It's official - bad management drives staff to leave

The BBC reported today that findings from a Chartered Management Institute survey which revealed almost half of UK workers saying they have left a job because of bad management.

Forty-nine per cent say that under less drastic circumstances, they would rather take a pay cut than work for someone who made bad decisions. The findings come in a survey from the Chartered Institute of Management, as it attempts to launch a campaign to improve standards among bosses. It wants the government to make developing effective managers a national priority.

But the survey also found unhappiness among managers themselves. Sixty-eight per cent said they had fallen into the role by chance and 40% admitted they had not wanted the responsibility of managing people at all ... and Ruth Spellman, CMI's chief executive, said: "The figures reveal the depth of the crisis of confidence in UK management."

She added that such bad management was taking an enormous toll on the UK economy - and on people's well-being. The organisation promotes what it calls the 'art and science' of management and is pressing for action from the government to improve Britain's performance in this area.

It has launched a Manifesto for a Better Managed Britain, and whilst this is indeed honorable cause, the article unfortunately serves to highlight how little they know, and how far they are behind in their understanding in the 'art'/'science' of 21st century leadership & management. My own book successfully decoded the 'science behind 21st century management' practice two years ago ... and it also highlighted the 'art of 21st century leadership' too ...

... I'm afraid the institute hasn't got it's head around the basic definitions yet, and is still lost in the 'soup of generality', outdated practice (nb MBA = "Maybe Best Avoided"!) and misconception ... and as my recent blog pointed out ... most 'leaders' and 'managers' haven't seen half of what's yet to come ... e.g. the complete exposure of their failings, and tsunami of litigation heading their way ...

Does Size Matter ?

Stephanie Flanders started a blog yesterday entitled "Does size matter?" ... but in my view it mostly missed the point ... so I have started to ask this question in a more effective way (see below). Stephanie (and the BBC) are clearly failing in their job (and their duty) so we'll have to do it ourselves instead ... Stephanie referred to QE (Quantatitive Easing), but I think there are much more fundamental issues than that ...

.....

Does Size Matter? .... Well I think the question should be "Does the Size of ..... Matter?" For instance take a look at few 'starter for ten' examples I've included below ...

* The size of our debt

* The size of the trade/budget deficits

* The size of the future pensions crisis

* The size of our untapped talent (unemployment, part-time, temporary working)

* The size of the innovation gap

* The size of the population stressed and insecure about their jobs/future

* The size of the waste (between 40%-90%) and frustration systematically created by out of date 'leadership' and 'management' practices

* The gap between what current 'leaders' are 'telling you' and what is actually 'true'

* The size of the gap between the 'leadership' we currently have and the 'leadership' we really need

* The size of the cover ups we now see

* The size of the greed/incompetence current leaders show

* The size of the culpability, current leaders will bear

* The size of the anger that is yet to rise from the people

* The size of the problem that will be eventually occur before most people decide to do something about it

* The size of the failure that will result from people not taking responsibility, or being accountable for what they do (and don't do)

* The size of the hypocrisy we now see

* The size of the gap between the behaviours we now see and the ethical behaviours (trust, honor, responsibility, respect - Leanomics) we now need

* The size of the 'backlash' likely to occur when most people realise what 'leaders' have been doing

* The size of the wealth being generated for just a few, and the expense of the many

* The size of the self interest/greed which will cause certain nations to collapse

* The size of the collusion that exist to stop progress/improvements being made

* The size of conspiracies that exist, to benefit the few and not the many

* The size of the group who 'manipulate wealth' rather than 'add value' and 'create wealth'

* The size of the arrogance of those in Power

* The size of the failure in 'leadership' we now see

* The size and number of scams we now see

* The size of failure and the lack of democracy people actually have (one of the biggest scams/spin of all)

* The size of the failure by mainstream education, and the impact this will have on us too

* The size of the failure created (and the lack of wisdom shown) by 'traditional establishments', and their failure to see this too

* The size and misuse of power, from all those in 'power' (Poweromics)

* The size of the group who do not understand this (an example of Ignoromics Type 1*)

* The size of the apathy from people at large (an example of Ignoromics Type 2*)

* The size of the collapse the nation is still yet to see

* The size of power hard-working people currently have but have not yet realised

* The size of change we have to come

* The size of the crisis will get before we see the changes we now need

* The size of our irrelevance in the world of the future

* The size of gap that will continue to grow, until people become more curious and take more responsibility for doing things differently

* The size of the gap between what current 'leaders' & 'management' do and what 21st century "leadership" & "management" is (e.g. take a look at the book Lean World)

* The size of the holes in the Government plan (or any other party's plan of action) for doing anything about it

.....

.....

.....

This is a just quick list I've started off ... and everyone's welcome to add to it here (and in future blogs) too ... Take a look at this (the blog here) for more (*and definitions of Type 1 Ignoromics and Type 2 Ignoromics too), as it'll add more and more (including yours), along with a few examples too ... (Leanomist Post 70)

......

Here are the definitions of Type 1 Ignoromics and Type 2 Ignoromics ...

Ignoromics (Type 1) = People are either effectively ignorant of the situation (e.g. the overall environment).

