ThinkingSparks

Trapped in the illusion of makeability

When years ago I started my Master of Philosophy of Management & Organization I had a rocky three months. Everything I believed in I questioned.

Having studied Business Administration, International Management and Strategic Marketing I had always been taught that everything is makeable. Not explicitely but it was implied. And that seems logical because that is wat management sciences are about. Trying to control the uncontrollable. Becoming masters of our own and our organization's destiny.

In order to become a master there always seem to be a list to follow or an X number of steps toward greatness. I never saw those lists as gospel as I am one of the most critical people I (and lots of other people) know. At least I was until I met all these philosophers. They were even more critical than I was. So compared to them I found myself to be a believer in makeability. Confronted with other insights and thought I had a bit of a crisis and discarded my naieve belief that everything is makeable. Makeability is an illusion. It was the answer I gave my students when they asked why change programs failed, big plans didn't work out or mergers resulted in a desillusion of its own.

It is a fata morgana everyone seems to be chasing though. Just now I read this blogpost "125 tips for buildiging an Irresistible brand". No doubt that these are great suggestions but the sheer number also illustrates how hard it is to make that irresistible brand. The critiqueless comments and the popularity of this particular blog illustrates that people want to believe in makeability and are hungry for lists.

After my baptism into the church of disbelief of makeability I for some time didn't know how to do deal with that. Eventually it came to me. As long as you know and accept that things aren't makeable you just give all that you can to influence actions and contexts. And you accept that you cannot influence everything. And be critical of lists and develop your own approach that you improve upon based on your experience and adapt based on different contexts. Just do not stay trapped in a critiqueless illusion of makeability.

But that is just my point of view on this topic. What is yours?

If it ain’t broke a philosopher can help you fix it…

Elaborated on my comment at Tom Peter’s weblog (no trackbacks there):

I think it is Schein who said that in mature organizations there is little time spent thinking on organizational culture. The culture that is, is the the one that brought the organization where it is today. So there is no need to do something about it. If it ain't broke why fix it?

Looking at one’s culture is looking at oneself. Taking a good look in the mirror is always difficult. The leader has a big impact on the culture, so he or she has to look first. Reflection and time to do so are needed, as are courage and honesty.

As I posted before organizations need philosophers, to create room for thought, reflection and contemplation and maybe even teach them how to do that.

Does creating shareholder value exclude authenticity?

In the ethics of economics the concept of normative theories is used. A normative theory is that which is a leading principle for the organization. There are two of those theories as far as I know. One is the stockholder theory and the other one is the stakeholder theory.

The stockholder theory was first described by Milton Friedman who saw it as the responsibility of businesses to increase its profits for its owners. R.E. Freeman is responsible for the stakeholder theory which basically states that there are more parties that have interests in the organization than investors, suppliers, employees and customers.

With either theory the interest of others (except employees; they form the organization) is the driving force behind the actions of businesses who subscribe to any of these two theories. And some people say that especially a stockholder theory and corporate social responsibility is mutually exclusive. Journalist Johann Hari seems to think so. The only responsibility the organization has is to make money for the stockholders. And there are others that claim the opposite. It is very well possible to follow both theories at the same time.

But as in my book being authentic is part of being CSR, can you be authentic and further other people’s interests on purpose? Doesn’t being authentic mean that you do your thing regardless of what other people think of it? Which in itself means that other people’s interests do not matter to you. Unless of course looking out for other people’s interests is part of your value set. The nature of these interests (economic, environmental etc. etc.) then start playing a role and how do you weigh these? Which interest is more important?

And how does talking of authentic brands work within organizations that are driven by creating shareholder value? Must authentic brands be socially responsible or can they be authentic without being CSR?

Stuff on which I need to do some more thinking. Several bloggers (Asacker, Lehew, Arruda, Branding Strategy Insider, BrandXpress) have written about authentic brands, I value their opinion and those of their readers. I invite their input.

Sheepwalkers need philosophers

The other day I was having dinner with a friend of mine. We are both doing the Philosophy of Management and Organization Master. He just graduated, I plan to do so this year. So we are talking about the lack of room to think within organizations. People just do what they always did and cruise on their automatic pilot.

My company Sparkers (sorry site is only in Dutch at the moment) wants to help, teach and inspire organizations to start thinking again and ultimately help themselves make their own strategic choices and implement its consequences. Sparkers doesn’t want to tell companies what to do, solve their problems for them or own their solutions.

After the conversation with my friend I thought the reason why so many organizations hire consultants to solve their problems for them, is that they either do not have or want to reserve the time to think, they do not value the importance of thinking or that they have forgotten how to think at all. They leave the thinking on crucial issues to others and run the risk of becoming sheepwalkers (by Seth Godin) in the process.

Sheepwalkers and organizations alike need philosophers, to create room for thought, reflection and contemplation and maybe even teach them how to do that.

Coincidence or not?

According to my ontology professor René van Woudenberg the word coincidence can have different meanings:

1. Unplanned/Not manipulated/Not intended
2. Unexpected. This is an epistemic term as it indicates a relation with a rational being. Epistimology is the studie of truths, beliefs and knowledge.
3. Unpredictable. This too is an epistemic term as it indicates a relation with a rational being.
4. “Uncaused”. Ontological term; the coincidence would be there if we do not exist.
5. Unlikely. This can be ontological as well as epistemicological.

Coincidence is often seen as being the cause, where coincidence actually indicates that we do not know the cause. There is a distinction between:

• coincidence à you do not know the cause.
• coincidence à there is no cause.

According to Van Woudenberg coincidence and design are mutually exclusive. I remember one of my business professors saying that business is all about managing coincidences. But if I interpret Van Woudenberg correctly, management and coincidence cannot coexist. That would be the kind of coincidence when there is no cause. When we talk about coincidence of the sort where we do not know the cause, I would say that managers are problemsolvers trying to find out what caused what and how to use it again next time to their benefit or prevent it from happening again.

With thanks to Seth’s post on coincidence for the inspiration!