General discussion

  • Creator
  • #2322288



    by fluxit ·

    Many experts are coming out today and attacking the notion of leadership and arguing for more decentralized organizations facilitated by technology. Their points follow:

    1. Stewardship is more appropriate than leadership.
    2. Leadership is inhibits an organization
    3. Command and control slows progress
    4. Technology replaces management

    You should note that management and leadership are not the same thing. Management is sort of a surf process of enforcing rules and policies. Leadership is visionary and creates opportunity.

    I think the key to this is not that leadership is wrong but management is what is not right. If the leadership is on track the organization can accel. However, if the management is poor then the organization falters.

    If technology is facilitated correctly then there is a reduced need for management. In fact, an organization could become entirely self-directed through technology with marginal management staffing.

    Do you have ideas how this could occur? How can technology facilitate the need for little or no management? How can decentralized organization operation through technology?

All Comments

  • Author
    • #3407435


      by fluxit ·

      In reply to LEADERSHIP and TECHNOLOGY

      1. The Right Use of Power by Peter Block
      2. Greatness by Dale Carnegie
      3. Survival is Not Enough by Seth Godin

      There are many others and I’ll post them later.

    • #3407377

      Minimal managment and Visionaries

      by generalist ·

      In reply to LEADERSHIP and TECHNOLOGY

      The ‘flattening’ of an organization’s structure is one of the things that newer MIS books talk about when dealing with technology. With the proper systems in place, you can get along with a minimal management structure because a lot of the grunt work is automated.

      What’s left after automating the grunt work is handling exceptions, improving processes and creating new opportunities.

      Stewardship would be what you would want as the driving force when handling exceptions and improving processes. It assumes that you want to promote the long term survival of the organization while keeping in mind that conditions change. Of course, stewardship does need a certain amount of leadership to overcome the inertia of the status quo.

      Leadership, on the other hand, is essential for creating new opportunities. But leadership also has to have a firm grounding in stewardship. Creating new opportunities at the cost of destroying the organization that would benefit from the opportunities is counterproductive.

      I’d say that many forms of management lack stewardship and leadership, making them unhealthy for the organization.

      Unfortunately, some forms of leadership lack stewardship. They tend to be the ‘Chainsaw Al’ type of ‘leadership’ aimed at short term results that ignore long term impacts.

      Visionary leadership, on the other hand, is stewardship combined with creativity and sometimes spiced with charisma.

      • #3417384

        You point out…

        by fluxit ·

        In reply to Minimal managment and Visionaries

        Leadership has to have a firm grounding in stewardship…

        Peter Block, a 25 yr leadership expert, is against leadership in many ways. His view is to promote stewardship uniquely. However, I agree with you that some kind of leadership needs to provide guidance to establish the framework for stewardship to evolve and flourish.

        Another issue here is staff or knowledge workers who are willing and self-directed. This is most difficult to find. Most people’s mentality is get my paycheck and gohome. socially there are 2 approaches. One either lives to work or works to live. They are 180 degrees apart.

      • #3416864

        I think you hit this right on..

        by admin ·

        In reply to Minimal managment and Visionaries

        when you said: “leadership also has to have a firm grounding in stewardship. Creating new opportunities at the cost of destroying the organization that would benefit from the opportunities is counterproductive.”

        The problem in my view is today that stockholders have demanded short term gains recently and supported the destruction of corporations for the benefit of their personal financial opportunity.

        Oddly in this case, personal stewardship of resources has been at direct odds with groupstewardship. I wish the current markets would raise awareness of this and get people working together towards common good, but I fear that everyone is just gearing up hoping for a chance to build in order to short term raid again for their personal benefit.

    • #3406271

      Leadership vs. management

      by john tieso ·

      In reply to LEADERSHIP and TECHNOLOGY

      An interesting set of questions that have needed to be asked for some time.

      over the last several years, there has been an ever-inreasing view in the industry that technology can substitute for either or both leadership and management. The reality, in my opinion, is far from that point.

      As you pointed out, management is the traditionla approach that says employees need the supervision and guidance of someone who has ‘been there.’ The more layers of it the better since employees can’t manage themselves and do a good job.

      Leadership theory changes that view to one of an empowered group of very capable employees who are well able to succeed without onerous management, but still need leadership to remain focused, and receive strategic ‘big picture’ advice and encouragement.

      Technology, in my view, is NEVER a solution to either management or leadership problems. it can only be a facilitator to further success in an organization whose business processes are well-dcumented and defined, and whose leadership is well-versed in customer needs and requirements. Then technology can be applied to further facilitate meeting those requirements. The depth of leadership rovided is in proportion to the complexity of the requirementin relation to the higher level enterprise.

      • #3417373

        Who should be leaders?

        by fluxit ·

        In reply to Leadership vs. management

        Who should be the leaders in an organization if technology is never a solution to leadership and managment problems?

