Is It Really Possible To Reinvent Management?
A few months back I sat down for a conversation with one of the world’s most distinguished organizational theorists, an emeritus professor who has published more articles in A-list journals than I’ve had hot breakfasts. As we sipped our coffees and peered out into the trees that surround my home office, I shared my dreams for the future of management. Surely, I argued, there must be a way of making big companies more resilient—of helping them to become as nimble as they are efficient.
And shouldn’t we be able to figure out a way of making large organizations as innovative as they are disciplined? And what about the 80% of employees around the world who, according to survey statistics, are less than fully engaged in their work? I mean, jeez, there has to be a way of making organizational a lot more uplifting and a lot less dispiriting.
As I prattled on, the wise old professor leaned back in his chair and made a tent with his fingers. Clearly, my enthusiasm, tinged with more than a little righteous indignation, wasn’t proving to be as infectious as I had hoped. Soon I was getting the same politely tolerant look that parents reserve for precocious ten year olds intent on becoming fighter pilots or deep sea divers.
“Gary,” my visitor interrupted, “those are laudable goals, but they’re entirely incompatible with the essential nature of large organizations. Big companies are the way they are.”
Unwilling to pick an argument with this grandee, I backed off, and soon the conversation drifted onto other topics. But as my august visitor backed out of the drive, I reflected on his pessimism. Was he right? Was there really only one methodology for managing large groups of individuals at work, one built around Max Weber’s creaky, old bureaucratic model?
OK. I admit it. I don’t know if it’s really possible to build an organization that elicits a full measure of imagination and passion from every one of its members. I don’t know whether it’s possible to create companies that can change as fast as change itself. I don’t know whether it’s possible to achieve momentous feats of coordination without creating equally momentous bureaucracies. (Picture, if you will, the 4,000 souls who labored inside of Microsoft to produce Vista, the latest release of the Windows operating system.) Nevertheless, I’m sure as hell unwilling to assume that fundamental advances in how we lead, manage and organize are simply impossible.
I live close to Stanford University, and when I poke around the engineering school, the computer science department, or the medical school, I come across folks who are ferociously intent on inventing the future. They are hard at work conjuring up new materials, perfecting new processes, creating new algorithms, and testing new therapies. They are discontented with the current state of scientific knowledge and dream of achieving big breakthroughs that will change millions of lives. You will understand, then, my frustration with the fact that so few management professors seem committed to inventing the future of management.
Unlike their counterparts in medicine, engineering, and computer science, business school professors don’t generally see themselves as the inventors of new methods, tools and approaches. Most study management as it is, and seldom dream of management as it might be, or should be. They describe, but they don’t create. Like the esteemed academician who visited my office on the cool, autumn afternoon, they seem to believe that it’s impossible to change the bureaucratic nature of big companies; that we’ll never be able to overcome the systemic incompetencies of large organizations. (Never mind the fact that it was human beings who invented the modern industrial company in the first place.)
By and large, my scholarly peers are not romantics—they have not devoted themselves to a grand quest. Within management research, there is no project equivalent in scope and ambition to reducing carbon emissions, curing AIDS, imbuing machines with intelligence, developing hydrogen-powered vehicles, or commercializing space travel. Where is management’s Human Genome Project? Where is its $100 laptop? Where is its manned mission to Mars?
Sure, the pace of scientific progress is constrained by the laws of science. But progress can equally be constrained by a lack of daring. At the moment, I think it is most the latter that constrains our progress in inventing organizations that are strategically adaptable, endlessly innovative, and highly engaging places to work.
Visit the Gary Hamel home page
MORE ON MANAGEMENT AND INNOVATION:
The Future of Management (Hardcover)
The Why, What, and How of Management Innovation (HBR Aricle)
Market-Led Innovation: How Your Customers--and Your Competitors--Can Help You Innovate (HBR Executive Edition)
- Comments (8)
- Join the Discussion
Gary Hamel is Visiting Professor of Strategic and International Management at the 
Comments
Dear Prof. Hamel,
I share your concern for the relative lack of innovation in management. One reason could be that management is not a
science - at best, it is a craft. Critical to the lack of
new constructs is the failure of management to stand the
test of repeatability. What works for one organization more
often than not does not work for another. To quote from two
domains you have mentioned: in medicine, the development of
statins in the '80s led to the spawning of a whole host of
drugs, all through what might be referred to as molecular
jugglery, and to billions of dollars in revenues and profits;
in computer science, the mastery of integrated circuits (and
Moore's Law) have helped Intel retain its pre-eminent position
in the microprocessor industry. Such a phenomenon is hard to
come by in management.
