long stay. They were bad boys.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > 2. General Motors is now forced to satisfy an "automotive task force"
    > formed by the U.S. Federal Government executive branch. Care to name the
    > members and their qualifications for steering a billion dollar automobile
    > manufacturing company? You don't know who they are? What happened to
    > promises of government transparency?
    >
    >
    > SAME STORY AS ABOVE.
    >
    >
    >
    > Ben, in systems terms the task of selecting qualified governance is a
    > recurring issue with no outcome-based stopping rule. Be sure to discuss
    > that.
    >
    > Regulatory governance is here to stay. Sorry Jack, but your prefered
    > cowboy actions will be reigned in by the State. Your frat boys broke their
    > CCXs.
    >
    >
    > Jack Ring
    >
    >
    >
    > ________________________________
    >
    > New Deals on Dell Netbooks - Now starting at $299
    > <http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220635155x1201407495/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B213771973%3B35379628%3Bw>
    >


  • 11.  Who is qualified to govern?

    Posted 04-10-2009 20:04
    In a message dated 4/10/2009 2:58:51 P.M. Central Daylight Time, wankelc@verizon.net writes:

     

    JACK,

    a message dated 4/10/2009 10:45:34 A.M. Central Daylight Time, jring@AMUG.ORG writes:

    George,

    No need to apologize about tone or voice. It is the substance to which I respond.

     

    For instance, the notion of "current system" may be an unsupportable presumption. Would that be a Monte-carlo montage such as the public school system in the U.S. or a goal-seeking system or a rules-driven system or a rules-making system?

    It would be a system based on new  laws and design using the latest modeling tools. We have the tools, we are in need of the engine. I suggest you get up to speed and read my edited book on system changing strategies (forthcoming with Information Age Publishing). You show your age with your obsolete and discredited examples above. 

    There is zero evidence that mankind knows how to build a shiny new system despite the several attempts to do so. c.f., John Gall's Systemantics and his later Systems Bible. Striving to evolve the one we have may pay off. Meanwhile, presuming competency for governance is highly suspect.  According to Ashby's rule of requisite variety the governor must have a bit more agility than the system under governance. If the governance  function attempts this by dumbing-down the basic system then the law of unintended consequences serves up the opposite of what you desired.

    How pessimistic about our Yankee gifts. Toyota built a manufacturing system that works in good times and bad. We can do it as well. See my letter to the editor of Business Week this week. We produce game changers and we need them to change our business games.

     

    Thee is evidence that successful larger systems are composed of successful small systems. Self-discipline to abide by principles works better than commissioning governors. Trouble is, humans learn from role models so the pacing item may be the availability of role models in business schools.

    Please repeat 100 times:  systems problems are different for people problems.

    Cheers,

    Jack Ring

    Cheers,

     

    George Graen

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

    From: George Graen

    Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:47 AM

    Subject: Re: Who is qualified to govern?

     

    In a message dated 4/10/2009 1:33:41 A.M. Central Daylight Time, jring@AMUG.ORG writes:

    George,

    Your views are not news. We have seen regulatory governance before. Many times. World wide. And many times it has failed to serve the citizens.

    Delusions of adequacy.

    The interesting aspect is that you don't pose it as an experiment and offer a fallibility test. You really seem to believe there are those qualified to govern.

    Time wounds all heels.

    Jack

    Jack,

    Thanks for the feedback about your understanding.  I apologize if my theory came across as a defense of the current system in the <ns0:country-region><ns0:place>U.S.</ns0:place></ns0:country-region>  I tend to write in the active voice. My scholarly intent was to point out where our current system has become dysfunctional and the reasons for inventing a brand new and shiny system.  I attempted to suggest that the current system failed not because our executives and regulators are poorly educated, corrupt, greedy or incompetent, but that the system itself failed catastrophically. 

