82,927
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:—Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum}}{{smallcaps|We take it that}}, like any other intellectual proposition,<ref>We speak of none other than the [[Duhem-Quine thesis]] as to the theory-dependence of observation: that it is impossible to test a scientific hypothesis in isolation, because any test presupposes one or more background assumptions and auxiliary hypotheses.</ref> every management initiative must be driven by some ''theory'' or other — that is, it must be designed to prove out a hypothesis that ''already exists in someone’s mind''. | :—Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum}}{{smallcaps|We take it that}}, like any other intellectual proposition,<ref>We speak of none other than the [[Duhem-Quine thesis]] as to the theory-dependence of observation: that it is impossible to test a scientific hypothesis in isolation, because any test presupposes one or more background assumptions and auxiliary hypotheses.</ref> every management initiative must be driven by some ''theory'' or other — that is, it must be designed to prove out a hypothesis that ''already exists in someone’s mind''. | ||
The minds whose hypotheses tend to get tested belong to those at the top of organisations: they can ''mandate organisational change'': a “mandate” is an ''order''. Orders come from the top. | |||
Indeed, the very point of ''being'' at the top ''is'' ''to change things''. If you don’t change anything, what are you even being paid for? In the best case, the organisation does not need your help: it is ticking along nicely by itself. In a worse case, it does, but you are not providing it. In either case, ''[[Get your coat|prenez ton manteau]].'' | |||
Passive leadership is, thus, somewhere between a zero-sum and a negative-sum game. Therefore, we coin a proposition: ''To lead is to make change''. | |||
Now. | |||
To '' | To ''want'' change is to believe things are, somehow, ''wrong'': that the organisation is sub-optimal, dysfunctional, elliptical or just ''out of whack''. | ||
But those who lead organisations and can bring change are precisely the ones who have lived their best lives within, because of, and thanks to, the organisation as it presently is. ''Without'' it being changed. | |||
The [[paradox]], therefore: those at the top are compelled to make change but, at the same time, ''have the most to lose'' ''from change''. | |||
=== | ===Digression: the paradox of firms in a free market=== | ||
Now, however much they might present to the outside world as embodiments of all that is ''laissez-faire'', within their walls, | Now, however much they might present to the outside world as embodiments of all that is ''laissez-faire'', remember: within their walls, large commercial organisations are dictatorships.<ref>We are not being provocative here. The analogy is eerily precise: there is a tight command-and-control structure, no meaningful democracy; the centralised dissemination of information that is filtered, framed and sometimes rewritten to make the administration look good, and all is ably supported by a [[human resources|clandestine internal agency]] with unlimited power whose job is to keep the ranks in a state of fear and mistrust of each other and the authorities. </ref> Only those at the very top of have any kind of wherewithal, other than ''to keep quiet, get on with your work and do what you are told''. | ||
===The making of leaders=== | ===The making of leaders=== | ||
Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
Hence, the conceptual problem with [[change from the top]]. | Hence, the conceptual problem with [[change from the top]]. | ||
===On the difficulty of changing from the top=== | ===On the difficulty of changing from the top=== | ||
So the idea of current management changing the very machine that has contrived to put them where they have the power to change presents a variation of the | So the idea of current management changing the very machine that has contrived to put them where they have the power to change presents a variation of the time-traveller’s paradox: By changing something, do I kick away the very ladder I climbed to reach my own exalted station? If I throw off the rope, do I leave myself [[Hinterstoisser Traverse|stranded, should the weather change]]? If I fiddle in this way with the geometry of [[Space-tedium continuum|corporate spacetime]], might I not disprove my very being? Will I dissolve before my own disbelieving eyes? | ||
Yet we live in a time of change. We must change or die. We select our leaders to drive change. | Yet we live in a time of change. We must change or die. We select our leaders to drive change. | ||
Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
Thus, management has derived some kind of prime directive: “I must change. For it is what leaders do. But whatever change I make, I must make it, without —” well, er — it is difficult to put this any way other than bluntly, readers — “... whatever change I make, I must make it without ''changing'' anything”. | Thus, management has derived some kind of prime directive: “I must change. For it is what leaders do. But whatever change I make, I must make it, without —” well, er — it is difficult to put this any way other than bluntly, readers — “... whatever change I make, I must make it without ''changing'' anything”. | ||
And so it comes to pass: no [[Outsourcing|outsourcing program]], no employee survey, no cost challenge, no well-being outreach, no human resources initiative in history has been designed to prove | And so it comes to pass: no [[Outsourcing|outsourcing program]], no employee survey, no cost challenge, no well-being outreach, no human resources initiative in history has been designed to prove that, for example, the executive team are a bunch of useless, glad-handing dilettantes, nor that the echelons of upper management, though in place for decades, have not made an ounce of positive difference; that the problem with our stars is not the cost of front-line staff but the sediment of useless management pressing down upon them, hindering their reactions to the changing needs and desires of their local markets. | ||
We dare say it would be rather fun if someone were to try to launch an initiative on such a hypothesis, but we feel it would be a work of science fiction | We dare say it would be rather fun if someone were to try to launch an initiative on such a hypothesis, but we feel it would be a work of science fiction. | ||
''Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.'' Only the staff would do that, if anyone asked them, so no-one asks them. | ''Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.'' | ||
Only the staff would do that, if anyone asked them, so no-one asks them. | |||
=== How change happens === | === How change happens === | ||
Change comes from fracture, disruption and disharmony: when shafts of light are thrown from unexpected angles by unintentionally broken windows, and they illuminate old problems or new opportunities in unexpected ways. | Change comes from fracture, disruption and disharmony: when shafts of light are thrown from unexpected angles by unintentionally broken windows, and they illuminate old problems or new opportunities in unexpected ways. | ||
Penicillin, the microwave, Velcro and the theory of the Big Bang were all discovered by accident. So too, | Penicillin, the microwave, Velcro and the theory of the Big Bang were all discovered by accident. So too, Teflon, vulcanised rubber, Viagra and Coca-Cola.<ref>According to [https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/g1216/10-awesome-accidental-discoveries/ ''Popular Mechanics'' Magazine].</ref> | ||
The great cultural changers of the last century, whatever you think of them — Tim Berners-Lee, Bob Dylan, Madonna, Sayyid Qutb, Mick Jagger, Trey Parker, Peter Thiel, Matt Stone, bel hooks, Tupac Shakur, Germaine Greer, Chelsea Manning, Nigel Farage, Steve Jobs, David Graeber, Nelson Mandela, Judith Butler, Greta Thunberg, Elvis — did not start out life as princes, presidents, prime ministers or chief executive officers. They were not of the establishment. They changed the establishment, so ''it'' became them. | |||
[[power structure|Utopia is not a stable state]]. | [[power structure|Utopia is not a stable state]]. |