The disruption caused by globalization and technology (what Tom Friedman calls hyperconnectedness) will be around for the rest of our professional lives.
CEOs are no different than the guy in the mailroom. They all have to learn how to manage better the risk created by our increasingly risk-shifting world.
If the question is, how do we best produce business people who can succeed in the post-Great Recession era, then I think the MBA programs and their connection to large companies remains intact but it's not the path to a "Business Brilliant" life. It's a path to a middle-class existence marked by large stretches of security and comfort with occasional eruptions that you're probably ill-prepared to handle. Do I sound too cynical?
If the workers don't keep themselves current - with some assistance and guidance from their employers - then the workers who are in the legacy roles will have to be removed. That's what's so difficult.
MBA programs are underwritten by large companies and they succeed at producing future employees of large companies. In that regard, they are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing.
Apple makes computers and they have to be great at providing the product they promised every individual who wants to purchase from them. This is where they should spend the bulk of their energy.
I believe in labeling things.
In companies, there are three activities that should be labeled better. First there is the "CORE" which is the thing the company does that its customers pay it to do.
Apple made tools that helped people express their creativity and Steve Jobs knew that so he told that story well. But Facebook makes tools that help people connect and Mark Zuckerberg is hardly a story-teller. Nevertheless, he's become a leader because his products do such a good job of solving a problem.
I know a lot of great success stories of those who were excellent problem-solvers because they had found a need that they could fill well. As a result, they built organizations around them and those organizations had belief systems that could be described as a form of leadership.
However, there's nothing more inspiring than a company that does solve problems and those problems are captured as part of a larger story.
As you climb of the organizational ladder, you have to redefine your role in the value chain from player to captain to coach to manager, and for some, to owner. These are different roles and you won't be able to succeed as a manager when you're acting like a player.
It's the "Success Paradox." When a set of behaviors has gotten you somewhere, you keep doing them even though the circumstances have changed.
There are not enough forums where institutions invite their workers to share their failures in a constructive way so the organization can move forward.
The problem is not the sentiment, it's the execution. When a company makes a mistake, the individual benefits because they've learned how NOT to do something while the institution had to pay for the mistake.
I also believe that at a critical point (more than six people?), that collective wisdom turns into group think.
However, I believe that large groups make markets, so serving the needs of large groups is a simple approach to success in business success. But that's no reflection on whether or not they're making wise moves or good calls. It's just about filling the need.
That doesn't mean we should be doing it, though. We should always be carving back those things that are comfortable and institutionalized but not necessarily impactful.
I think small groups have more collective wisdom than an individual.
One of the things all entrepreneurs struggle with is where their efforts will have the highest impact. Unfortunately, too many of us continue to do the very same things that led to our initial success because we're good at it and we've created and invested in systems to support them
But, to the extent that I cannot solve MY problem with the same thinking I used when I created it, you're right. We need the fresh air that comes from others to see things in other ways.
I've got better things to do than to find my individuality in that particular area. But if it's important to me, I've got to seek my own path.
One of the easiest ways to solve your problems is to look at how others have solved a similar problem. So, in this regard, we are using the same thinking of others.
Thinking like others is ok for things that are not important to you.
For example, I wear clothes I buy at trendy shops because I don't care much about clothing. If someone wants to create a trend around clothing, I'll happily and blindly follow.
Follow AzQuotes on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. Every day we present the best quotes! Improve yourself, find your inspiration, share with friends
or simply:
