Niccolo Machiavelli was at loose ends in 1513 after a (very) hostile takeover of his employer, the Florentine Republic. He wrote The Prince and dedicated it to Lorenzo II de Medici, at least partially in hopes of winning Lorenzo's favor. Scholars are not sure how accurately The Prince represented Machiavelli's actual views; some even suggest he meant it as a satire. But we can be very certain of one thing: Machiavelli believed that what he wrote in The Prince would resonate with Lorenzo's view of the world.
As it was with Machiavelli, so is it today with many business school professors: What they write is intended in large measure to win favor with the Princes of our times, the CEOs of enormous organizations.
The dominant view of business today is embodied in the curricula and publications of prestigious business schools, the articles and commentary in publications like Forbes, The Economist and The Wall Street Journal, the writings and recommendations of industry analysts, and, yes, the books of those business school professors whose tenure, consulting contracts, speaking engagements and Board seats depend on speaking -- not truth, exactly, but comfort -- to power. Perhaps they truly believe everything they write; I'm not accusing anyone of rank hypocrisy. But, as with Machiavelli, we can be very certain of one thing: they believe that what they write will resonate with the CEOs' view of the world.
The track record of CEOs of enormous organizations like GM, Chrysler, Enron, AIG, Bear Sterns, Merrill Lynch etc. strongly calls into question the accuracy and efficacy of this dominant view. It is clear that we need an alternative view that can serve as the basis for a different curriculum -- a curriculum that does justice to the real-world complexity of business and organizations. Perhaps we should acknowledge that we can best serve CEOs and their organizations not by resonating within their comfort zone, but by challenging and expanding their views beyond the narrow, simplistic and limited topics found in most MBA programs.
We do not need a revolution. Much of the dominant view of business and organizations is sound and time-tested -- but it is also dangerously partial and oversimplified. That is not exactly breaking news; many thoughtful scholars and indeed entire MBA programs have addressed these issues and broken new ground. But we need more.
We need a fresh start.
Descriptive Psychology knows about fresh starts -- how to make them, and how to pursue them to an important end. The work of Descriptive Psychologists over the past 40 years provides the conceptual and practical resources for articulating a complex, real-world view of organizations and business. We have a proven alternative to the dominant view, and it provides considerably more power in supporting an organization's success.
I suggest that it's time for the Descriptive Psychology view of organizations to go public. It's time to develop a new curriculum, first to supplement and eventually to replace the dominant curriculum. It will be a long journey to a worthy end. Like any journey, it begins where we are now, and proceeds step-by-step.
I'm Tony Putman, and I intend to take this journey. I invite you to participate. You can begin by offering your comments to this post: What problems do you see with the dominant view? What needs to be added, or created, or changed? Where would you begin? And -- are you in?
1 comment:
I for one have wished for some years for a persuasive elucidation of the basic goals of the world of business, their supporting principles, and how they connect with the real world. In particular, I long for a logical foundation upon which to base, e.g. discussions of what ought to be privatized and what ought to be public-ized. I am especially disgusted with the endless parade of arguments based on blind faith in one or another ideology.
Post a Comment