When we discuss management in the context of organizational
development, we tend to look at three stages - entrepreneurial,
organizational, and intrapreneurial. Many organizations, even
the successful ones, retain at least some remnants of the entrepreneurial stage even when they grow into large corporations. A significant proportion of organizations do evolve to the next
stage in terms of structure, some degree of delegation, perhaps even of empowerment.
It is my humble submission that the real problem for organizations to be innovative is their inability to reach the third level. How many organizations can we think of that we can accept as being intrapreneurial? Top management is happy with the status-quo, and the pressure of quarterly earnings prevents anyone from taking risks that may prove costly for the organization. Change is painful, change clallenges established conventions, and therefore it is not surprising that managers as a group do not want radical change. Inevitably, over a period of time, this leads to a state of "organizational atrophy" - due to the propensity of managers not willing to (or not being allowed to) stick their necks out in the search for new ways of managing, the ability to innovate itself diminishes.
A few organizations (Google as an example) seem to be trying the intrapreneurial model. The long-term sustainability or otherwise of the model would probably determine whether management as a discipline is ready for new thinking.
Warm Regards
- Posted by B V Krishnamurthy
October 11, 2007 5:02 AM
Dear Sir,
If you go back to the prehistoric ages like the Stone Age, Iron Age, Copper Age all humanity tried and is still trying to tackle one thing i.e. SURVIVAL.
In the quest off survival against wild animals, enemies, climatic and natural calamities, catastrophic situations like epidemic disease even imperialism.
They have invented the defense mechanism with all their brains and master minds.
Management to Profitability Chain.
Management is Problem solving.
Problem is Survival.
Survival requires Strategy.
Strategy needs Administration.
Administration needs proper Planning.
Planning needs Execution.
Execution needs ability to Perform.
Performance needs Productivity.
Productivity leads to Profitability.
If you start from Alex The Great, Sun Tzu, Prof Blacket, Collin Powell all great generals were great Strategist, and all have done management in marshalling their resources and used them optimally in reaping the maximum benefits. Sandhurst and West Point academy may be the best management schools in the world apart from military academy. They have gone from Management to Profitability Chain.
Today’s Management Science to a great extent is indebted to Military Science.
Now take for example Medical Science, right from the discovery of Penicillin to Anti Cancer, Anti HIV, Repairing of damaged brain cell, it is matter of management to profitability chain. Back to back DNA structure has been adopted by many management experts in defining culture of a firm.
Today’s Management Science to a great extent is indebted to Biological Science..
If you take Engg Science, James Watt, Bill Gates to Larry Page, from Steam Engine to Nanotechnology all have gone through Management to Profitability Chain.
Today’s Management Science is indebted to Engg Science. They have enhanced productivity.
In the field of Economics from Adam Smith to Md Younis they have gone through the
Management to Profitability Chain. Economics is a part of Management science. Management can not ignore them.
In Politics, Gandhi, Mandela, Washington has all gone from Management to Profitability.
Management Science is indebted to all great political leaders like Mandela, Washington, Gandhi and many more as they showed us leadership.
Profitability does not mean only mean money but in greater term the profitability in a broader way can be used to the society as a whole freedom from poverty, decease, freedom from imperialism. I think the management science is universal, it is always getting rediscovered and reinvented in different ways. Every body is rediscovering and reinventing management in their own way and solving problems in their own ways and own problem ultimately leading to greater profitability.
Management is nobody’s monopoly, rather it is a dependent and adopting things from others.
