44 ms·

The Evolution of Management (2019)

45 points by mavelikara 5y ago

larrydag 5y ago
One of the best books on management I've read is Out of the Crisis by W. Edwards Deming. While not specifically a management book he calls out management and leadership with his 14 points. https://deming.org/explore/fourteen-points/ https://deming.org/explore/fourteen-points/
KineticLensman 5y ago
This is about how your role changes as you progress through different levels of management. Interesting, but I would be interested to read how management practices have evolved over time, in different contexts. E.g. how were factories managed in the early 19th century? What current practices would have been recognised by staff in the organisations concerned?
- vincentmarle 5y ago
  This is not the rose-colored answer you might be looking for, but contrary to popular belief (which usually start with Henry Ford) a lot of modern day “management techniques” were actually invented at slavery plantations [1] I can recommend the following books on the history of capitalism (which is closely linked to the exploitation of labor aka management): - Empire of Cotton (Sven Beckert) - Nature’s Metropolis (Cronon) [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/slavery-capitalism.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/slav...
  - gryn 5y ago
    isn't much older than that? I did zero research on the subject, and the only thing I was taught in school about its history was the usual story about Henry Ford, Fred Taylor and the rest of the company ... but, I remember watching a documentary about the construction of the Egyptian pyramids. in it there was a part about how they hired people to monitor and 'motivate'(mostly with a whip) the workers (mostly slaves), how much their were paid (more than the workers) and the hierarchy above them.
  - elefanten 5y ago
    This take deserves so many asterisks and caveats, that it won't be recognizable coming out of the other end. This source is a fashionable, knee-jerk narrative from a heavily contested historical effort (1619 Project already discussed ad nauseum). This particular piece is basically a marketing piece from the publication that funded the project. On top of that, the piece you linked doesn't come anywhere near making the argument you attribute to it. It has some sharp rhetoric from some totally random people that draws links between US capitalism and US slavery. There is absolutely no historical assessment of the evolution of managerial techniques vis-a-vis a link to slavery.
- tafda 5y ago
  Railroads and the need to coordinate with precision across greater distances forced the evolution of managerial practice from single site to something recognizable as today’s practice. “The Visible Hand” by Alfred Chandler is an authoritative source on the transition: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674940529 https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674940529
kuharich 5y ago
Past comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21751983 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21751983
temac 5y ago
There are several things that are weird enough not to be taken as absolute logical premises. I mean they certainly can and have worked for many people in many companies, but let's just think a little more about them, especially in an industry of R&D knowledge workers. Going from "IC" to a non-practicing manager (like the article describes and even recommends) is in many ways a lateral move: you are not going to use your preciously acquired past skills and expertise a lot, and you are actually going to do quite a different job. The only thing that will help you in said new job is your general knowledge about the industry, maybe the subfield, and maybe some of your memories about your past job. This should not be a very common "promotion" path (and maybe in many contexts this should not even be considered a promotion, more changing profession), this actually already is necessarily pretty "rare"; unless you are "managing" just one or two people (and even then), or people that just come and go quickly, it is doubtful it is actually so common, because even with a very large growth of the industry, this would require just not a sustainable overall exponential growth rate for it to be the most common career change. As for "creating an environment where others can solve the problem", support staff would often be more valuable. Last, we can also consider big successful community projects as more up-to-date examples of more modern organizations. Is Linus a "hands-off manager"? Certainly not, even if he mainly does not do exactly the same thing as when he started Linux; also when he intervenes and gives strong opinions on very technical subjects (even often down to quite detailed ones), is it some form of counter-productive "micromanagement"? In my opinion: also not. If your main subject is mostly R&D, technical leadership should be more important than "old-school" management (and to be clear, the same caveats apply about the possibility for tons of people to really become technical leaders, it is not possible everywhere just because of mere growth reasons). I doubt the described traditional hierarchical organizations are the most effective in this context.
Terretta 5y ago
At first blush, this feels a little like the many blog blurbs for “The Leadership Pipeline” by Charan and Drotter. To be fair, this is richer than most, an independent take on something intrinsic. For comparison, a couple other generic watered down summaries of the book: https://www.mudamasters.com/en/change-management-leadership/leadership-pipeline-rcharan-summary https://www.mudamasters.com/en/change-management-leadership/... https://www.cleverism.com/leadership-pipeline-model/ https://www.cleverism.com/leadership-pipeline-model/ As there are dozens of these, maybe it’s some sort of right of passage for blogging on LinkedIn? The main takeaway for me from the book that doesn’t seem captured by the re-blogs, but is in the second paragraph here, is that the transitions are discontinuous. The leader is not sharpening tools in a tool belt, but changing out tool belts. In this piece, author writes, “shift your mindset, and focus on building new skills that are often very different from the skills that made you successful in your previous role.” To put more bluntly: The leader must stop doing things that worked well when adjusting the system at a different scope, and now intervene completely differently. Source, for Kindle: https://smile.amazon.com/Leadership-Pipeline-Powered-Company-non-Franchise-ebook/dp/B004BA5776/ https://smile.amazon.com/Leadership-Pipeline-Powered-Company...

45 points by mavelikara 5y ago

One of the best books on management I've read is Out of the Crisis by W. Edwards Deming. While not specifically a management book he calls out management and leadership with his 14 points. https://deming.org/explore/fourteen-points/ https://deming.org/explore/fourteen-points/

KineticLensman 5y ago

This is about how your role changes as you progress through different levels of management. Interesting, but I would be interested to read how management practices have evolved over time, in different contexts. E.g. how were factories managed in the early 19th century? What current practices would have been recognised by staff in the organisations concerned?

vincentmarle 5y ago
This is not the rose-colored answer you might be looking for, but contrary to popular belief (which usually start with Henry Ford) a lot of modern day “management techniques” were actually invented at slavery plantations [1] I can recommend the following books on the history of capitalism (which is closely linked to the exploitation of labor aka management): - Empire of Cotton (Sven Beckert) - Nature’s Metropolis (Cronon) [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/slavery-capitalism.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/slav...
- gryn 5y ago
  isn't much older than that? I did zero research on the subject, and the only thing I was taught in school about its history was the usual story about Henry Ford, Fred Taylor and the rest of the company ... but, I remember watching a documentary about the construction of the Egyptian pyramids. in it there was a part about how they hired people to monitor and 'motivate'(mostly with a whip) the workers (mostly slaves), how much their were paid (more than the workers) and the hierarchy above them.
- elefanten 5y ago
  This take deserves so many asterisks and caveats, that it won't be recognizable coming out of the other end. This source is a fashionable, knee-jerk narrative from a heavily contested historical effort (1619 Project already discussed ad nauseum). This particular piece is basically a marketing piece from the publication that funded the project. On top of that, the piece you linked doesn't come anywhere near making the argument you attribute to it. It has some sharp rhetoric from some totally random people that draws links between US capitalism and US slavery. There is absolutely no historical assessment of the evolution of managerial techniques vis-a-vis a link to slavery.
tafda 5y ago
Railroads and the need to coordinate with precision across greater distances forced the evolution of managerial practice from single site to something recognizable as today’s practice. “The Visible Hand” by Alfred Chandler is an authoritative source on the transition: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674940529 https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674940529

kuharich 5y ago

Past comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21751983 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21751983

temac 5y ago

There are several things that are weird enough not to be taken as absolute logical premises. I mean they certainly can and have worked for many people in many companies, but let's just think a little more about them, especially in an industry of R&D knowledge workers. Going from "IC" to a non-practicing manager (like the article describes and even recommends) is in many ways a lateral move: you are not going to use your preciously acquired past skills and expertise a lot, and you are actually going to do quite a different job. The only thing that will help you in said new job is your general knowledge about the industry, maybe the subfield, and maybe some of your memories about your past job. This should not be a very common "promotion" path (and maybe in many contexts this should not even be considered a promotion, more changing profession), this actually already is necessarily pretty "rare"; unless you are "managing" just one or two people (and even then), or people that just come and go quickly, it is doubtful it is actually so common, because even with a very large growth of the industry, this would require just not a sustainable overall exponential growth rate for it to be the most common career change. As for "creating an environment where others can solve the problem", support staff would often be more valuable. Last, we can also consider big successful community projects as more up-to-date examples of more modern organizations. Is Linus a "hands-off manager"? Certainly not, even if he mainly does not do exactly the same thing as when he started Linux; also when he intervenes and gives strong opinions on very technical subjects (even often down to quite detailed ones), is it some form of counter-productive "micromanagement"? In my opinion: also not. If your main subject is mostly R&D, technical leadership should be more important than "old-school" management (and to be clear, the same caveats apply about the possibility for tons of people to really become technical leaders, it is not possible everywhere just because of mere growth reasons). I doubt the described traditional hierarchical organizations are the most effective in this context.

Terretta 5y ago

At first blush, this feels a little like the many blog blurbs for “The Leadership Pipeline” by Charan and Drotter. To be fair, this is richer than most, an independent take on something intrinsic. For comparison, a couple other generic watered down summaries of the book: https://www.mudamasters.com/en/change-management-leadership/leadership-pipeline-rcharan-summary https://www.mudamasters.com/en/change-management-leadership/... https://www.cleverism.com/leadership-pipeline-model/ https://www.cleverism.com/leadership-pipeline-model/ As there are dozens of these, maybe it’s some sort of right of passage for blogging on LinkedIn? The main takeaway for me from the book that doesn’t seem captured by the re-blogs, but is in the second paragraph here, is that the transitions are discontinuous. The leader is not sharpening tools in a tool belt, but changing out tool belts. In this piece, author writes, “shift your mindset, and focus on building new skills that are often very different from the skills that made you successful in your previous role.” To put more bluntly: The leader must stop doing things that worked well when adjusting the system at a different scope, and now intervene completely differently. Source, for Kindle: https://smile.amazon.com/Leadership-Pipeline-Powered-Company-non-Franchise-ebook/dp/B004BA5776/ https://smile.amazon.com/Leadership-Pipeline-Powered-Company...