Hi Kuldip

Great question and I agree there seems to be a belief that only things shiny and new can be good. In the same way unless it comes out of one of the big university MBA programs it is not considered valuable. Some times we spend looking to hard for answers when in fact what we need to know is staring us in the face, as has been said by a friend of mine "Common sense appears to be the least common thing in many businesses". It is true that many of the old techniques to problem solving in business are just as valid today as they were when they were written. But therein lies the rub, too many people in business are not willing to use the tools and techniques to solve their own problems, they are merely looking for the new solution to the theoretical problem and then hope they can make their problem fit the solution.

There is no substitute for genuine thinking and real analysis of your own problems, then the right solution will be obvious.

Kind Regards

Mark

Links:

• http://www.markmcgregor.com

posted May 4, 2007

Extraordinarily insightful answers to a remarkably apt question!

Opinions are as plentiful as the mouths which utter them, and sometimes minds.

Many would argue that business knowledge, models, plans and thinking have undergone revolutionary changes in recent years, as all previous generations have similarly observed.

To dismiss all new thought as pretence would seem to me to invite an argument. Old schools were themselves once new.

I feel the acquisition and refinement of knowledge is much like the process of breathing and eating.

Some of us like the same old foods and prefer the air of home. Others seem to constantly seek the new. To me, knowledge is neither inherently new nor old, nor good or bad. What one has invented, another may discover and still others revise.

While some continue to blithely assert that the old order and old rules no longer apply, I think such declarations of "new knowledge" are neither themselves wholly new nor entirely a pretence.

For me, knowledge is constructed on the foundations of basic experience won from previous models.

To be sure, some represent their thoughts as original and fresh, while some acknowledge the roots of their knowledge.

I feel whether the presented knowledge purports to be "old" or "new" is at best a secondary consideration to me.

posted May 4, 2007

Hi Kuldip,

Ever since mass production, extensive marketing and competition have taken over the market place, there are a few fundamentals of business dynamics have been constant are universal to all offerings, be they are products, services and/or both.

01) Utility to the Customer;
02) Quality;
03) Service;
04) Life of the products;
05) Cost to the Consumer.
06) Market penetrations;
07) Availability.
Etc., etc.

All new knowledge revolves around the above fundamentals only and probably some try to put them in new perspective, et al.

The rest is on irritating jargon.

Regards,

posted May 4, 2007

Wow, a lot going on in this question. It's one of the key things we talk about on The Cranky Middle Manager Show podcast (see the web resources below)- that the basics of management and business are evergreen, but I interview all kinds of gurus who think they've cracked the code, from Marshall Goldsmith and Eliot Masie to people you've never heard of.

What's the paradox here?

I guess I'd answer it this way:

1) While technology and the rate of change makes life more complicated, the world of business hasn't changed all that much since the first rug was sold in a bazaar. Companies and individuals need to have a strategy, market their product or service, attract, keep and motivate good people who can help you get there. On this front, it's easy to say, as Bob Sutton has, that 90% of all business books are "crap". Stick to basics.

2) On the other hand, just as with weight loss, religion and Blackjack, even though the basics are there, we don't always pay attention or hear because of all the static. We look for shortcuts or new tips.... and there are plenty of people out there willing to help us.

The fact is, what separates "good" business advice from the rest is whether it cuts through our filters, prejudices and the noise around us to strike a chord and change behavior.

Exhibit A: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People is either the greatest book ever written for personal improvement and productivity or the most successful collection of stuff your father should have told you when you were ten.... depends how well you listened to your father.

Keep up the discussion- it's absolutely fascinating.

Links:

• http://cmm.thepodcastnetwork.com
• http://www.management-issues.com/2007/4/28/opinion/just-more-useless-manage...

posted May 4, 2007

As business schools have flourished and upper echelon executives have received stratospheric compensation packages, both the language and "exclusive" science of business have evolved from what once was practical marketplace knowledge.

By creating an exclusive argot--its members (Business Schools and their alumni can protect and enhance their value by mystifying outsiders.)

(Doctors do it...lawyers do it...even educated fleas do it.) The transition from tradesman to "professional" is very recent although it is appropriate to recall that surgeons were also barbers 150 years ago.

Though I would not discredit all that has been written as some of the practical knowledge and experience dispensed can be useful. However, it is not in the same class as quantum mechanics or string theory.