- Posted by Debashish Brahma
October 13, 2007 4:11 AM
Prof Hamel,
You raise an interesting and relevant point regarding the role that management academics/researchers have chosen to take. I think the key difference between engineering/scientific research and management research is that the former is driven by visionaries (even is sometimes narrow) while the later is driven my historians.
They document and spin various interpretations on what is and what was, rather than taking a proactive position. Even Michael Porter waited until almost 2 years after the crash before commenting on the internet!
The grand quest you describe is not something management academics are pursuing, it is the practicing managers working in real organisations, dealing with real issues, real customers, real people and real competition who a pursuing the grand quest, who are innovating - usually by trial and error.
To see a vision of the what the future of management may hold we do not need look behind the doors of business schools, but rather, in the factories of Toyota, the offices of SAP, the labs of Gortex etc.
The grand quest is being pursued - in the real world, not in ivory towers.
Regards
Max Zornada
ps. always enjoy reading your books and articles. They are always thought provoking and mind expanding.
- Posted by Max Zornada
October 16, 2007 10:28 AM
Your post is very interesting you may have read my post on this topic but if you take a deep look as you mentioned Toyota, i.e. the famous Toyota Manufacturing Model and Taiichi Ohno.
They have introduced Kaizen and Kanban from a Buddhist Philosophy which they practice in daily life and bought in the shop floor of Toyota and got grand results.
Management Science is a Melting Pot of all thoughts from all field. Rather if you analyze BCS, TQM, Five Forces, Benchmarking all are more or less borrowed from other faculties and have been properly utilised and enhanced for better productivity and profitability in firms management. It is a derivative knowledge.
Regards,
Debashish Brahma.
- Posted by Debashish Brahma
October 17, 2007 7:29 AM
Dear All,
The question of conformism in management is really a good one.
I believe there is no easy answer to that. I will only point in a single direction. There are many.
Today when one says management then economics and business immediately pop-up. But if the management discipline is mis-placed these days?
Someone in a prevoius post mentioned great military commanders and military schools. Was that management? Obviously yes.
But what about a humanitary organization delivering medical support to an empoverished region? Do they do management? Obviously yes.
But a kindergarden teacher organizing a day trip? Or a movie director shooting the next soap opera? All these involve management. Actually most of the management taking place around the world has little to nothing in common with either business or economics.
Maybe the time is right to work towards transforming Management from a discipline to a science in itself. A science and not an art.
Hopefully then we will see not only doctors-to-be, engineers-to-be, physicists-to-be, but also let's say - for lack of a proper name - organizationists-to-be. They would plan revolutions and debate innovations in management.
One final note: we must keep a clear distinction in mind between what I called organizationists (i.e. experts in management) and managers or leaders. These apply many things in their work. Management is just a part.
- Posted by dr Flaviu Raducanu
October 18, 2007 11:53 AM
Dear All,
The question of conformism in management is really a good one.
I believe there is no easy answer to that. I will only point in a single direction. There are many.
Today when one says management then economics and business immediately pop-up. But if the management discipline is mis-placed these days?
Someone in a prevoius post mentioned great military commanders and military schools. Was that management? Obviously yes.
But what about a humanitary organization delivering medical support to an empoverished region? Do they do management? Obviously yes.
But a kindergarden teacher organizing a day trip? Or a movie director shooting the next soap opera? All these involve management. Actually most of the management taking place around the world has little to nothing in common with either business or economics.
Maybe the time is right to work towards transforming Management from a discipline to a science in itself. A science and not an art.
Hopefully then we will see not only doctors-to-be, engineers-to-be, physicists-to-be, but also let's say - for lack of a proper name - organizationists-to-be. They would plan revolutions and debate innovations in management.
One final note: we must keep a clear distinction in mind between what I called organizationists (i.e. experts in management) and managers or leaders. These apply many things in their work. Management is just a part.
- Posted by dr Flaviu Raducanu
October 18, 2007 11:55 AM
It is great to know about this group. It will help me and my students regarding the field of Management, Organization and OD.
- Posted by Dr.Rashid Rehman
October 24, 2007 3:53 AM
Dear Professor Hamel
Its possible to reinvent management.If one reads "Origin of Wealth",(Ref: Erick Beinhocker, 2006, HBS press) one will realise that modern economics came from 19th century physics and 20th century management was essentially born out of 19th century Economics. Where as Economics itself is undergoing a fundamental change, (if you have to believe Mr.Erick Beinhocker & Santa Fe institute researchers) and this (perhaps) implies that 20th century business has been mostly run with "Hand-Me-Down" principles from Economics. (Correct me If I am wrong)
You may ask why I am talking like a Dino? Everyone knows this! Well ! The interesting thing is that PHYSICS itself is undergoing a fundamental transformation !! IF we are to belive in the Physics-Economics-Business linkage, then we are all set for a major revolution, that is brewing in Physics, which will eventually change Economics and that in turn will change Business. Thereby Management will fundamentally reinvent itself. But this may take another 20-25 years and beyond.
After reading Mr.Beinhocker's book 3 times, I realized that the roots, the origin lies in Physics, Now here I had a strange and fortuitous connection: My wife is a graduate in Physics and a post graduate in pure mathematics, she keeps reading books in Physics & right from my childhood I have been fascinated by stars, galaxies, blackholes, quasars, pulsars. In physics for nearly a century now there has been a fundamental clash between Quantum Physics and Einsteinian Physics, now a new Theory in physics is offering solutions to solve this century old clash called : STRING THEORY. String theorists claim that from majestic swirl of galaxies to cosmic dance of invisible particles everything can be explained by ONE SINGLE MASTER EQUATION.
A book called : "Endless Universe" by Neil Turok and Paul Steinhardt, (Doubleday, 2007) talks about STRING theory and revives an ancient idea of a cyclical universe, expressed in Hindu and Greek Comsology, There's another book called : "Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene, (sorry! I forgot the publisher's name) which talks about STRING theory in detail, this book is slightly technical and I had to take help from my wife to understand some chapters.
But after reading the first book itself, one will realize that a major revolution is brewing in Theoretical Physics, and going by Complexity theory scholars like Beinhocker, Brian Arthur, Philip Anderson, a revolution is brewing in Economics as well. Just as STRING theory in physics offering promise to solve a century old clash, Complexity Economics offers promise to unite the two conflicting branches of Economics : Macro and Micro.
By now you may be asking a question to me: How does all this fancy stuff relate to day to day management ? It does !
The key once again lies from managing on visibles alone to visualizing the invisible, thereby seamlessly work forward and back from present to future and from future to present. Neo-Classcial Economics over simplified business situations and arrived at equilibrium models, these models got into all managerial disciplines and millions of B-school graduates still come out stuffed with this obsolete knowledge, when confronted with a very complex reality, their education doesn't help them.
The unifying theory of management once again may follow its historical predecessor and follow the Physics-Economics-Management sequence. But I am 100% sure, the cornerstone of the theory has to be : FROM WORKING ON VISIBLES TO VISUALIZING THE INVISIBLE. Increasingly its the effect of invisible forces, that has to be taken into account, Physicists say that only 10% of the matter in Universe is visible, the rest comprises something called: DARK ENERGY and DARK MATTTER and they suspect that these two mysterious characters actually play a bigger role in deciding the Universe's fate.
In modern business, once again there's a striking parallel: the effect that invisible forces have on company' s strategy is more telling than effects of visible forces. There are 4 powerful undercurrents (refer my comments posted yesterday in your blog) that affects business environment and their interplay gives rise to all visible symptoms like overcapacity, price wars, etc. Managers only analyse the visible symptoms, THEY DONOT ANALYSE THE INVISIBLE.
Physics talks about nature and business is part of nature itself, thereby business can't escape the natural laws of evolution.
The answer: whether its possible to reinvent management will NOT COME FROM WITHIN EXISTING BUSINESS WISDOM.
How does one connect the VISIBLE TO INVISIBLE? This is a detailed process and can't be described here. Those who wish to know more about my theory may contact me at:
dasgupta@asiapacific.edu /shiladitya_2003@rediffmail.com
- Posted by S Dasgupta
June 4, 2008 12:00 AM