Ignoromics (Type 2) = People aware of the overall situation, but not prepared to take responsibility to make sure it changes for the better.

I have highlighted the above so we can start to reduce them, and address some of the Poweromics that's resulting in much of what we see above today .... Leanomics is about showing respect and taking responsibility for improving the situation for others .... and without this soon all the above will unfortunately resign us to history (as a failed & irrelevant nation) ...

NB Type 2 is arguably what applies to the BBC (and Stephanie Flanders) as they clearly understand, but fail to take responsibility for doing anything about it. It's worth noting that Stephanie likes to tell us that she went to Havard, and that many of her friends / colleagues just happened to go to such places too ... so perhaps we should not be surprised, particularly given the report issued by Alan Milburn (on the same day), highlighting how positions are obtained in such establishments (which includes journalists and the BBC), and how they 'promote' their own ... their own people, ideas and incompetence!

It's a shame that 'leaders' have not yet realised, that just like most MBA's, such establishments are "Maybe Best Avoided" ... !

This post was also referred to on "The shrinking economy' too (Leanomist Post 9)

Will Stephanie help change the course of history?

Is Stephanie prepared to help us face the challenges ahead? ... Take a look at Stephanie's latest blog, my previous post, and my comments made earlier today too (below) ...

Stephanie has already read a lot of the comments made on her post, and has already responded to some of them too ... I'll keep you posted with what happens, and let's see if Stephanie Flanders is up for (and able to help with) 'changing the course of history' ...

––––––––––––––––––

Post 239 (leanomist) wrote:

Post 197 Stephanie Flanders (following Stephanie's response to a previous comment).

Well done for starting this post and for taking the time to read the comments. There is a lot of invaluable insight available in this post ... and having started this off, there is arguably a responsibility for yourself (and the BBC) to follow-up on it - so can you tell us what you plan to do now please?

I have pulled one quick thread together for you (focused on 'changing the course of history' ... see the link provided below) ... and there are clearly more threads too ... I look forward to your response and to watching progress made with interest ...

http://poweromics.blogspot.com/2009/07/history-tells-story-and-it-will.html

This a journey of a lifetime - and one our nation cannot afford you (and the BBC) not to take - please don't disappoint us (it's arguably become a civic responsibility now). You have quite rightly opened the door and now is the time to step in ... good luck ... we're supporting you (so long as you go through the door now, and don't allow all the 'traditional establishments' to immediately deflect/dismiss everything and/or to quickly close ranks).

David Clift, A Future 500 Leader

––––––––––––––––––

History tells a story ... and it will continue to do so too!

Stephanie Flander's blog "Is economics a busted flush" turned out to be a great blog with lots of great comments & insight. It raised many issues (and many responses) see my two earlier posts "traditional economics is dead" and "traditional education is failing" ... but it has also much to say about 'creative outsiders', history, and the 'future history' too ... for instance take a look at a few of my comments (and others people's comments) below:

... 'Creative outsiders' (such as Dr. W. Edwards Deming) create breakthroughs because they are not constrained by existing frameworks and accepted norms (e.g. steered by mainstream education/practice). They are also naturally curious, ask lots of basic questions, and are often able to see things in a very different light. Traditional establishments/enterprises are well known for becoming almost 'blind' to new concepts/ideas ... they regularly reject (and sometimes fear) them too (for as long as they can at least) ... because they often undermine much of what they had previously come to understand (e.g. see Einstein, Galileo, Newton, Wegener ...) and it may not fit their frame of reference too (e.g. created by traditional mainstream education). This is why businesses regularly get overtaken by more innovative ones ... and it is 'why nations will fail' if they 'fail to be curious' too ... and it turns out there is a subtle cultural element to this too [Q: and do you think this favours countries like the UK/US?] ... This is turning into a very interesting/insightful discussion/blog ... well done for starting it off Stephanie .... (Post 88, leanomist)

... and the response to the question ... "Well yes, it favours the UK but it does not,,,now.,.favour the US. The problem with the US is that on the whole it is too conservative. It favoured Europe because there were a lot of independent thinkers (aka. rich, spoiled brats) who got into science. Those thinkers ran off to the US, but since WW2 they have been heading back to Europe and India, and with their departures the USA share of global GDP has been dropping. This is the kind of demographic megatrend that really shapes the national economy, and it transcends national policies. I think that we might see changes now - as Western enclaves like Shanghai in China become more attractive as places to REMAIN, as opposed to platforms to move on to MIT or UCLA, then the number of patents per locale per year (interesting metric) might shift in favour of China" .... (Post 98, FrankSz)

... and my response ... "The shift in knowledge creation from West to East is an interesting one, and this video is probably worth a look if you haven't seen it before (it also eludes to more fundamental failures in education too - which this blog has also been discussing). People from the far east also turn out to be more questioning and curious on average too. The east is also starting to train lots more scientists themselves as well, and some research establishments in the UK are already moving their work over there instead of doing it in the UK. A mega-trend indeed (with both short term and long term implications), and one that links well with the point I tried to make earlier - i.e. 'why nations will fail' if they 'fail to be curious' (nb and/or 'fail to understand, or act on, what they find!'). As we say, interesting times ahead - and another good point which shows yet more weakness in traditional economics, as well as some of the fundamental weaknesses in our economy (... you may also be interested in this blog too) ..." (Post 109, leanomist)

... and moving on to consider a little history (and the 'future of history') ...