True to its origin business theory is actually business practice that follows the "scarcity" model. It enhances and exagerates value by limiting its use and availability.

I personally favor books and authors that cross over "disciplines" and seek to create understanding and synergy among diverse knowledges (sciences)--much like biology, chemistry, and physics have begun to recognize common patterns.

In this context, sustainability, ecology, happiness, fulfillment have greater influence over our lives.

The question posited by Kuldip reminds me of earlier debates about economics and whether it was a social science or a more analytical field. The best answer I have encountered was from a well respected Japanese Economics professor who said that "Economics is the relationship between people." Business at its heart is also the relationship between people--not the justification for arcane exclusiveness or the province of the wealthy.

Links:

• http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/blogspotting/archives/2005/11/why_ja...

posted May 4, 2007

Indeed, there is very little new insight and a lot of re-packaged knowledge that goes as new business knowledge. But surely there must be market demand that is triggering so much supply.

posted May 5, 2007

Greetings. I echo the sentiments regarding the richness of the question. Kuldip, the word 'glut' is most appropriate. The race to get ahead and be innovative causes new theories and models to be propogated before they are validated by experience and history. We seem to be responding to the polar twins of 'proven methods' and 'latest invention' simultaneously. No wonder disillusionment is growing!
I suspect that the 'pretence of business knowledge' may have more to do with not understanding the client's needs and values at a sufficiently deep level. A natural enough dilemma since usually a business consultant is brought in at a point of crisis. Thus, the tendency to provide the solution (theory, business model) most certain in the consultant's experience to provide results rather than one best fitting to the deeper needs of clients.
I just finished reading "Data Smog: Surviving the Information Glut" by David Shenk. I recommend it to understand how our minds react when overwhelmed with information.

posted May 5, 2007

Most apt; and an excellent question! Though I am a consulting engineer and not a ‘businessman’ per se, I do watch the business scene as an interested professional.

There is a pithy and pertinent quote by Goethe: “When an idea is wanting, a word can always be found to take its place.” I have found this to be absolutely true! And this is exactly what is going on in the name of new ‘business theories’! Words and phrases are being coined and bandied about at a furious pace now. They usually are minted in business-management circles and are amplified by the sensation-hungry media a thousand-fold.

Yes, this is pretence – the story of the naked king comes to mind!
As Somerset Maugham said, "The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit". This is so true with the current crop of management ‘gurus’!

The very same thing is happening in the field of quality, also in the field of software – new words are regularly being coined without a need for them. Sometimes new words and phrases do describe something more acutely, but what is frightening to me is today’s furious pace of this ‘invention’!

Too much mental energies are being wasted all over the world in keeping up with the jargon and rhetoric that a few keep inventing; and the world is certainly not a better place because of this.

Yes, commonsense is still not very common!
Any reactions?

posted May 5, 2007

well, it is not just business, rampant credentialism of all sorts in professions, academic publish and perish, educational mumbo jumbo systems, all stir the pot.
The pretence of knowledge, aka lying, aka fooling folks, seems to be a human fundamental, perhaps from some research, a higher primate fundamental. It goes back to childhood playacting and impressing your peers and betters but also comes as a strategy for gaining in natural dominance hierarchies.
The systems, in business, the trades, in research that feed the explosion of information and knowledge are not fully separable from core human behaviors, the struggle for a some level of dominance colors all domains.
It would be an nice idea not to have to deal with pretence, but thats not the human world.

:-) and then lets not even look at feint and fake in historical politics including religious politics.

posted May 5, 2007

I see a lot of insightful comments in this thread, and a fair amount of agreement.

Adding to the discussion ...I'd propose that there is an inverse correlation between understanding of some concept/model/approach and the volume of books, theories and words that get generated. One example is "leadership". The word often becomes more important than what it symbolizes, and a lot of heat gets generated in the attempt to tie the word to the real characteristics/basics that matter... and thus to define the word. After all these centuries, we're still trying very hard. Maybe we should stick with the basics of what we see ... and consider the possibility that there's no "elephant" to be seen behind the basics ... but merely a word. I don't see any harm using such "sticky" words as a focus for dialogue though ... as long as we don't think that the definition of the word is an end unto itself ... and worth millions of hours.

posted May 6, 2007

Knowledge will multiply every five years. May be new theories will emerge in every sector every year.

