WB's Way: Intro

I’ve never really bought into the idea that graduates of MBA programs know better ‘an the rest of us what makes companies tick. Peter Drucker was a sociologist. Kenneth Andrews, who (among other things) headed up Harvard Business School’s advanced management programs in the '70s, earned a PhD in English.

Walter Kiechel wrote about both men in The Lords of Strategy, lauding them for the power of their insights and their contributions to The Secret Intellectual History of the New Corporate World. (the book’s subtitle) He described Andrews as “a humanist in all that word’s senses.” And, he noted about Drucker that his “output was so rich, wide-ranging, and ever-renewed with fresh observations that it somehow didn’t come across as systematic.”

Rereading those snippets the other day, I couldn’t help but think of Wendell Berry. 

Wendell Berry.“The best serious essayist at work in the United States.” The recipient, this past March, of the 2010 National Humanites Medal. A swell guy, in my eyes, whose values, opinions, and sensibilities have intrigued me for at least a dozen years.

During their careers, Messrs. Drucker and Andrews were up to their respective elbows in big business. As for Mr. Berry? The word “business” hardly ever surfaces in his writings. And yet he has loads to say about: Work. Economy. Community. Propriety…

The human condition. That’s been his domain. Within it, he's developed interesting points of view that (IMO) speak to the role of people in getting things done and making things better. He's examined all sorts of stuff business thinkers haven’t traditionally shown much willingness to examine – but managers with responsibility for the overall success of their organizations must necessarily address.

I have a vague feel for Wendell Berry’s formula (which has ne’er been formulated, as far as I know) for success. I have a sense I’d enjoy working alongside him. But, I’m not positive. So I want to get a firmer grip; I want to make his approach more explicit, if possible. And then kick it around some.

Ultimately, I’d like to end up with a more informed opinion about whether or not more Wendell Berry in business would be good for business.

Any business.

Simply Illuminating, 1.02

[Part 2 of a short series]

A smattering of diagrams. A few abstract representations. That’s the normal extent of the artwork in the business bibles I read -- much of which, in my opinion, is mediocre: as if tacked on at the last minute; not well-integrated with the text (like the best illuminations of old); not effective in its own right.

Why’s this the case? Why do some business communicators place more emphasis than others on telling their tales with pictures? How is the relative success of their methodologies impacted by their art choices?

Don’t know. Don’t know. Don’t know.

Won’t know, either, ‘til I start asking questions.

And bringing up a few examples.

THE BAD

I don’t want to dwell on the bad, but I would like to start with (and then summarily dismiss) an example. The diagram directly below was used in a just-published book I just read. The main message therein? It’s a leader’s job to align his or her company’s strategy, organization, and people:

Had a chance to drink it in? If so, need I say why it added next to nothing in terms of my comprehension or appreciation of the authors’ theme? Why it detracted from my reading experience? Seeing the thing made me want to revisit…

THE GOOD

The good ol’ growth-share matrix. Probably the most important conceptual tool of the earliest stage (between 1960 and 1980) of the so-called strategy revolution. Walter Kiechel III wrote appreciatively about it in his 2010 book The Lords of Strategy:

Admire for a moment, the beauty of the thing. In a single graphic and conceptual device, the Boston Consulting Group had managed to pull together all the elements it thought essential to strategy, including the three C’s. [costs, competition, customers]

I can relate. Here was a simple, balanced, four-box structure -- “festooned with witty symbols” – that captured and integrated several complex concepts that BCG had taken years to develop. It was easy to understand. And powerful. It could both track and predict industry change, and thus offered guidelines for how businesses were to be managed. Here ‘t’is:

THE BETTER

Another diagram I especially like is this one below, devised last year by Haviland Studio (Palo Alto, CA and Lahaina, HI) and used by John Hagel, et. al. in The Power of Pull. It’s essentially a roadmap of the authors’ “new approach to value creation.” Take a gander:

By my count, it incorporates at least eleven (11) major factors, or themes, covered in the book. It strikes me as: original; imaginative; harmonious; balanced; thoughtfully constructed. The sizes and shapes and relative positions of the various elements all have meaning, i.e., they’re well-matched to the concepts they represent. (The overall shape and directionality of the arrow, for example, reflects the exponential nature of what the authors call an “increasing-returns collaboration curve.” ) All for the better.

(NOT) THE END

If I had to rate the topmost diagram on an imaginary scale from one to ten, with one = “ugly” and ten = “beautiful”, I’d give it a two or three. I think it does have some redeeming qualities. (The scales we use for judging diagrams are less like old-fashioned phone lines with single metal wires – and more like bundles o’ fiber optic strands; objects can strike us as beautiful in some ways, but not in others.) By the same token, however, the two diagrams beneath it each have their own shortcomings:

• GROWTH-SHARE: If beauty is truth, as the poet Keats said, then you could make a case that the g-s matrix and the logic behind it -- which came to be attacked as simplistic, even dangerous (i.e., untrue) -- became less beautiful over time. From a strictly artistic standpoint, it's also not something you're likely to see in a gallery. Even in an intro to design course it wouldn't get high marks.
• PULL: Like it a lot but I have some doubts about its utility as a teaching tool (it hasn't furthered my understanding of the authors' approach) or as a guide for going forward (it's not something to which you’d refer before making decisions). It strikes me more as an impressive feat (as in, How in the world did they engineer all o' those concepts into a single diagram?) than an impressive communication tool intended to make a real-world difference.

The quest goes on. 

What have you seen out there? I’d welcome hearing about particular diagrams that've made lasting impressions. One way or the other.

Inside The Zen Bubble

Regarding the naming of the book In Search of Excellence by Bob Waterman and Tom Peters, Walter Kiechel III writes:

Then, “hastily,” they say, they [Bob and Tom] put together what they called a “thought starter” with the one-word title, “Excellence.”

But -- why that particular word, I wonder?

I’m gonna stick my neck out and say: I’ll bet those guys were under the zen influence at the time. (The pic below is below-up-able.)

P.S. Waterman, Peters and Richard Pascale (all of McKinsey & Company) -- along with Tony Athos (of Harvard Business School) -- developed what eventually became the 7S framework.