Are managers worrying enough?

@flowchainsensei (Bob Marshall) thinks "it’s pretty obvious that managers don’t lie awake nights worrying about the effectiveness of their wider organisations" and "it’s pretty obvious that managers don’t lie awake nights worrying about how to motivate, engage their staff".

For both tweets he invokes the #POSIWID hashtag.

I don't think it's obvious that managers are not worried . Even if most managers achieve little or nothing to improve the effectiveness of their organizations, or the motivation of their staff, that doesn't mean they aren't worried about these things. Stafford Beer's POSIWID principle tells us that the effectiveness of an organization is not always a straightforward consequence of the intentions or anxieties of its managers.

On his blog, Bob himself explains Why Corporates Can't Change. He also argues that "in most organisations, pretending about doing things meets more needs than actually doing those things". In other words, It's All An Act.

But this is surely one of the primary sources of organizational anxiety - the contradiction between pretence and reality. Is Bob really complaining that managers aren't worrying enough? Surely worry (or lack of worry) is a symptom rather than a cause?

Apprenticeship 2

The Apprentice is a TV reality show, pretending to be about management. See my earlier post on Apprenticeship (Feb 2011).

Following the latest programme, Derek Miers (@bpmfocus) argued that All the apprentices should be fired (June 2013). Derek was struck by how completely disorganized the candidates all appeared to be. I suggested that this appearance might be distorted by the TV edit, which would obviously leave out all the boring bits where people are doing things properly. "Yeah right", he replied.

@DavidFCox writes "Who is responsible for #theapprentice failures here? @Lord_Sugar for the ridiculous time scale. A sensible one cd have found gr8 product." @1xChrisHarvey agrees "Lord Sugar, you're fired." The Apprentice 2013, episode 6, BBC One, review (Telegraph 5 June 2013)

Failure? In entertainment terms, the only failure is bad ratings. The Purpose of the System is What it Does.

Spice Girls cut short world tour ...

"... owing to the phenomenal demand for tickets".

[source: BBC News]

In a competitive market, with variable prices, high demand pushes up the price which then triggers further supply. In a closed market, with fixed prices, high demand may have the paradoxical effect of reducing supply.

If the Spice Girls earn more than they expected from the first few concerts, this might have motivated them to put on even more concerts. On the other hand, it might mean they can't be bothered even to complete the concerts that were on the schedule.

And of course we should always question the data. What exactly is meant by the word "phenomenal"? Does it mean surprisingly high ... or surprisingly low? Here's what Wikipedia has to say on the subject of Anomalous Phenomena.

"Purported phenomena with explanations considered to be outside the scope of conventional science can be classified as paranormal phenomena. Because these anomalies are difficult to explain in terms of science, their existence is often challenged by skeptics."

Quite.


cross-posted to POSIWID blog

Asda versus Bloomsbury

extract from POSIWID blog

Following my earlier post on Lost Profits, a row has blown up between Asda (part of Wal-Mart) and Bloomsbury (publisher of some obscure children's book).

Potter publisher halts Asda order, BBC News July 17th 2007

The facts are (not surprisingly) disputed. But there is a suggestion that Asda has failed to pay in full for previous Harry Potter books. I don't know what has happened in this case, but supermarkets often apply retrospective discounts to their suppliers - paying less than the agreed price.

Supermarkets typically defend their price-cutting stance, and their aggression towards suppliers, by claiming that they represent the interests of consumers. In this case, Asda is claiming that the Harry Potter book is too expensive for children. Obviously Asda wants to make sure the children have some pocket money left for sweets as well.

... for the rest of this post, read Wal-de-Mart and the Profit Eaters

analysis

The Harry Potter phenomenon raises some interesting questions about the business model of media companies, which relies on large profits from a few blockbusters to cover the large risk of publishing unknown products. Emerging retail models, which seek to cream off the excess profits, represent a serious challenge to this traditional media model.

Similar analysis is prompted by Prince's recent decision to allow his latest album to be distributed in a newspaper, rather than through traditional channels. (Discussed in my post Lost Profits and by Fake Steve Jobs.)