    I admit that I don't have the perfect model to put in place.  My plea is that we need to invent it using Yankee ingenuity and the protest work ethic.  Last time the economy of tiny <ns0:country-region><ns0:place>Thailand</ns0:place></ns0:country-region> started the financial crash, but this time it was us.  I see the current models of other countries and common markets as flawed as ours.  Ideally, our new system will permit creative wealth creation and at the same time ensure that corporations are good citizens.  I don't have the answers, I only raise the questions.

    Few of us would defend our current system after it crashed and burned in 2008. Let's learn from our mistakes and build a better system.  We are among the world leaders and the world expects us to rebuild our worldwide Katrina-like damage.  I also apologize if my style is too direct, but I'm too old to change it much.

     

    George Graen

    Center for Strategic Management Studies, Inc.

    <ns0:place><ns0:placetype>University</ns0:placetype> of <ns0:placename>Illinois</ns0:placename></ns0:place> (Ret.)

     

    A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!

     

     

    A

     

    A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!


  • 12.  Who is qualified to govern?

    Posted 04-11-2009 00:43
    Dear George,
     
    Although I appreciate the passion you have for this topic, I wish you would tone down the nationalistic rhetoric.
    Many subscribers to this list do not possess "Yankee ingenuity" because they were born in countries other than the US.
     
    The theme of this thread is governance. The heart of the issue is whether or not politicians, administrators and policy makers have the competence to become involved in the affairs of the corporate ne'er-do-wells.
    Since you raised the issue of Thailand, I need not remind you that this is a global problem that has as much relevance in Taiwan (or any other country) as it does in the US. Indeed even in regard to the specific challenges in the US (which has been the contextual focus of this discussion), many foreign firms operate in the US and many corporate officers in US firms come from abroad...should they be excluded from your club of problem solvers because they do not possess an America passport or don't subscribe to Protestant ideology (I believe this is what you were referring to by "protest")? With apologies to Max Weber, the protestant ethic is not the only approach to solving governance problems (ref. Japan).
     
    You may want to try and dig up a copy of Woodrow Wilson's "The Study of Administration" (1887). It is as relevant today as when he wrote it. In it he points out that American policy makers need not blindly adopt foreign solutions to domestic problems....but a policy maker who fails to take advantage of past experience (albeit in a different cultural context) misses a chance to harness existing "ingenuity".
     
    From my perspective, education has had a heavy hand in the often unsustainable, occasionally unethical approach to corporate management. We have become overly specialized. I would argue that ethics needs to be addressed at an educational stage well before graduate management education. Since this is a management education forum, I think the appropriate questions might be, "assuming that a number of business people may be inclined to serve their self-interests first (and some of them may be willing to break laws to do so), what would a corporate governance system look like that would minimize the impact these individuals have on corporate performance and what deterrence methods would be most effective?"
     
    If one wishes to explore the corporate-public governance relationship maybe a question to ask is "how can public authorities effectively oversee corporate governance when employment and tax revenues are dependent on attracting as much corporate activity as possible?" Isn't there a conflict of interests here? Proposed way forward: Shouldn't governance activities enjoy the same separation of powers that the judiciary in the US enjoys (in order to mitigate political influence)? (With that said, I can already see the emergent discussion questioning the apolitical nature of the US judiciary)
     
    On a slightly cheeky note regarding your last comment, is it age that causes resistance to change or apathy? If it is the former, than those of us in adult education have a tough road ahead!
     
    Cheers,
    Scott
     
    Scott Valentine
    National University of Singapore
     
     
     
     
     
     
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 7:47 PM
    Subject: Re: Who is qualified to govern?

