This link has been bookmarked by 30 people . It was first bookmarked on 21 Aug 2010, by JimC Rast.
-
15 May 11
David KoepkeThe End of Management http://bit.ly/avvCKG [Shoulda qualified it as Mgmt 1.0. Otherwise, just FUD. DNO+IFL+DBI=Mgmt 2.0. Will explain soon.]
-
29 Aug 10
-
24 Aug 10
-
23 Aug 10
Vahid MasrourVery interesting piece on organizational design for the XXIst Century.
management organizational design organization2.0 collaboration
-
They were an answer to the challenge of organizing thousands of people in different places and with different skills to perform large and complex tasks, like building automobiles or providing nationwide telephone service
-
They were designed and tasked, not with reinforcing market forces, but with supplanting and even resisting the market
-
Clayton Christensen's "The Innovator's Dilemma
-
They listened closely to their customers. They carefully studied market trends. They allocated capital to the innovations that promised the largest returns. And in the process, they missed disruptive innovations that opened up new customers and markets for lower-margin, blockbuster products.
-
the ability of human beings on different continents and with vastly different skills and interests to work together and coordinate complex tasks has taken quantum leaps.
-
We have both a need and an opportunity to devise a new form of economic organization, and a new science of management, that can deal with the breakneck realities of 21st century change.
-
the even bigger challenge of creating structures that motivate and inspire workers
-
It will have to push power and decision-making down the organization as much as possible, rather than leave it concentrated at the top
-
Traditional bureaucratic structures will have to be replaced with something more like ad-hoc teams of peers, who come together to tackle individual projects, and then disband
-
-
Bertrand Duperrin"But can this great 20th century innovation survive and thrive in the 21st? Evidence suggests: Probably not. "Modern" management is nearing its existential moment."
management managers bureaucracy change transactioncosts coase resources resourceallocation costallocation
-
Corporations are bureaucracies and managers are bureaucrats. Their fundamental tendency is toward self-perpetuation. They are, almost by definition, resistant to change. They were designed and tasked, not with reinforcing market forces, but with supplanting and even resisting the market.
-
The weakness of managed corporations in dealing with accelerating change is only half the double-flanked attack on traditional notions of corporate management. The other half comes from the erosion of the fundamental justification for corporations in the first place.
-
He argued corporations were necessary because of what he called "transaction costs." It was simply too complicated and too costly to search for and find the right worker at the right moment for any given task, or to search for supplies, or to renegotiate prices, police performance and protect trade secrets in an open marketplace. The corporation might not be as good at allocating labor and capital as the marketplace; it made up for those weaknesses by reducing transaction cost
-
Complicated enterprises, like maintaining Wikipedia or building a Linux operating system, now can be accomplished with little or no corporate management structure at all.
-
They believe corporate hierarchies will disappear, as individuals are empowered to work together in creating "a new era, perhaps even a golden one, on par with the Italian renaissance or the rise of Athenian democracy."
-
Transaction costs are rapidly diminishing. And as a result, everything we learned in the last century about managing large corporations is in need of a serious rethink. We have both a need and an opportunity to devise a new form of economic organization, and a new science of management, that can deal with the breakneck realities of 21st century change.
-
The new model will have to be more like the marketplace, and less like corporations of the past. It will need to be flexible, agile, able to quickly adjust to market developments, and ruthless in reallocating resources to new opportunities.
-
Resource allocation will be one of the biggest challenges. The beauty of markets is that, over time, they tend to ensure that both people and money end up employed in the highest-value enterprises. In corporations, decisions about allocating resources are made by people with a vested interest in the status quo.
-
Because engineers don't have to compete for funds, the Google approach doesn't have the discipline of a true marketplace, and it hasn't yet proven itself as a way to generate incremental profits. But it does allow new ideas to get some attention.
-
Information gathering also needs to be broader and more inclusive. Former Procter & Gamble CEO A.G. Lafley's demand that the company cull product ideas from outside the company, rather than developing them all from within, was a step in this direction. (It even has a website for submitting ideas.) The new model will have to go further. New mechanisms will have to be created for harnessing the "wisdom of crowds." Feedback loops will need to be built that allow products and services to constantly evolve in response to new information. Change, innovation, adaptability, all have to become orders of the day.
-
-
-
Larry HawesVery good article on competencies of corporate bureaucracy and the forces that are making that management style obsolete.
-
22 Aug 10
-
Riitta RaesmaaThe End of Management | WSJ http://bit.ly/avvCKG "old methods won't last much longer" /via @oscarberg @dhinchcliffe
-
21 Aug 10
-
Oscar BergThe End of Management | WSJ http://bit.ly/avvCKG /via @dhinchcliffe "old methods won't last much longer."
-
kerrieanneReading: The End of Management | WSJ http://bit.ly/avvCKG The rise of "mass collaboration" as the new economic model #socbiz\n- Dion Hinchcliffe (dhinchcliffe) http://twitter.com/dhinchcliffe/statuses/21768484078
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.