I have referred to Barbara Tuchman's Book 'The March of Folly' many times. It has a terrific thesis, that folly is policy pursued contrary to self interest, and good examples. These are my choices for behaviors characteristic of folly on a governmental and corporate level (personal folly is a bit different).
-Making decisions based on selective acceptance of data. We all must filter our experience, and decide what is real and what is not. Those who can not do this well are going to make mistakes.
-Selecting data based on preconceptions. Good managers can accept data that is of good quality even when it is contrary to their wishes or plans. Bad managers and politicians can not. We have an excellent example of this in Washington right now.
-Silencing or discrediting dissent. Good decision makers listen carefully to dissent. We learn most from our failures and from our opponents. Being surrounded by 'yes men' is a sure way to make bad decisions. Keeping yourself in an echo chamber is not the same as hearing the views of the public, or of employees or constituents.
-Whining, and assigning blame for failure on others. One of the marks of a leader is to lead. Complaining that others would not follow, or were uncooperative, suggests incompetence to lead. This has been a problem of Obama's for most of the last year. It is not appropriate to be a demagogue, but in a free society if you want the approval of the governed, or of the employed, you must do that which is approved. Absent this, you must persuade others of your rightness. Failure to do so is not a mark of others' stupidity (although it may be so) as much as it is a failure of leadership.
-Inability to make decisions within the leadership team. An executive chooses the leadership team, and has no excuse for a lack of ability or force within it. Calling in consultants, whether as a corporation or a nation, is not a sign of open-mindedness but of indecision, fear and ignorance. Opinions can be obtained from the designated leadership team. If they can not, they are not fit to lead. Napoleon chose his generals personally, and assigned them to positions he felt suited to their abilities. He did not call for a general promotion consultant. It is one thing to solicit opinions, quite another to allow decisions to be made for you by another person.
-Devaluing information from 'on the ground'. This is a persistent form of governmental and corporate folly. It is harshly compounded by the silencing of dissent. If a person knows they will be punished for speaking openly, they will not speak, furthering the sense that first hand information is of no reliability, when in fact it has been made unreliable by administrative policy. Middle managers often worsen this problem by toadying up to superiors blinded by their own conformity or prejudices. Such managers distort and downplay information seen to be perceived by their superiors as negative. This was a prime issue in the Vietnam War.
-Arrogant, dismissive, condescending behavior. No one should be treated badly in bringing forward their concerns. Sadly, too often managers and politicians denigrate the humanity and validity of concerns not conforming with management's view of facts. This alienates potentially well disposed individuals, voters and employees. Obama's administration is again a prime example of such behavior. No one bringing their concerns before management should be made to feel worthless, just as no patient calling a doctor on call should be dismissed as trivial.
-Losing sight of the members of a political unit or company in favor of seeing the needs of the company. There is no question that corporate or governmental needs may not coincide with individuals' needs. Blanket dismissal of individual needs, whether employees, allies or constituents, is a certain way to lose support and influence.
These behaviors in politics get you thrown out of office. Such behaviors in the corporate realm can not be opposed for fear of firing. Instead, employees vote with their feet, as do customers. Blatant attempts to make money instead of serving clients' needs results in lost business and bad feelings. Ignoring and insulting employees and contractors results in poor service for customers, low morale, and the seeking of more favorable workplaces.
Ted
-Making decisions based on selective acceptance of data. We all must filter our experience, and decide what is real and what is not. Those who can not do this well are going to make mistakes.
-Selecting data based on preconceptions. Good managers can accept data that is of good quality even when it is contrary to their wishes or plans. Bad managers and politicians can not. We have an excellent example of this in Washington right now.
-Silencing or discrediting dissent. Good decision makers listen carefully to dissent. We learn most from our failures and from our opponents. Being surrounded by 'yes men' is a sure way to make bad decisions. Keeping yourself in an echo chamber is not the same as hearing the views of the public, or of employees or constituents.
-Whining, and assigning blame for failure on others. One of the marks of a leader is to lead. Complaining that others would not follow, or were uncooperative, suggests incompetence to lead. This has been a problem of Obama's for most of the last year. It is not appropriate to be a demagogue, but in a free society if you want the approval of the governed, or of the employed, you must do that which is approved. Absent this, you must persuade others of your rightness. Failure to do so is not a mark of others' stupidity (although it may be so) as much as it is a failure of leadership.
-Inability to make decisions within the leadership team. An executive chooses the leadership team, and has no excuse for a lack of ability or force within it. Calling in consultants, whether as a corporation or a nation, is not a sign of open-mindedness but of indecision, fear and ignorance. Opinions can be obtained from the designated leadership team. If they can not, they are not fit to lead. Napoleon chose his generals personally, and assigned them to positions he felt suited to their abilities. He did not call for a general promotion consultant. It is one thing to solicit opinions, quite another to allow decisions to be made for you by another person.
-Devaluing information from 'on the ground'. This is a persistent form of governmental and corporate folly. It is harshly compounded by the silencing of dissent. If a person knows they will be punished for speaking openly, they will not speak, furthering the sense that first hand information is of no reliability, when in fact it has been made unreliable by administrative policy. Middle managers often worsen this problem by toadying up to superiors blinded by their own conformity or prejudices. Such managers distort and downplay information seen to be perceived by their superiors as negative. This was a prime issue in the Vietnam War.
-Arrogant, dismissive, condescending behavior. No one should be treated badly in bringing forward their concerns. Sadly, too often managers and politicians denigrate the humanity and validity of concerns not conforming with management's view of facts. This alienates potentially well disposed individuals, voters and employees. Obama's administration is again a prime example of such behavior. No one bringing their concerns before management should be made to feel worthless, just as no patient calling a doctor on call should be dismissed as trivial.
-Losing sight of the members of a political unit or company in favor of seeing the needs of the company. There is no question that corporate or governmental needs may not coincide with individuals' needs. Blanket dismissal of individual needs, whether employees, allies or constituents, is a certain way to lose support and influence.
These behaviors in politics get you thrown out of office. Such behaviors in the corporate realm can not be opposed for fear of firing. Instead, employees vote with their feet, as do customers. Blatant attempts to make money instead of serving clients' needs results in lost business and bad feelings. Ignoring and insulting employees and contractors results in poor service for customers, low morale, and the seeking of more favorable workplaces.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment