On various occasions I have suggested that language is the biggest barrier to human progress. Words enter language at a particular point in human history to describe concepts, things, situations and needs of the moment. The perceptions are frozen into permanent words which then force us to look at the world through that frame for ever more. It is the usual problem of self-organising systems reaching a state of equilibrium and then being unable to move forward. Because of this inherent limitation of words, I wrote The de Bono Code Book, which suggests codes for complex situations that may then be perceived, in totality, at a glance. But that is not what I am writing about here.
The word 'manage' in the English language has a very clear meaning. It means to control things in such a way that they function as intended. A coachman driving a team of horses needs to 'manage' those horses so they pull together and turn the appropriate corners to reach the desired destination. It is also rare for the coachman to have decided that destination. The implication is that the system itself has not been designed by the 'manager'. The values, objective and destination of the system are also not decided by the 'manager'. There are some values which are decided by the coachman. These are the values involved in running the system effectively to reach the intended destination.
In a very similar way, the manager of a company is supposed to keep that system running smoothly and effectively. Local and immediate problems have to be solved. There has to be some foresight as to the problems and conditions that may lie ahead. The 'destination values' of profit and growth are both implicit in any company and usually laid out in some mission statement. That is the system - now you run it!
Where organisations have 'Chief Operating Officers' there is an acknowledgement that 'managing' is not all that is needed. In system terms you can manage for comfort, smoothness, minimal disturbance and plateau performance. None of this has much to do with growth, opportunities or most effective use of assets.
Management is essential. Management is the baseline. Without good management nothing much else matters. To compete, an athlete has to be fit. That is the baseline. Once an athlete is fit, then technique, strategy and psychology can all pay dividends. Fitness is essential - but it may not be sufficient. Fitness may be sufficient if all the other competing athletes believe that fitness is sufficient. But as soon as one of them adds strategy, then fitness is no longer sufficient for all the others. It is the same with corporations. Cost cutting and efficiency are sufficient if everyone else believes they are sufficient. But if some organisations start adding strategy and innovation, then cost cutting and efficiency are no longer enough. They are still essential - but not enough.
As managers move up the corporate ladder their success depends very largely on their 'management' ability. As they head units, departments, divisions and subsidiaries, what really matters is their ability to manage these entities. It is usually only when a manager reaches the most senior level that it becomes apparent that management is not enough. Now there is a need for strategy and for innovation. But these are not part of the skill set which has propelled that person into that position.
JUDGES AND LAWYERS
In the English system, lawyers practise as lawyers. As they become more skilled they move up the lawyer 'ladder' and become QCs, etc. A lawyer who has proved his or her ability may then be invited to become a judge. In this way judges are appointed or created. What this means is that judges are skilled lawyers who are moved into a position where a different set of skills may (possibly) be required. There is no reason why these people who have proved their ability and their intelligence cannot acquire these new skills. Mostly they do acquire the skills.
In the French system (subject to correction) judges start out on the career path of 'judges' . Presumably they start as 'assistants' and then move up that career ladder. This means that by the time they become judges they have a huge amount of experience in judge type skills. If we applied the same model to the corporate world, CEOs would start out on the career path of 'chief executive' and simply move up that path to the top. It is not clear how they would get the needed experience in that career path. Such a system would also be strongly resented by others who would now have no chance of becoming CEO.
There may be other ways of operating the concept. There could be two distinct career paths. One path would be the strictly 'management' function. The other path would be that of 'strategy'. The paths would be clearly defined from the beginning. There could be cross-overs by individuals at any stage but it would not be assumed that one path was adequate training for the other path. Why does this matter? Because executives who are trained in the strictly 'manager' role are not really open to innovation and growth. They may indeed take advice as to mergers and acquisitions but survival and stability are the end-values of any 'manager'. The effective running of the 'system' is what management is about.
It is true that how you define 'the system' will make a difference. If you define 'the system' to include competitors and the whole marketplace, then management should include strategy and innovation. That it is not so defined is shown by the emphasis in management education on 'problem-solving'. This suggests that the system is the corporation itself and its survival and functioning - just as the coachman is concerned with, say, changing a damaged wheel.
MISTAKES
An even more serious language problem is the word 'mistake'. If a train driver mistakes a signal and there is a crash, that is a serious mistake. If a nurse misreads instructions and delivers an overdose of a drug, that is a serious mistake. When a business venture fails, then it is assumed that a 'mistake' has been made. The mistake may be attributed to 'misreading the market', or 'poor product design', or 'undercapitalisation'. The mistake may be seen simply as 'poor management'. Because people do not like making mistakes, they tend to avoid new ventures. Why risk being labelled as the person who made 'that mistake'?
Yet 'mistake' or 'failure' may be totally the wrong word. There may have been full justification for the venture. Indeed, it might have been a real mistake not to undertake the venture. The venture may not have worked out for a number of reasons. There might have been factors which simply could not have been known in advance. There might have been changes in circumstances: political, economic, mood, etc., which could not have been foreseen.
There is a real difference between a 'mistake' which should not have been made, and a venture which should have been undertaken but which, nevertheless, failed. The words 'mistake' and 'failure' are too closely associated in language. There is a need for a word to imply 'a fully justified venture which did not work out for unforeseeable reasons'. There are several other words in general use which narrow and misdirect our perceptions. Our behaviour follows our perception, so the words control and limit our behaviour. The creation of new words is a very difficult task. New words do arise when an obviously new situation arises and needs describing. But to create new words to force us to look at existing situations in a new way is an almost impossible task!
read all 70 gurus with one feed read all Read all media