    In a message dated 4/10/2009 1:33:41 A.M. Central Daylight Time, jring@AMUG.ORG writes:
    George,
    Your views are not news. We have seen regulatory governance before. Many times. World wide. And many times it has failed to serve the citizens.
    Delusions of adequacy.
    The interesting aspect is that you don't pose it as an experiment and offer a fallibility test. You really seem to believe there are those qualified to govern.
    Time wounds all heels.
    Jack

    Jack,

    Thanks for the feedback about your understanding.  I apologize if my theory came across as a defense of the current system in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region>  I tend to write in the active voice. My scholarly intent was to point out where our current system has become dysfunctional and the reasons for inventing a brand new and shiny system.  I attempted to suggest that the current system failed not because our executives and regulators are poorly educated, corrupt, greedy or incompetent, but that the system itself failed catastrophically.  

    I admit that I don't have the perfect model to put in place.  My plea is that we need to invent it using Yankee ingenuity and the protest work ethic.  Last time the economy of tiny <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Thailand</st1:place></st1:country-region> started the financial crash, but this time it was us.  I see the current models of other countries and common markets as flawed as ours.  Ideally, our new system will permit creative wealth creation and at the same time ensure that corporations are good citizens.  I don't have the answers, I only raise the questions.

    Few of us would defend our current system after it crashed and burned in 2008. Let's learn from our mistakes and build a better system.  We are among the world leaders and the world expects us to rebuild our worldwide Katrina-like damage.  I also apologize if my style is too direct, but I'm too old to change it much.

     

    George Graen

    Center for Strategic Management Studies, Inc.

    <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">University</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename w:st="on">Illinois</st1:placename></st1:place> (Ret.)


    A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!


  • 13.  Who is qualified to govern?

    Posted 04-11-2009 13:55

    Hi Scott,

     

    Welcome to "as the world burns paper money" show caused by a breakdown of the obsolete American financial System.  I apologize for concentrating on the <st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region> system problems, but it is too important to be left to the lobbyists in <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Washington</st1:place></st1:state>.  I admit that I am a professor of multinational business leadership and have spent many years in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Japan</st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">China</st1:place></st1:country-region>.  I understand that we have a world problem, but we must start with the largest source of error – <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> system.  BTW, I agree with President Wilson.  Too bad that he failed with the League of Nations Treaty.

    What a great question!  Let me edit it.

    What would a corporate oversight system that would drive wealth creation curb too risky gambling with other people's money and make corporations act responsible toward all stakeholders look like!  This question is central to my thesis that we can build better mouse traps starting in the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region></st1:place>  What do you think?

    Yes, we have a multi-motive game and many possible conflicts of interest.  This makes the system designers reach for their new tools (see my new book).

    Regarding my cheeky note regarding my age, resistance to change is caused by fear, fear and more fear.  Fear is a powerful motive but can be overcome, e.g., President Obama (although it took 8 years to overcome resistance to fear mongering).

    We do have a tough road ahead, but fear not we shall overcome.

    Cheers,

    George Graen
    CSMS, Inc.

    /jag


    Hurry! April 15th is almost here. File your Federal taxes FREE with TaxACT.


  • 14.  Who is qualified to govern?

    Posted 04-13-2009 03:38
    Hi George,
     
    Many thanks for taking the time to write and explain your position. I found that recently, when I think about business practice from a macro perspective I'm reminded of that wonderful lament of years past by Oliver Hardy, "Well Stanley, here's another fine mess you've got us into."
     
    I don't disagree with your assertion that fixing the ills that are plaguing corporate America should be prioritized if we wish to restore health to the global economic system. My source of dissidence was with your contention that "Yankee ingenuity" represented the path to problem resolution (Ergo, the Woodrow Wilson reference).
     
    Globally, we are blessed with a number of diverse examples of governance that may provide insights that contribute to improving corporate governance in the United States. As an example that you are likely familiar with due to your experience with Japanese business, the spectacular achievements that have been made in Japan in industrial energy efficiency can be attributed in large part to voluntary efforts made by Japanese corporations coordinated through the Keidanren. These voluntary commitments were then followed up by regulatory policies that industry embraced because industrial players were already involved in devising solutions. An example of this closer to all is the chemical industry's responsible care program. The lesson to derive from these examples is that perhaps businesses can have a hand in initially creating a framework for self-governance that stakeholders can then evaluate in terms of acceptability. In such a model, the role of the government is to ensure stakeholders can vet the process (much like the publication of an Environmental Impact Assessment prior to large construction projects) and initiate regulatory activities to ensure that agree standards are met.
     