        Operations guys usually are stressed out and focused on making the business run. They often resolve to work arounds and stop gapmeasures.

        Finance people are closed loop feedback and often severely lack an understanding of technology or the operations. Yet they will never admit it as they place themselves in power positions and cause the company to lose money that they cover up by ‘timing’ expenses and declaring profits and loss at their convenience.

        Technology people tend to be of 3 genere’s.
        1. Hard core techies with tunnel vision. These guys are tech school or college grads who can really tear into the systems. They understand the business but no one ever listens to them because they are techies.
        2. Seat of the pants high school grads. These guys got a computer and learned enough to get hired. They undercut the wage and thier solutions are to re-install everything. Anything other than a PC and dialup is spooky to them.
        3. Crossover from other communities hacks. Most commonly these people cut over from Accounting because the IT department is under the controller who could not deal with those hard core guys. So he fired them or they walked so cost accountants were placed in the IT department.

        so where should the leadership come from?

        • #3416482

          leaders are leaders

          by john tieso ·

          In reply to Who should be leaders?

          My comments related to technology not being a solution referred to the dependence on systems and applications as solutions, not the IT staff which has a very important leadership role.

          Leaders are those that can successfully execute and maintain change in the organization. This change is positive, organized and forward-looking, not haphazard and irrational. leaders provide the focus and champion that type of change.

          Functional leaders–the operational folks that execute programs provide one type of leadership. The IT community, working with the functional leadership provides another type through its understanding of how technology (The systems and applications) can facilitate and enhance change. Together, the leadership team–functional and technology move an organization forward.

          There are times when either of the two groups will lead efforts, and there are times when they both have to work together to fashion solutions. The problem has been that the two groups do not often work well together. Then there is no real leadership–only a competing vacuum.

      • #3417371

        Complexity you say…

        by fluxit ·

        In reply to Leadership vs. management

        What if the complexity an organization is evolutionary facilitated by technology?

        What if fundamental information processes were external or internal business units that knowledge workers staff?

        What if complexity was enabled by technology?How could you use databases, web pages, learning systems, wans to evolve complexity?

        • #3416856

          Ok… here’s the deal

          by admin ·

          In reply to Complexity you say…

          You ask:”What if the complexity an organization is evolutionary facilitated by technology?” and I would say that you are asking the wrong thing. You should ask this of technology itself, but then of course, if it had evolved beyond you to the point of being capable of this, you would likely not even comprehend it’s reply.

        • #3415488

          You assume free will…

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Ok… here’s the deal

          Consider the human body as evolutionary over billions of years.

          We began as Electrons, Protons, and Neutrons floating in space that eventually came together in various ways to form Atoms. Over time these atoms assembled into various molecules. Eventually, molecules aggregated and in some cases cells formed or the first form of life, a primordial protoplasmal globule.

          As time moved on, the cell began developing tissues then organs began forming. Eventually, Today we arrived at a much larger scale complex being known as you!

          Likewise, organizations today can begin by aggregating common processes in building blocks just as those early parts of the atom did in space. Over time, we can arrive at a complex organization just as the human body formed.

          I find it difficult to believe that the technology alone will advance beyond our comprehension.

        • #3415883

          Expanding your universe.

          by admin ·

          In reply to You assume free will…

          Technology already has evolved in a short time to be beyond many humans comprehension. Artificial intelligence based on human models will at best limit us to where we are. Technology must be given its start and allowed to develop intelligence in many ways, not just human-based. We are such a silly little pompous species anyway and our soft pink underbellies have no defence other than our gray matter. Actually, what we do best is produce our own heat and multiply. Our thinking seems to get us into completely screwing up the enviroment and like any infection we eventually spread outward to the point we can no longer sustain our selves and die off. How can you really call this repeated process the ultimate in intelligence?

          It’s off topic,but the one that’s really scary (and to some degree funny) isn’t technological, it’s that we think we can comprehend God. We do of course, but through our little pea brains God becomes a lot like us which completely diminishes God in the process. Weare so limited even by our own languages. To a certain extent all our important fundamental feelings are squished into values and ideas that do not perfectly suit them. We are limited by being human. Technology has the potential to be more than human someday, and that’s ok with me 🙂

        • #3415779

          Utopian Intelligence?

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Expanding your universe.

          The model for intelligence and learning is quite simple. However, our biological systems are imperfect. Neural pathways are influenced by culture and environment. Some pathways burn and others do not creating people who have various skills and abilities.

          Linguistical character and script is not unique in the universe. It varies from place to place. However, mathematics is common in all points of the universe. Computers are mathematically oriented.