Who are worried - people who has last updated themselves with great pain and hard work 15 years back, they are.

Most successful professionals keep on updating themselves on a continuous basis and finds time to attend seminars, buy books to read and finds time too attend training programs.

However, there are plenty of people who treasure 20 year old Kotler (marketing management) book as a reference book alongside a map of the world dated 1950 on their marketing office wall. If they are termed illiterate (by Alvin Toffler's definition) and have difficulty with knowledge explosion, they themselves are to be blamed.

We have great wisdoms of Lao Tse, Confucius, Ab Lincoln, Peter Drucker, Deming, Juran, Mother Teresa, Tom Peters, Taiichi Ohno and many others and they have brought clarity to our life.

Check who are complaining and who are absorbing knowledge like a sponge.

posted May 6, 2007

Kuldip,

Tried and true business knowledge, best practices, and benchmarking is the most prudent in any line of business.

New theories will always be around and businesses that have a high risk tolerance will give the new theories a go. Having a low risk tolerance will dictate whether or not to put into practice those "new theories." Knowing your business and knowing the risk tolerance of the organization is key.

Great question!

Rosemary

posted May 6, 2007

Kuldip, you are singling out a particular producer-consumer pair: b-schools, consultants & authors on one side and business people on the other side. You are implying that some of what is produced may not be of value, or necessary, to its consumers.

But you cannot single out a particular producer-consuming pair! The businesses that you mention (the ones consuming Business Knowledge) they themselves are selling goods that are not always of value, or necessary, to their consumers.

We continue to prosper by producing and consuming goods that are not strictly of value or necessary. And we all have to do our part in consuming. Just as your son or daughter is consuming sugared water, chocolate, potato chips & television programming, so you, as a business person, are expected to consume 'new Business Knowledge'.

There will always be something that businesses are consuming that *does not* "help us to run our businesses better, produce more profits, behave ethically and be more socially responsible, make our people happier, build environmentally sustainable businesses, coexist with our stakeholders, give us more fulfilling business lives" as you put it. If it was not 'new Business Knowledge', it would be something else. Fancy paper-clips perhaps?

The economy would grind to a halt if we stopped doing so :)

posted May 6, 2007

Thanks for your great question, Kuldip, and thanks for the inspiring answers by all the others!

Never forget the inherent urge of any human being to produce a justification to exist. Be it a painting on the cave wall, the invention of the steam engine, or some great abstract notion that could be called a 'new theory'. So there always have been (since the invention of words!), are, and will be people who produce ideas.

One of the circumstances that is changing dramatically in our information age is the lowering barrier to mass media production and distribution. This automatically increases the noise - on any topic, just as on business.

More generally, our everyday challenge is to join the two extremes of utmost and easily manageable simplicity and the external, ever-increasing complexity.

Personally, I use some Zen Buddhist and Yoga notions to concentrate on emptiness to get down to the most relevant priorities, and management cybernetic ideas to design the attenuation of my environment's increasing complexity. I warmly recommend this combination.

Seeing the 'new theories' as a threat or challenge in any way may be a manifestation of your very own inner state. If you know what you have to do - or if you are too busy living your life to even see the heaps of books in the bookshop -, this topic would not occur to you. If you don't, I believe there is a lot of value for you to read and learn through more of those 'theories' to get to your personal answers to your challenges. Your state will evolve.

Links:

• http://www.kybernetik.ch/en/fs_intromankyb.html

posted May 6, 2007

In my experience, common sense and the ability to think logically are pretty rare in the modern office. I'm convinced that if the western world was forced to learn chess and think 4 moves in advance, the business world would be in a much better state.

posted May 6, 2007

Q:do we as business practitioners really believe that these ‘new theories’ help us to run our businesses better.....?
A: No.

The problem is the what passes business knowledge or theories are in reality anecdotes (knowledge) or speculations (theories). There is no "testing" involved. Various terms like Vision, Mission, Values, Strategies, innovation are used differently by different people. Leaving aside some hard core functional areas like finance or inventory management rest of the management world looks more like humanities.

For all the prolific outputs of management schools and management magazines we still have following issues that have no clarity or they lack wide spread understanding of different appraoches. e.g.

