What's Best Next

You are here: Home / 2009 / Archives for November 2009

Archives for November 2009

Two Ways to Change the World

by

Jim Collins states the two ways to shape society in his comments on Peter Drucker:

There are two ways to change the world: the pen (the use of ideas) and the sword (the use of power). Drucker chose the pen, and thereby rewired the brains of thousands who carry the sword. Those who choose the pen have an advantage over those who wield the sword: the written word never dies.

This is from the introduction to Drucker’s Management, revised Edition.

Richard Sibbes on Being Well-Ordered

by

From the Puritan Richard Sibbes:

Having a well-ordered, uniform life, not consisting of fits and starts, shows a well-ordered heart; as in a clock, when the hammer strikes well, and the hand of the dial points well, it is a sign that the wheel are rightly set.

The Four Main Thinking Processes

by

I’ve always found it helpful to remember the four main levels of thinking:

  1. Analysis: Taking an alarm clock apart to find out what makes it tick. Involves description and classification.
  2. Synthesis: Putting parts of three clocks together to make one functioning alarm piece. That is, you put parts of the old together to form something new.
  3. Application: Using information to do something.
  4. Evaluation: Using information to decide whether something is of value.

A Culture of Discipline Plus an Ethic of Entrepreneurship

by

Jim Collins: “When you put these two complementary forces together — a culture of discipline with an ethic of entrepreneurship — you get the magical alchemy of superior performance and sustained results.”

But, realize that you can’t jump straight to disciplined action. You have to first have disciplined people, and then disciplined thought. Then you have the foundation for disciplined action. This is the fundamental point of Good to Great.

“Disciplined action without self-disciplined people is impossible to sustain, and disciplined action without disciplined thought is a recipe for disaster.”

Are Management and Entrepreneurship at Odds?

by

Sometimes there is a tendency to think that managers are slow and controlled, and entrepreneurs are exciting and progressive. The manager thus hinders the entrepreneur and makes everything boring.

And this can happen. But that is bad management. And in the same way that bad management makes things too controlled, bad entrepreneurship makes things unsustainable. We need both good management and good entrepreneurship. And entrepreneurship is a key component of the managerial task.

Here’s how Peter Drucker puts it:

One important advance in the discipline and practice of management is that both now embrace entrepreneurship and innovation. A sham fight these days pits “management” against “entrepreneurship” as adversaries, if not as mutually exclusive.

That’s like saying that the fingering hand and the bow hand of the violinist are “adversaries” or “mutually exclusive.” Both are always needed and at the same time.

Any existing organization, whether a business, a church, a labor union, or a hospital, goes down fast if it does not innovate. Conversely, any new organization, whether a business, a church, a labor union, or a hospital, collapses if it does not manage.

Not to innovate is the single largest reason for the decline of existing organizations. Not to know how to manage is the single largest reason for the failure of new ventures. (The Essential Drucker, p 8.)

Leadership Advice from Ronald Reagan

by

Here’s a good quote from Reagan:

Surround yourself with the best people you can find, delegate authority, and don’t interfere as long as the policy you’ve decided on is being carried out.

Note three things.

First, delegate authority–not tasks. I’m not saying there’s no place for delegating tasks, but if that’s your focus it won’t scale. You have to delegate responsibility areas and give people the authority to carry them out. (Responsibility in the final sense, of course, rests with the leader–he or she is the one ultimately accountable for results.)

Second, that means that you consequently need to let your people act–if you keep interfering and micromanaging, you haven’t truly delegated authority.

Third, notice that Reagan didn’t simply say “don’t interfere.” Which is interesting because the one main criticism of his leadership is that he was too hands-off. What he said was don’t interfere as long as the policy you decided on is being carried out.

There are defined outcomes. Let the person find their own way to accomplish them. If the policy that was decided on is not being carried out, then you need help the person make some course corrections.

The Unusual Origins of 15 Innovative Companies

by

A good article over at BNet. They note:

Entrepreneurs worry too much about what they’re going to develop, make, or market. What’s more important is that they make, develop or market something. The odds that they end up making it big doing something different are apparently pretty high.Here are 15 companies that became famous, not for what they started doing, but for something that came later. Sure, they may be related, but the point is still valid: better to get started on something; innovative people find a way.

This jibes with Jim Collins’ research in Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies. They argue against “the myth of the single great idea.” In other words, great companies are often not the result of an initial great idea that propels them to success. What makes them great is that the product becomes the vehicle for the company, not the other way around.