          Did you know that beauty and what is considered to be beautiful is based on the ratio, 1:1.618. For example, if your nose is 1 inch wide your mouth should be 1.618 inches wide! A smile is a hexagon coincidentally based on 1:1.618. This ration is repeated all thoughout nature. Computer generated mathematical masks can be created and overlayed on people to determine if they are considered to be beautiful.

          Intelligence can be likewise modelled with IT systems. So two things about imperfect humans, beauty and intelligence, can be modelled mathematically by computers.

          What about DNA? What about cloning or replicating people? Scary isn’t it…

        • #3417081

          Electrons or CLAY???????

          by e-fellow ·

          In reply to You assume free will…

          If evolution is tru then I may agree with you on some issues, but since it is not true then we have a core dicrepancy. God made me from clay and all other things that we made things from. He is the perfect leader. Of course you can keep back tracking behind your electrons and neutrons until you wind up with, hmmmmm, nothing, because that is the one thing that God did not make, NOTHING. He made everything else and he is a perfect leader.

        • #3399553

          Religious Opinion?

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Electrons or CLAY???????

          There is much that you cannot explain that is true. Mainly because of the perspective you choose.

          In my life and in your life we have never observed the heaven opening up and a hand that sweeps across the seas calming them. What we do observe is Theology acting in this universe through our minds and actions. We observe complexity evolving over time. Its true that we cannot find the smallest particle – yet. In Quantum Mechanics they do know of Quarks, Charm, Luck and so on…

          In the Bible, we observe elliptical currents. In the begining of the bible is the crucification of Jesus foretold, Jesus arrives in the middle, his birth is envisioned in a dream in Revelations when the bible is suppose to end.

          Similiarly, in our universe time curves space and explains the elliptical orbit of space. Is there an end to a circle or ellipse?

          I think as mankind splinters into space – much of what people believe religiously today will be viewed as almost childish in the future. Perhaps aswe view the religious behaviors 500 years ago.

          There is religious opinion and religious principle. The principle never changes and is consistent in all major religions. However, religious opinion changes and is the reason there are so many churchs.

        • #3399469

          God and evolution

          by generalist ·

          In reply to Electrons or CLAY???????

          I’ve long assumed that God set up the basic rules for the Universe and that everything stems from said rules. In a sense, discovering those rules, and corollaries, the essence of science, is a way of worshiping God.

          And when you get down to it, evolution could easily be a small part of the rules that God set up. Evolution would allow the fossil record to stand without having to ‘lie’ about the other rules. And saying that God doesn’t use evolution as part of the rules of the Universe is kind of of blasphemous.

          Of course, if you try to use evolution to ‘explain’ that God doesn’t exist, you run into the problem of explaining how evolution functions at the most basic levels. The ‘primordial ooze’ of the start of life requires that chemistry obey certain rules. It doesn’t explain how those rules came into existance.

          When you think about it, God has set up a management type command and control structure for the Universe and has made it fully automatic at various levels. But at the higher levels, leadership and stewardship come into play as decision making life forms respond to their environment.

        • #3398823

          Well Put…

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to God and evolution

          There is an interesting theory that was also played out on a 1960’s Star Trek episode. The Enterprise encountered a solar system and planet that was under siege by these cell-like animals. As it turned out a giant creature larger than the solar system was passing through.

          The Enterprise flew into the creature and was killing off the cells before discovering they were inside this larger creature. The cells were behaving like white cells in humans killing off infections.

          Perhaps there is no end – only scales or orders of magnitude for universes. I am not certain that command and control is natural. Equilibrium is natural. Perhaps this can be best achieved if we all had stewardship and ‘plugged’ into a larger system. If we become infectious towards the system then we would come under attack, fired, to restore equilibrium.

          This could be achieved and managed through technology.

        • #3398729

          Living systems at all levels

          by generalist ·

          In reply to God and evolution

          The concept of common principles being repeated at different scales can be found in a book called “Living Systems” by James Grier Miller.

          This book uses nineteen or so principles involving matter, energy and information to review how living systems ranging from the cellular to the multi-national corporation function. One of THE big books in the General Theory of Systems, it offers a view of how the same functions can be found at vastly different scales.

          The Star Trek episode you mentioned would be an example that would be bigger than your typical multi-national corporation. But the same principles would apply.

        • #3400282


          by jose mir ·

          In reply to Electrons or CLAY???????

          The word you didn’t find is quarks (these are the constitutive parts of electrons, protons and neutrons (among positrons and anti-protons).

          Jose P. Mir

        • #3400269

          Sub-quarkian particles

          by generalist ·

          In reply to QUARKS!

          And once we’ve figured out how quarks work, we’ll probably discover that there are sub-quarkian particles.

          Or has that happened already?

        • #3404736


          by fluxit ·

          In reply to QUARKS!

          It has been some time since I have studied quantum mechanics but I recall hearing of particles smaller than these. I also recall that Congress canx the largest atom smasher in the early 90’s that was to have searched deeper for these particles.

          It is scary to think that we could be smashing entire soler systems of a different magnitude isn’t it?

        • #3397615

          We know so much, but,,,

          by e-fellow ·

          In reply to QUARKS!

          We know so much, but cure cancer or the common cold, NOT YET. We know nothing and that is the reason for all the debate. We can clone things but we cannot build a human from only matter that we created because we have created nothing from anything that wasn’t already here in some form. Isn’t that wild? Where did the true “Original stuff come from???? We will always continue to believe we have found the smallest particle, but how will we know for sure, AND WILL IT MATTER? I LOVE IT!

          Yousay, well when we know we will solve the cancer and build better humans who will live perfectly for so many years and then die or be repaired to go again. I think the smallest particle is the soul and from there humans are build up and there is one thing you cannot recreate, THE SOUL. You say, well what if I do not believe in souls and them being the root of life, well to that I say “Happy Hunting”. Enough about this stuff, I believe that human cognizance, and true human common sense will neverbe duplicated and if you program those out to develop “BETTER” things, then you program out the genius of free thinking that got us here.

        • #3397564

          E follows Philosophy

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to QUARKS!

          Several times I indicated that humans possess wisdom and that the technology is a tool to supplement this end.

          It is scary too think of genietic engineering humans such as from stem cells having farms where headless bodies lie in coups for harvesting of organs. The social impact on values is enormous.

          Technology and mathematics may be used to model our universe. In a twist from traditional linear science, non-linear systems can only model system behavior and not predict outcomes.

          What I am proposing is an architecture in which elemental components plug into. This architecture can reside on the internet and much of our economy would plug in.

          Other micro-technological marvels are coming assist us as well such as the products and application that would inevitably be a part of this.

        • #3415486

          Beyond the human mind

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Ok… here’s the deal

          I did bring the concept of being damned by our own technology in a email to President Bush regarding Cloning of Humans.

          In this email I discussed the combination of genetic engineering and cloning to replicate the ideal race or human which is spooky. Can you imagine a human likeness engineered by humans that is more chismatic and intelligent. DNA is like like a computer program afterall.

          My fear is humans manufacturing our own anti-Christ. Even spookier is the killer bee effect with a cloned human. Once it is out of the lab, we do not know where they are until they swarm.

          Scary huh?

        • #3415888

          What was president Bushes reply?

          by admin ·

          In reply to Beyond the human mind

          I would be interested in knowing what he thinks about humans manufacturing the anti-christ.

          Sounds possibly akin to Shelley’s Frankenstein.

        • #3415785

          Got a Auto-Respondent

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to What was president Bushes reply?

          But he struck down human cloning in the US. We still to think about what is going on in some cave or jungle.

        • #3416471

          Interesting questions

          by john tieso ·

          In reply to Complexity you say…

          Very interesting questions. Might not have enough room to answer all in one answer.

          My view is that the future of organizations, as they invariably become more complex, is tied to new technologies, such as the web, and the current generation of Intra/extranets that can move information quickly, and neutrally among constituent communities in ways that are useful but not confrontational.

          Several years ago Sears, Roebuck established a corporate intranet that made possible the passage of information among all levels of workers & managers on topics that had broad application in store andmanagerial operations. Any employee, especially the knowledge workers, could post ideas and suggestions that others could use and enhance. That intranet, eventually at least partially an extranet as well, has apparently had significant impact on how Sears does business.

          The retail field is evolutionary, and the need for information and business intelligence intermingle to allow the company to update itself rather quickly in specific business areas.

          Interestingly, any employee or manager at any level can participate with ideas. As they are usaed, the knowledgebase is updated with information on usage so that others can see what works, and what doesn’t among stores and offices that may be widely separated. Other firms are using similar approaches to improve their knowledge flow.

        • #3415483


          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Interesting questions

          This is talked about by numerous experts. They are encouraging these conversations which are facilitated by web technologies.

          Knowledge crosses organizational boundaries and ownership belongs to communities of practice. This has always been the truth except today networks are crossing these same boundaries changing how we think of knowledge.

        • #3415454

          Crossing Boundaries

          by john tieso ·

          In reply to Conversations

          I would suggest that knowledge crosses organizational boundaries only through personal interaction. Information in the form of completed procedures crosses boundaries through the Intra/extranet, but the knowledge-based aspect is involved only when employee B who reads the suggested approach, discusses same with employee A who wrote the approach, and further, tacit information passes that augments and completes the information in the net.

          Networks make this transfer easier, but human interaction is still required

        • #3415973

          do not understand

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Conversations

          Of course human have to do the talking in the conversations that share knowledge. This has been the case all along. Technology only improves the way we do this. In fact, IT technology can manufacture and manage the knowledge because it is perfectlyordered and determinated. There are lines of logic. Wisdom is indetereminate and perfectly ordered.

