3 ms·
No love for the typical MBA consultant here, but one thing they seem to have over the philosophy crowd? Brevity. Good lord this post needs an editor.
by tacos 10y ago
No love for the typical MBA consultant here, but one thing they seem to have over the philosophy crowd? Brevity. Good lord this post needs an editor.
- mrep 10y agoHe also needs to read some economic textbooks (finance and accounting wouldn't hurt either).
- digi_owl 10y agoAccounting would likely help much more than the other two...
- ktRolster 10y agoHis review of the literature is old too, with his primary sources being nearly a century old. If he had done a more comprehensive review, he would have found much of value. For example, there is no doubt that management philosophies from Japan (like ZQC or the Toyota way) have had an influence on American production. Is that all imaginary? Because US auto quality seems to have improved significantly as a result.
- tacos 10y agoDeming! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming
- stdbrouw 10y agoThat's kind of the point, though, he's showing the roots of modern management practices go back to that era.
- ktRolster 10y agoThat's fine for a history lesson, but it's not very useful for supporting his thesis that management theory is useless. Using the same technique, you could show that chemistry is useless by showing that the roots of modern chemistry go back to alchemy. What a useless bunch of fluff that stuff was!
- dredmorbius 10y agoStewart did read the modern literature. He found it lacking. Addressed in the article's 4th paragraph: After I left the consulting business, in a reversal of the usual order of things, I decided to check out the management literature. Partly, I wanted to “process” my own experience and find out what I had missed in skipping business school. Partly, I had a lot of time on my hands. As I plowed through tomes on competitive strategy, business process re-engineering, and the like, not once did I catch myself thinking, Damn! If only I had known this sooner! Instead, I found myself thinking things I never thought I’d think, like, I’d rather be reading Heidegger! It was a disturbing experience. It thickened the mystery around the question that had nagged me from the start of my business career: Why does management education exist? Moreover: he's hammering home the point that management science isn't much evolved from its early pig-iron days. Something which I, having studied economics in school, am finding applies rather well to economics as well. A discipline which is curiously ignorant of its own history.
- ktRolster 10y agoStewart did read the modern literature. He might have. He didn't quote any of it.
- dredmorbius 10y agoHe does, in fact, quote and cite multiple sources. Michael Porter. Marvin Bower. James C. Worthy. Tom Burns and G. M. Stalker. Tom Peters. Gifford Pinchot. Karl Popper. Perhaps not modern enough for you, though works through the 1990s are mentioned. None are "century old". Not at the time Stewart wrote, not now. How about you assert what specific sources are missing?
- stdbrouw 10y agoSome people enjoy reading for its own sake.