In the face of uncertainty Part I
One of the points I try to make with clients and with students, with varying degrees of success, I might add, is that everything should be constantly evaluated and reevaluated as you go along. A certain dose of uncertainty is a healthy thing for business. What was once the case may no longer be even if we have accurately figured out what the original case was at first. And that may not be so certain either.
I find it amusing some of the conclusions people draw about successful people and companies. One late night, I saw this guy and his wife making a pitch for a course on how to be successful in business. "We have taken the most successful businessmen and figured out the characteristics that made them successful." All of that was available to the viewer for a fee as a seminar. The problem is, and it is the same problem with books like "The Seven Habits of Highly Successful People" is that it is not necessarily the case that the success came about because of those habits or characteristics. It might have come about notwithstanding those characteristics. To be a better study would require figuring out the habits of other people who might not be successful and seeing if there is a difference. And if you did that, I think you will find that those habits are not in short supply.
The same thing is true for business. It is the case that companies and managers, especially those who have pushed the thing that is getting the praise, say that it is because of the system that the company has been having the success it has. But it might be that the company is having the success in spite of the system. Employees are clever and they can often make it look like the system is being followed while doing something that is different, something that is more effective in making the company work. But the system gets the credit.
The point is that whatever it is you are implementing must be evaluated all the time to make sure that it is doing what it is supposed to do and that the results are actually what they are purported to be.
The Maginot Line was the great fortress the French set up to prevent the immense tragedy of another world war on the level of WWI. Millions of people died in that war and it was said that one in four of every French male between the ages of 18 and 40 something was killed in that war. (But that pales in comparison with what was to come.) It was based on fixed fortifications pointed toward the Germans and it was a military and technological marvel based on the best military and technological thinking of the day. All the weapons were trained on specific areas and they overlapped to blanket an area with firepower. And men could be moved from one spot to another to fortify a given position that had the potential to be overrun, by using an underground rail system. The whole French defense was based on the Maginot Line. It was impregnable. And all who looked at it agreed that it was impregnable. We would call it a benchmarked system.
Part II
I find it amusing some of the conclusions people draw about successful people and companies. One late night, I saw this guy and his wife making a pitch for a course on how to be successful in business. "We have taken the most successful businessmen and figured out the characteristics that made them successful." All of that was available to the viewer for a fee as a seminar. The problem is, and it is the same problem with books like "The Seven Habits of Highly Successful People" is that it is not necessarily the case that the success came about because of those habits or characteristics. It might have come about notwithstanding those characteristics. To be a better study would require figuring out the habits of other people who might not be successful and seeing if there is a difference. And if you did that, I think you will find that those habits are not in short supply.
The same thing is true for business. It is the case that companies and managers, especially those who have pushed the thing that is getting the praise, say that it is because of the system that the company has been having the success it has. But it might be that the company is having the success in spite of the system. Employees are clever and they can often make it look like the system is being followed while doing something that is different, something that is more effective in making the company work. But the system gets the credit.
The point is that whatever it is you are implementing must be evaluated all the time to make sure that it is doing what it is supposed to do and that the results are actually what they are purported to be.
The Maginot Line was the great fortress the French set up to prevent the immense tragedy of another world war on the level of WWI. Millions of people died in that war and it was said that one in four of every French male between the ages of 18 and 40 something was killed in that war. (But that pales in comparison with what was to come.) It was based on fixed fortifications pointed toward the Germans and it was a military and technological marvel based on the best military and technological thinking of the day. All the weapons were trained on specific areas and they overlapped to blanket an area with firepower. And men could be moved from one spot to another to fortify a given position that had the potential to be overrun, by using an underground rail system. The whole French defense was based on the Maginot Line. It was impregnable. And all who looked at it agreed that it was impregnable. We would call it a benchmarked system.
Part II
posted by Scott W. Clark at 9:54 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home