          Coincidentally, since the advent of IT the accummulation and employment of knowledge has accelerated logrithmically. We are designing and developing things that were in comprehensible 40 yrs ago when Lorenze formulated the theory of chaos and was laughed out of the room.

          Bottom line is that IT can be a tool presenting knowledge to humans for us to apply wisdom.

        • #3416231

          Not sure about that

          by john tieso ·

          In reply to do not understand

          i gues that I come from the old school. In my experience, data is noise –artifacts collected without organization or understanding. Technology can support the collection of data.

          Information is data organized in response to a need. Technologycan help by recording the organization of the information, as well as the question that solicited it.

          Knowledge uses information and remembers how it was used, where it was created or found, and how it can be useful in other situations. Knowledge is not created by a computer–it a personal asset of an individual. In some circumstances, more than one individual can contribute to a complete understanding of a larger issue or requirements.

          Technology can support the process steps that the person(s)used to arrive at a conclusion or product. Technology can also collect part of the thought process that the individual(s) went through to arrive at their conclusion and make it available for others.

          I know of no major authors in the mainstream that are moving toward wisdom as the next step since wisdom is even more of a personal attribute than knowledge and completely tacit.

          Bottom line, I guess, is that I agree on technology as a facilitator and supporter of knowledge, but not as a knowledge generator by itself.

        • #3416213

          Knowledge is not owned

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Not sure about that

          Knowledge is not owned by a person, place or organization. Knowledge belongs to a community and spans organizational and human boundaries.

          Machines are capable of organizing and creating knowledge. Why? Because knowledge is perfectly ordered andfollows lines of logic.

          The systems conduct what is known as supervised learning and can store good and bad lines of logic in a database for lookup so they are learned only once.

          Unsupervised learning requires free will and no machine can achieve free will to date. This unsupervised learning involves wisdom which is the sage application of experience to make quantum leaps in judgement based on partial or incomplete information.

          So what is the difference? In supervised learning humans are seeking to know something and agents act on thier behave data mining the information because humans have ‘notified’ agents of what is desired to be known.

          Unsupervised learning is the machine deciding to go out and study something at will because it is curious. To date no machine can do this.

          So the technology is monitoring for information and establishes lines of logic based on what a human has told it they want. Non linear learning or searches. It better than a word lookup.

        • #3417183

          Answer to comment below

          by john tieso ·

          In reply to do not understand

          This answers your response below since the max thread level had been reached down there.

          In an ideal world, your description of how knowledge is collected and disseminated may become true. However, the crux of knowledge identification still remains with the individual. If they choose not to share, then the knowledge base is empty. if they choose to share only partially, then the knowledgebase is incomplete and may or may not be able to interpolate results in other situations.

          I like your vdefinition of wisdom and can accept it. My only question relative to wisdom is its place in an ordered process since it such a personal attribute.

    • #3417386

      The Biggest Problem

      by fluxit ·

      In reply to LEADERSHIP and TECHNOLOGY

      In my view the biggest problem plaguing organizations are Accountants and Human Resources.

      Accountants will always install command and control management and of course they will be at the center of it.

      Human resources drive legal policies that mandates everyone to be treated the same without regard to productivity or contribution.

      Until these are addressed it will be difficult to improve organizations.

      As far as technology goes it has caused me to change careers because middle management is being eliminated. I was driven into a technology career.

      • #3415688


        by john tieso ·

        In reply to The Biggest Problem

        Unfortunately, there are always external influences and requirements that can muck up any organization. Accountants and HR folks lead the charge in that quarter. Federal, state and local laws and regulations are a fact of life. However, they do not have to detract from real breakthrough change.

        The accountants keep everybody honest. For most business processes, however, their influence relates more to the extent of change than to change itself. Change can still occur, perhaps over a longer period than we would like, but it can still happen.

        The HR folks can be real assets to any change process. If a process is going to truly change, then the skills required have to be identified, training programs established, and executed, along with some type of monitoring function that works. The HR folks are trained to help here.

        Conversely, internal factors, such as improved management that results in fewer management layers is controled by the Organization’s desired strategic objective(s) and can be moderated as the complexity of future critical processes are determined.

        • #3415556


          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Perhaps

          It is true the Government creates culture or changes culture. That is the reason for Government. Republicans tend to see themselves as creating culture whereas Democrats tend to see themselves changing culture. While subtle it is still a culture.As for accountants keeping people honest – I find I am keeping accountants honest after they bastardize appropriation request with bias and message numbers to show profit when thier own management failed. Have I got horrific stories for you but thenagain you can look to Enron.

          As for HR they exist for legal reason only. And any CEO knows that he has to throw away HR policy in order reward his people for performing. I double the pay of one of my staff who was inadequately paid and HR fought me on it with fire.

          The view in most professional circles is to design for flexibility which almost always means a flattening of the organization.

    • #3417366


      by fluxit ·

      In reply to LEADERSHIP and TECHNOLOGY

      Is stewardship achievable when there are political processes discouraging it; when social thought is not about balancing a career but when the next vacation occurs, the weekend picnic, or leaving a employer for a nickle more per hour.

      Will leaders willfully give up power to encourage stewardship?

      • #3416851

        “When will followers willingly

        by admin ·

        In reply to Achievable?

        take up power to encourage stewardship?” is a better question. You are limiting yourself expecting this to arrive externally. It never will, no matter how much we wish, beg, or whine. You want it- Make It! You need it- Take It! No one can take away our power to be good stewards except ourselves!

        Hey, the absolute worst would be to be killed for being a good steward and even that wouldn’t stop your stewardship, the end of life is a different thing. To be one- be one I say. Enough of this To be one ask one nonsense! I’ve never heard of being killed for being a good steward BTW, but if people were, I bet others would follow and multiply.

    • #3416951

      Manage yourself.

      by admin ·

      In reply to LEADERSHIP and TECHNOLOGY

      Technology is a tool. Apply as needed to your situation as a self managed individual.

      Technology cannot ever make the best manager any more than other strategies that lie outside the individual. The best management comes strongly from an internalwell that can be developed in all of us. Take the responsibility and start living! MANAGE YOURSELF!

      • #3415577


        by fluxit ·

        In reply to Manage yourself.

        I think this is the point of stewardship.

        Technology, if designed and applied correctly can manage policies and procedures which many people really suck at doing.

        • #3415878


          by admin ·

          In reply to Stewardship?

          Some people may “suck at what they are doing” but is it the best stewardship to “manage” them, or is it better to allow them the wonderful natural teacher -which is FAILURE- and let them learn and grow in the natural world until they more quickly learn to get it right and not suck, but rather, do great work? Isn’t the best management really the one that makes information available but does not allow more or less than natural consequences in the enviroment?

          We enable people making mistakes sodamn bad it’s not even funny. We have created a system where you must make dysfunctional choices to survive. I think technology is capable of a lot, but putting it up to the task of enforcing illogical social structure seems to me to be a waste of possibility.

        • #3415792

          Illogical Social Order

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Yes.

          WTFO? I am talking about flattening an organization, empowering people, and advancing technology to do the routine things. So that people get on with other things.

          I guess Karl Marx would a good response to your view. Let the the survival of the fittest rule. If the people are so inept then that gene pool should be eliminated. But you feel others should intervene and keep the poor genes around as employed slaves.

          Stewardship and management are not one and the same. Stewardship is personalfullfilment to pursue a course of action, a career, faith etc… on one’s own initiative. If someone has to manage that then it is not stewardship but command and control which we suck at!

        • #3397755

          What do the people who

          by admin ·

          In reply to Illogical Social Order

          can’t “get on with other things” do? Or would “getting on with other things” include being out of work and struggling to survive outside of this system?

          I do think you are right at saying we suck at command & control (although ironically we havesure made this one of our primary attempts as a species) but what I am suggesting is that we also suck at flattening organizations & empowering people (otherwise we would be doing it, right?), and that our intelligence and underlying abilities including language are at the root of the problem. We will flaw automatic mechanisms inherently because of this. It will be better if something that is good at flattening organizations & empowering people does the programming etc., but we don’t have that yet.

          It is an impossible question to answer adequately, but I would propose that although math appears to be a universal constant, we have nothing other than our own perception of what math is and may in fact be finding an order that is flawed, yet makes sense to us. Also, order itself is not necessary or ideal except in current popular human perception. Linguistical logic, Science, and Math are all predicated on faith claims, just like everything else. There is no prime in fact, all is ultimately supported by the hypthosis we choose. To say that human reasoning is the epox of the universe is to slap God in the face, if you believe this or it is to greatly diminish the content and possibility of the universe even if you do not. We ultimately all live on constructs on top of our prime beliefs, perceptions, and abilities even in science, logic and math. The problem then is that we largely cannot even formulate the adequate question currently and therefore it is difficult to believe that we can construct a mechanism which will provide the solution to empowering the fellow human.

    • #3416453

      Read all Postings: am 08May

      by fluxit ·

      In reply to LEADERSHIP and TECHNOLOGY

      Many of the comments seem to focus on the organization and its people. My interest is applying technology to resolve organizational problems and who should lead this.

      Organizations need to learn more quickly. This is termed as zero latency. Organizations need to identify patterns in markets and operations then respond to those patterns.

      How can these issues be resolved through technology? What about the use of neural agents and plug-n-play concepts applied to the organization?