-what is leadership? How to develop it?
-How to innovate? How to manage innovation?
-How to select people without incurring huge mistakes (that is a norm)
-How to assess and mange risk?

When I go through management journals and conferences, I find very few take-aways which can be integrated into existing tools.

Waves of anecdotal and speculative management "knowledge" lash the companies and their unsuspecting employees, leaving everyone confused.

In my experience what works is an "ear to ground" or "nose to the job" approach combined with cross-industry approach where it is not important to produce 60 ppt slides but where is pays to walk with managers closely observing and improvising.

Hope this helps.

Hemant

Links:

• http://www.exponient.com
• http://exponient.wordpress.com

posted May 7, 2007

The short answer may be: Because it sells.

Otherwise, look at how many commentaries we have on the old texts. Are all those needed? On the other hand, could you do without them?

As for the disillusionment generated by all the business knowledge surrounding us, I would not worry for I take all the clutter as being just part of the cost for a great book every now and then.

More on this here:

Links:

• http://fromabctoxyz.blogspot.com/2005/04/if-i-could-speak-to-authors-of-so-...

posted May 7, 2007

There is more and more pretense of knowledge nowadays in business and public life. Just look at some of the questions on LinkedIn, and some of the answers. Listen to some politicians' speeches (I don't think that I need to name names here!).

Part of the way people get away with this is by inventing and using new vocabulary to deal with old concepts. Executive training is full of this. People may look back on this era as the era of B***S***.

posted May 7, 2007

Time proves the worth of a new idea, and luck is definitely one factor in deciding the value of a new initiative, although not the only one. Unfortunately, the profile that a new theory receives is not necessarily, and certainly not immediately, determined by the quality of the thinking behind it, but is a function of the publicity that it receives, by the status of its proposers and supporters, and by the force with which it is argued. I think it is fair to say that many bad theories have to be suffered in order that the good ones can ultimately prevail, having been proved valuable by the unfolding of events.

There are different reasons for new ideas. Someone may genuinely have seen something that others have not seen or, at least, that they have not formulated. An idea may also, however, be forwarded in order to achieve fame, or to elicit financial gain, for its proposer. Changing times can result in changing needs of people collectively, but less so individually. There is a genuine need to evaluate current thinking, but it is a fallacy to think that a new idea that is exciting is necessarily also beneficial to anyone. In evaluating the worth of an idea, we have to consider "to whom?" A new initiative may benefit its instigator, until its real value is found out. So the entrepreneur wins, but the public lose.

I think that people are naturlly attracted to new ideas, because we like variety, new thinking and new hope. We also get bored with the familiar, and just want something different. Thus something that appears to be better than what we have is always alluring.

One thing that business "en mass" has achieved is to become more powerful as a force in the world. Business can be useful to others if there is a social and, by inference, a moral dimension to its thinking and purpose. Thus what ultimately matters is not the razzamattazz involved in presenting an idea, but the integrity and foresight underpinning it.

I hope that this helps,
Erol

posted May 7, 2007

I think disillusionment stems more from consulting methods than with presentation of new theory and/or practice (to do good practice you have to understand the underlying theory and vice versa). Too many consultants are out selling the latest trend and not building a co-learning environment where new thinking can be applied to core issues. Part of the role of the consultant is also to help practictioners keep their knowledge up to date long after leaving formal education. Even with a fairly aggressive self-directed learning program and many projects working with consultants, I found my knowledge was not keeping up with that of those being hired. My response was to go back to school for a doctorate in leadership and organizational change. I quickly filled a knowledge gap and am actively applying what I have learned. Practice and theory continue to develop in an integrated fashion.

posted May 8, 2007

I love this question! I think that there are several things driving this. One is that competition is so intense right now that you not only have to worry about people in your lane but you are seeing disruptive technologies hitting most companies in 5 year cycles. This competitive cycle causes what used to be longer business cycles in the pre 90's to become very short business cycles. This means that CEOs/Managers are always looking for new ways to prolong that business cycle or keep profits on the back side of it. This means we are scrambling for any kind of direction that we can get that will help from books, authors, consultants, etc.

As a result what we see is a prolification of basically junk business books. These are books that when boiled down add nothing new. The Zen approach to six sigma, lean six sigma, extremly lean six sigma, how to network while asleep, how slap your customers to get customer loyalty etc. Most of the "Big Ideas" are just recycled old ideas updated.

