3 ms·

This just, kind of blows my mind. What is management if not people? I mean Drucker's very definition of management is the idea of organizing a group of people t

This just, kind of blows my mind. What is management if not people? I mean Drucker's very definition of management is the idea of organizing a group of people to drive towards a common aim where you learn how to make each individuals' strengths effective and their weaknesses irrelevant. Deming was adamant that psychology had to be a pillar of management. Why? Because people! I'm curious then, who were the authorities/what were the theories (if any I guess) that were used for your management degree? - Also, why am I talking about Drucker and Deming? Because if I drew a family tree, I could trace at least some aspect of nearly any management idea today back to them (lots of amalgams out there these days). There is one big caveat though, lots of management practices today have neo-Taylorism embedded into them that most people are unaware of.

lordnacho 9y ago
> I'm curious then, who were the authorities/what were the theories (if any I guess) that were used for your management degree? It felt like a very sporadic hodge podge of names. Porter's five forces, tech cycle, a load of case studies. That's looking back a decade later, so maybe I'm missing something. But it all seemed very vague. I remember thinking how on earth did Porter get his name on a "theory" when really that's just common sense? A company is going to tend to have customers, suppliers, entrants, and substitutes, and internal rivalry. I mean why would you think otherwise? Also, creating those categories is no guarantee that you're not going to miss out something. If anything I've learned more about management from reading agile type stuff like Scrum, because those kinds of things are usually grounded in experience from a specific industry, with specific pain points and specific solutions.
- thaumasiotes 9y ago
  > I remember thinking how on earth did Porter get his name on a "theory" when really that's just common sense? This is how I've always felt about "De Morgan's Laws". There are two, and they state: 1. If it is not the case that two things are both true, then at least one of those things is false. 2. If it is not the case that either of two things is true, then both of those things are false. (Actually, they are logical equivalences, so they also apply in the other order -- "1b. If at least one of two things is false, then it is not the case that both things are true.") I'm pretty sure both of those "laws" were known well before the nineteenth century.

lordnacho 9y ago

> I'm curious then, who were the authorities/what were the theories (if any I guess) that were used for your management degree? It felt like a very sporadic hodge podge of names. Porter's five forces, tech cycle, a load of case studies. That's looking back a decade later, so maybe I'm missing something. But it all seemed very vague. I remember thinking how on earth did Porter get his name on a "theory" when really that's just common sense? A company is going to tend to have customers, suppliers, entrants, and substitutes, and internal rivalry. I mean why would you think otherwise? Also, creating those categories is no guarantee that you're not going to miss out something. If anything I've learned more about management from reading agile type stuff like Scrum, because those kinds of things are usually grounded in experience from a specific industry, with specific pain points and specific solutions.

thaumasiotes 9y ago
> I remember thinking how on earth did Porter get his name on a "theory" when really that's just common sense? This is how I've always felt about "De Morgan's Laws". There are two, and they state: 1. If it is not the case that two things are both true, then at least one of those things is false. 2. If it is not the case that either of two things is true, then both of those things are false. (Actually, they are logical equivalences, so they also apply in the other order -- "1b. If at least one of two things is false, then it is not the case that both things are true.") I'm pretty sure both of those "laws" were known well before the nineteenth century.