    Anyway, I digress.
     
    My main point was, wouldn't the process of expanding the search for solutions to corporate governance problems to incorporate "international ingenuity" yield a greater wealth of potential solutions than closing ranks in searching for solutions within an already flawed system? Keep in mind that "Yankee ingenuity" elected Bush not once but twice... while the rest of the world rolled its collective eyeballs. If US voters had been more in tune with world opinion at that time, maybe the US wouldn't be facing the largest fiscal deficit in the history of humankind ;-)
     
    By the way, what is the title of your new book? I'll keep an eye out for it.
     
    All the best,
    Scott
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2009 1:55 AM
    Subject: Re: Who is qualified to govern?

    Hi Scott,

     

    Welcome to "as the world burns paper money" show caused by a breakdown of the obsolete American financial System.  I apologize for concentrating on the <st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region> system problems, but it is too important to be left to the lobbyists in <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Washington</st1:place></st1:state>.  I admit that I am a professor of multinational business leadership and have spent many years in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Japan</st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">China</st1:place></st1:country-region>.  I understand that we have a world problem, but we must start with the largest source of error – <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> system.  BTW, I agree with President Wilson.  Too bad that he failed with the League of Nations Treaty.

    What a great question!  Let me edit it.

    What would a corporate oversight system that would drive wealth creation curb too risky gambling with other people's money and make corporations act responsible toward all stakeholders look like!  This question is central to my thesis that we can build better mouse traps starting in the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region></st1:place>  What do you think?

    Yes, we have a multi-motive game and many possible conflicts of interest.  This makes the system designers reach for their new tools (see my new book).

    Regarding my cheeky note regarding my age, resistance to change is caused by fear, fear and more fear.  Fear is a powerful motive but can be overcome, e.g., President Obama (although it took 8 years to overcome resistance to fear mongering).

    We do have a tough road ahead, but fear not we shall overcome.

    Cheers,

    George Graen
    CSMS, Inc.

    /jag


    Hurry! April 15th is almost here. File your Federal taxes FREE with TaxACT.


  • 15.  Who is qualified to govern?

    Posted 04-13-2009 03:39
    Hi George,
     
    Many thanks for taking the time to write and explain your position. I found that recently, when I think about business practice from a macro perspective I'm reminded of that wonderful lament of years past by Oliver Hardy, "Well Stanley, here's another fine mess you've got us into."
     
    I don't disagree with your assertion that fixing the ills that are plaguing corporate America should be prioritized if we wish to restore health to the global economic system. My source of dissidence was with your contention that "Yankee ingenuity" represented the path to problem resolution (Ergo, the Woodrow Wilson reference).
     
    Globally, we are blessed with a number of diverse examples of governance that may provide insights that contribute to improving corporate governance in the United States. As an example that you are likely familiar with due to your experience with Japanese business, the spectacular achievements that have been made in Japan in industrial energy efficiency can be attributed in large part to voluntary efforts made by Japanese corporations coordinated through the Keidanren. These voluntary commitments were then followed up by regulatory policies that industry embraced because industrial players were already involved in devising solutions. An example of this closer to all is the chemical industry's responsible care program. The lesson to derive from these examples is that perhaps businesses can have a hand in initially creating a framework for self-governance that stakeholders can then evaluate in terms of acceptability. In such a model, the role of the government is to ensure stakeholders can vet the process (much like the publication of an Environmental Impact Assessment prior to large construction projects) and initiate regulatory activities to ensure that agreed standards are met and punish transgressions accordingly.
     
    Anyway, I digress.
     