      I suggest developing distributed databases within an organization and dropping agents on top to evaluate information. These distributed databases then have ways of publishing its information such as datamarts, webpages, and communicating agents.

      In effect the network or WAN becomes a large scale brain.

      • #3415687


        by john tieso ·

        In reply to Read all Postings: am 08May

        What you describe is similar to what a firm i was formerly associated with developed for its clients. Called a Worknet, its architecture did exactly what you describe–drop agents into business processes that could assist in managing operations, collecting information and perfoming many useful tasks that are well-defined and not necessarily need constant human intervention.

        You might want to look at for more info

    • #3416446


      by fluxit ·

      In reply to LEADERSHIP and TECHNOLOGY

      Te emerging philosophy I seem to be reading is that not only information but knowledge can be automated. Wisdom on the other hand is unique to free will and no machines to-date have free will. Thus humans possess wisdom and need adequate tooling to assist in the application of this wisdom.

      Therefore, the endstate I propose is that we should develop technology (as a tool) to provide humans with knowledge and information so that we may apply our wisdom.

      Quick defintions:

      information (data): The tag assigned to an object whether tangible or intangible that identifies its unique set of qualities and character.

      Knowledge: complex information relationsips. Structured as a line of logic or data lineage.

      Wisdom: The sage and at will application of experience to arrive at an conclusion or derive an endstate given partial or incomplete information and knowledge.

      • #3415632

        Interesting thread

        by navyair ·

        In reply to PHILOSOPHY

        Until machines become self-aware, they are merely tools. I have yet to meet anyone whose quality of life has been made easier, better, or more complete than when when we had more human interface.

        The workforce is just exploring the rudimentary elements of knowledge management…just like the early days of PC’s seem crude to us, so will the workplace of the future. The reason we are having trouble quantifying what we wish to accomplish is that we are spending more time being “busy” and lesstime being productive. If business leaders knew more about chaos theory and their ability to influence their own little piece of the “system” things might improve in the work place. Until then, people will keep hoping tech brings with it a panacea.

        • #3415586

          Good Reading

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Interesting thread

          ‘The Unfinished Revolution’ by Micheal Dertouzos. This Book / Audio book discusses how information technology is only 10% to where we need to go. Network 21 and Oxygen which as DARPA projects having delivery dates 2010 target human centric computing.

          Technology will go from being passive-supportive to active-participative.

        • #3415582

          My view point

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Interesting thread

          It is my belief that we are in for a major change soon. Long term economic trends indicate we are headed for a shake up beginning somewhere around 2008 as discussed in the “Roaring 2000’s”. This shakeup will usher in a new era of technology that brings us new ways of living. Many experts suggest that most of the US population will be self-employed that is facilitated by technology.

          This will be possible if a WAN/Internet architecture comes into place in which business’s can plug into as a piece of a larger system. This is in keeping with the Chaos Theory. Some business’s will emerge that coordinate organization of numerous smaller blocks. Standard information exchanges would be employed.

        • #3415892


          by navyair ·

          In reply to My view point

          Kurzweil’s book: The Age of Intelligent Machines is worth a read along these lines.


    • #3415944

      Do some testing!!!!

      by e-fellow ·

      In reply to LEADERSHIP and TECHNOLOGY

      Get 8 or more people in a room from your company and have them each write down a problem worthy of solving immediately. Then draw one of the problems and try to solve it with the group. Now watch and see if, with no further direction, the group can solve the problem and then implement a fix without bitching or feeling like they are giving too much while others are being lazy.

      Then the next time designate a leader, anyone, and solve another problem or try.

      Then try each person as leader ona new problem and watch what happens. The none leaders will begin to adopt the previous leaders techniques because they are to lazy or too nervous to step outside the box!
      The leaders will break the chain and have people going, “yes, hell yes it might work, I will do that part”!
      You can rules by command and control or by using your power to open up the brains and give them a voice. Oh my God!, a great leader is essential and while technology will serve as a great tool to cut costs, add value and automate processes, technology and great leadership are at the top of the mountain of success.

      Build great managers and add to your value,,,, build great leaders and multiply your value!

      • #3416277

        Oh My Gawd!

        by fluxit ·

        In reply to Do some testing!!!!

        You just re-iterated the World War II mindset. You are such a regressive genius. I bet you would make a great candidate for working under a controller where there is a nice feed back loop to measure performance and you have to ask permission to do anything.

        A leader creates a culture. A manager enforces that culture. If the right culture is formed then there is no need for command and control.

        Its all based on how well the parts of the organization are coupled and if there are fuzzy boundaries.

        • #3416273

          How about DblOhGawd

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Oh My Gawd!

          Are you still struggling with your (lack of) leadership issues? The answer is simple. Talk less; listen more.

          (I couldn’t resist.)


        • #3416244


          by fluxit ·

          In reply to How about DblOhGawd

          Nice to see you are still around. Any inputs?