... "Dr W. Edwards Deming was a US citizen who was mostly ignored in the US and went to Japan (who welcomed him with open arms) - and the US/UK had to quickly send a task force over there to try to understand what companies like Toyota were doing differently to General Motors - which turned out to be virtually everything - and was effectively the start of the 'lean movement' - and guess what most in the UK/US still don't 'get' this, or understand it - and guess what happened to GM? ... a $170bn bankcruptcy (the biggest in US history). History tells a story, and I'm afraid it will tell many more in the future too ... which is partly why I'm charting everything and highlighting some of risks that lie ahead" ... (Post 149, leanomist)

... and in response to the following question "Somewhere around 60,000 people in the UK now have an MBA. Has anyone ever looked at what impact this has had on the economy in the past 20 years or so?" ... this historical perspective was added too ...

... "I personally believe history will answer this by simply saying 'they were part of the team that got us where we are today' ... GM (and most other US/UK enterprises for that matter) have a lot of them, whilst companies like Toyota are well known for MBA's, but for their lack of them ... I think this, in a small way, partially supports this kind of assertion too ..." [NB this is referred to in my book too]. (Post 171, leanomist)

There are interesting times ahead, and as I mentioned above, this blog is helping to chart everything whilst highlighting some of the risks that lie ahead ... so we can hopefully avert some of them*, 'change the course of history' and avoid us 'becoming history' too ! ...

* as 'Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it' [Edmund Burke, 1729-1797]

Traditional education is failing ...

On Stephanie Flanders blog yesterday a great discussion began ... which headed in many different directions and resulted in lots of informed/insightful comments. I supported the view that traditional 'economics' is dead, and published this post to say so too ... and a number of people started to question to role of 'education' too - 'economic education' ... for instance take a look at the comment made in Post 52 (random_thought) below:

"... perhaps for 30 years now we have had an academic system that teaches students the knowledge that is required to make money out of the flaws in the economic system - not how to design a better economic system that doesn't have those flaws. How many students have studied economics in the hope of getting a well paid job in the City? And how many have been driven by the desire to fix the system and make the world a better place?..."

I thought this comment potentially offered some profound insight, and a great question too ... so I responded in the following way (Post 55) ...

"...Good points and well made ... The existing education system has arguably been re-enforcing levels of 'incompetence' / 'greed' for some time - and this is exactly the same in leadership / management ( and political science ? ) too ... the education system is also probably 20-30 years out of date now too ( I know for certain most MBA's are - as they are often referred to as 'Maybe Best Avoided' now, and I believe posts 13 and 51 probably give us an idea where we are with politics at the moment too ) ... I believe we are beginning to get to the 'roots' of the problem now - and starting to see just a few of the challenges ahead e.g. changing this, as well as evaluating / re-addressing our nations 'fundamental philosophies' and 'value systems' ...!"

Another commentator then asked ...

"... If you "know for certain" then you can supply the evidence for your claim. I'm sure that the staff and students of our Business Schools would be very interested to see it ..."

So I obliged, (see post 67 below), though there's obviously lots more evidence available too ...

"... Anyone who has bothered to study 'lean', 'lean management', 'lean management systems' (and Dr. W. Edwards Deming's work - nb quoted earlier) know that business schools are 1-2 generations out of date - in fact most people with an MBA have to unfortunately unlearn a lot of what they have learnt at a business school before they can start to learn what they really need to know (e.g. to scrap, rather than re-enforce, arbitrary targets, league tables, bonuses, management by numbers ...etc etc etc) ...

All you have to do is ask a few questions (e.g. what are the above?), look at current business school MBA syllabuses, and understand the differences between 21st century leadership / management and traditional leadership and management [e.g. take a quick look at table 2.39, P139, in the book below for instance] ... you'll find they are completely opposite, and you'll also find most business schools struggle to answer the basic questions above in any meaningful way (and find they are just as out of date as Wikipedia!).

I'm afraid 21st century leadership/management is mostly common sense, and very different to what we're accustomed to, and it's been mostly decoded now too (e.g. just take a look at "Lean World" ... it's available to read worldwide on Google Books*) ... all the Deans of Business Schools I've met and spoke to have read it and loved it, and the business students I lecture love it too ... it's a shame that business schools (all around the world) never properly researched it (or Deming's work for that matter - as they would have found they're inextricably linked) ... and/or never thought to tell students about it/write about it, as most people point out it's both profound ... and applies a lots of common sense ... which is arguably something we need a lot more of right now ...

... but the challenge today is not just one of education, but of politics and power (and the 'misuse' of 'power') too ... and that's yet another story again ... just take a look at http://poweromics.blogspot.com (and some of my posts here too e.g. P13 above) for instance ... but this will be eventually changing too, powered by the internet ..."

* http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-8xAIgkewOUC&printsec=frontcover