    My main point was, wouldn't the process of expanding the search for solutions to corporate governance problems to incorporate "international ingenuity" yield a greater wealth of potential solutions than closing ranks in searching for solutions within an already flawed system? Keep in mind that "Yankee ingenuity" elected Bush not once but twice... while the rest of the world rolled its collective eyeballs. If US voters had been more in tune with world opinion at that time, maybe the US wouldn't be facing the largest fiscal deficit in the history of humankind ;-)
     
    By the way, what is the title of your new book? I'll keep an eye out for it.
     
    All the best,
    Scott
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2009 1:55 AM
    Subject: Re: Who is qualified to govern?

    Hi Scott,

     

    Welcome to "as the world burns paper money" show caused by a breakdown of the obsolete American financial System.  I apologize for concentrating on the <st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region> system problems, but it is too important to be left to the lobbyists in <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Washington</st1:place></st1:state>.  I admit that I am a professor of multinational business leadership and have spent many years in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Japan</st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">China</st1:place></st1:country-region>.  I understand that we have a world problem, but we must start with the largest source of error – <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> system.  BTW, I agree with President Wilson.  Too bad that he failed with the League of Nations Treaty.

    What a great question!  Let me edit it.

    What would a corporate oversight system that would drive wealth creation curb too risky gambling with other people's money and make corporations act responsible toward all stakeholders look like!  This question is central to my thesis that we can build better mouse traps starting in the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region></st1:place>  What do you think?

    Yes, we have a multi-motive game and many possible conflicts of interest.  This makes the system designers reach for their new tools (see my new book).

    Regarding my cheeky note regarding my age, resistance to change is caused by fear, fear and more fear.  Fear is a powerful motive but can be overcome, e.g., President Obama (although it took 8 years to overcome resistance to fear mongering).

    We do have a tough road ahead, but fear not we shall overcome.

    Cheers,

    George Graen
    CSMS, Inc.

    /jag


    Hurry! April 15th is almost here. File your Federal taxes FREE with TaxACT.


  • 16.  Who is qualified to govern?

    Posted 04-13-2009 12:51

    Hi Scott,

    You would make a fine faculty colleague.  I like your critical thinking.  It makes me think also.

    My new edited book is entitled, Predator's Game-changing Designs, (2009) published by Information Age Publishing.  I got lucky and found the top people in IT and Network analyses to describe how organizations can be changed.  We have developed the design tools, but we need the motivation and social skills of the Japanese executives who I admire.  Clearly, the Japanese system invented by the Toyoda boys should be the model for all countries.  One need not be Japanese to make it work.  I have helped bring it to <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Michigan</st1:place></st1:state> with my partner Wakabayashi.

    My reference to Yankee ingenuity is my attempt to get our best and brightest to think outside the box and emulate the Toyodas.  Our corporate leaders need to stop playing beat the system and "first kill all lawyers" as Shakespeare said.  

    I agree that NIH cannot hold us back.  We need better ideas that can work.  What do you think?


    The Average US Credit Score is 692. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps!


  • 17.  Who is qualified to govern?

    Posted 04-13-2009 22:05
     
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:47 AM
    Subject: Re: Who is qualified to govern?

    {...}Few of us would defend our current system after it crashed and burned in 2008. Let's learn from our mistakes and build a better system.  We are among the world leaders and the world expects us to rebuild our worldwide Katrina-like damage.  I also apologize if my style is too direct, but I'm too old to change it much.
     
    George,
    I am interested in building a better system. I presume it must be a evolution of the current system, hopefully a rapid evolution. Should we start by achieving agreement about the "current system?" 
     
    Jack Ring


  • 18.  Who is qualified to govern?

    Posted 04-13-2009 22:29
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: George Graen
    Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 5:03 PM
    Subject: Re: Who is qualified to govern?


    Wrote: "...systems problems are different for people problems."


    Interesting assertion. Are there any references for it? 

    Jack Ring