This is also helpful for senior management at times to side step accountability. If you are always implementing programs and never following through and tracking ROI then you are generating press for the company or yourself. So many times a program will get implemented and before it can have any effect for good another program is started.

posted May 11, 2007

First, excellent question .. An avid reader all of my life (less so in recent years do to time constraints), I'm always amused by books on "how to succeed" .. I don't think "business knowledge" comes from a class, a degree, or a book .. or even necessarily a combination of those things .. I think knowledge comes from experience, should include failure as a learning exercise, and always continue to be a learning process .. as for the "pretence" of knowledge, it's like unicorns and snipe hunting .. it isn't real ..

My experience is just that .. experience .. you cannot buy it and you cannot necessarily teach it .. Marietta

posted May 11, 2007

Hi Kuldip:

In my opinion, the void or distance between "academia and the ivory tower" and the "application of business knowledge" have always had a gap or lag. In one world, business under academic scruity is elevated to a classic academic study or case history that may or may not apply to business realities within certain industries or across industries. Business leaders are grappling with so many variables and "sound bites" on how their business actually runs vs how they should run in a "modeled environment". Discernment or having the ability to apply trends or academic knowledge in a very fast way or in a phased approach may show some initial results--but the disappointment comes in the shortsightness both of Wall Street and publically traded comes to work off quarterly results. Most academic studys or theories are looking at applications that do not factor in corporate earnings results--but instead are focused only on a certain element of the entire business framework.

Academic theories are great as far as challenging corporate leadership and management to stretch or consider new approachs to existing or new challenges. The key is for corporate leadership to discern which theories to enact or pilot within their orgs or to cultivate an understanding of the theory to their line management. Like all endeavors, some corporations will be early adopters of these theories and others will be laggards. For all of us that have suffered through TQM and many other initiatives, it comes down to the ability to pracitcally implement the theoretical in a cost-effective manner that will show results within a corporate context. This is not an easy feat--and why there continues to be a disconnect between academia and corporate America.

As far as pretence of business knowledge--some academicans have served their time in corporations and speak from their experiences. Others do tout their experience more from academic studies of corporations rather than practical experience. In my opinion, the true test is does it apply to your corporate reality, do you the reasoning, will it make a difference if enacted---all these confirmations should be bounced off among the various corporate stakeholders before embarking on a costly program to increase corporate effectiveness just because it was endorsed by some Ivy League professor or team. It is a two way street of knowledge sharing between academia and corporations. It can be very beneficial. But, shame on us if we do not perform our own due diligence within a proliferation of data and theories.

posted May 11, 2007

As an author, I don't believe in books.
Some people are swallowing books like pills to enhance their performance.
I've never heard of a great businessman / manager who learnt from the books. Experience, sharing views, challenging one's own way of thinking and seeing things, opening up beyond one's business and environment... this is actual business knowledge.

posted May 12, 2007

I've never read a business book in my life - except for real life stuff like Barbarians at the Gate and books on economics. I'm a great believer in muddling through, learning from your mistakes and trusting to gut instincts.
From my experience people who have pretentions of business knowledge have rarely run their own business.

Links:

• http://http

posted May 12, 2007

Great question and some thought-provoking answers but....

Read any old books recently..? and I do mean old, say 70-100 year old technical books for example. The focus of attention seems odd and often unnecessarily detailed. Why is that?

We take for granted our levels of our general 'background' knowledge and the specific context knowledge we've developed in whatever field we've chosen. As a result, more and more of the information developed is focused at a finer and finer level of detail - and is then often presented and the next best/big thing that solves the issues at hand.

For many people, the detail is mixed in with the core or essential aspects and issues and they can't tell the difference between them nor how they are linked.

At the same time, new developments mean that the balance of what is important or acts as a primary constraint changes and what was an issue is no longer the dominant factor - and something else takes its place. At that point, everything needs to be re-aligned and re-explained - and a great excuse for writing a book occurs! :-)

The real issue is in presenting the situation in terms of its primary drivers, systemic interactions and constraints and then changing the impact levels of the constraints to see what happens - perhaps they should teach this instead of the new theories... but then what would the academics write about :-))

I believe that the 'real issues' are not complexity and change, but on how people make decisions and the required clarity of thought required to make good decisions.

Just a thought....

posted May 14, 2007