        • #3417104

          Leadership still necessay!

          by e-fellow ·

          In reply to Oh My Gawd!

          God or your spiritual leader, you do have one right?
          Military missions????
          Family; usually the mother or father lead the children, USUALLY. Not to say that you have a military style home, far from it, but when you let them go to be creative, hopefully you do not let them do so on the interstate.

          I am totally against “commmand and control” environments, as a matter of fact, I hate them, but I still feel that leadership, the right kind of trusting leadersip, is key! Herbert D. Kelleher, President and CEO Southwest Airlines is one of those rare persons who can make light of his job, party with the gang, build the bottom line and at the same time his people would give up a check or two to help the company, and they have, only to be repaid over and above the promise made to them.

          Different types of companies require different types of leadership and management. I work in a manufacturing company where 80% of our workforce are on very labor intensive, low wage, jobs. But I used to work at an engineering company and when we became much more collaborative and lost our structure, we performed better and came up with better ideas. Technology became a big factor as well. And for your information I have worked directly under our CEOfor 3 years and I, along with the I.T. staff and many others, have come up with ideas and made them happen. I have never been questioned by the CEO and I have not failed to shatter deadlines and costs and prove better than promised benefits, however, if our plans fail then it is my ass, NOT THE OTHER 20 PEOPLE! Can’t fire them all or can YOU!

        • #3399550


          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Leadership still necessay!

          It is a matter of coupling. If the building block processes are to tightly coupled when goes down it bring everyone down. If the building processes are to loosely coupled then there is no knowledge exchange.

          The bottom line is that leadership involves creating an environment for the building block processes to flourish and profit. These building blocks are autonomous self directed information processes. The staffing and personnel of a block is managed by the people in the block because each block is a business in itself.

          In short, the leadership creates an environment / culture or architecture in which plug and play blocks are purchased or hired to participate. They are competitive in a sense.

        • #3399536

          Leadership training exercise

          by generalist ·

          In reply to Oh My Gawd!

          If you look at e-Fellow’s posting as a training exercise for leaders, it would work quite well. It would show that different people have different styles when it comes to problem solving. And if you had people explaining the group dynamics after the exercise, you might be able to get people to work together better because people understand the strengths and weaknesses of others.

          Recognizing those styles and getting everybody to work toward the same ultimate goals using their skills to the fullest is where leadership comes in. And the really good leaders would be visionaries who know their teams well and can coax maximum performance out of everybody while keeping the weaknesses from slowing things down.

        • #3399514

          Open Communication is Key!

          by e-fellow ·

          In reply to Leadership training exercise

          Thanks Geralist and hey, It works. I have found that personnel relationships are like a marriage. No matter how different the people, take open communication away and watch it crumble. Technology is a great tool, although, we have spent billions andhave not reaped billions, I believe we shall or could reap higher output someday from our spending.

          Finally, to mrmiami…..neglect a spouse, a child, an employee by not communicating, not listening, not affirming and you will pay a price. Discipline is a part of the mix as well, unless you have found those few perfect employees and hired them all.
          And even then you can judge perfection for the heart and soul cannot be seen so be careful with all that trust.

      • #3399527

        Addition vs Multiplication

        by generalist ·

        In reply to Do some testing!!!!

        “Build great managers and add to your value, build great leaders and multiply your value!”

        I like the mathematics of this quote. Given that and Pareto’s Law, you should spend eighty percent of your time building great leaders and the rest building great managers. (That assumes that you still want managers for some reason.)

        Although, when you get down to it, a certain amount of ‘command and control’ may be needed in an organization, if only to handle mundane activities that have to be done but may not get done for some reason. Of course if then are mundane enough, a ‘manager’ software suite might be able to handle things.

        You may also need ‘command and control’ for those who don’t quite fit the organization but are either in training or are needed for special skills.

    • #3416243


      by fluxit ·

      In reply to LEADERSHIP and TECHNOLOGY

      I have been working on a web project that not only changes the way information flows but also the way we think of organizations, leadership, and management. Shortly, I will be making a major brief to some big wigs and spoke at a conference several weeks ago on many of these issues.

      Your inputs have helped me alot. And I would like to to hear more from you all. I am in the process of establishing a website and discussion groups on these topics of my own. I’ll post the URL when its up and running.

      The big thing I am after is intellectual dialog rather than how do I fix my printer problem. So for those who are of the intellectual genre let’s rock and roll.

      • #3416214


        by why ·

        In reply to Co-incidentally

        The Age of Spiritual Machines is a sequel to The Age of Intelligent Machines.

        Some good stuff in there (which is why I found it remaindered in a bookshop …)

        • #3416098

          More Philosophy

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Sequel

          We live in at least a dual universe. There is a Theological universe which is spirituality. Then there is a physical one that is all the physical laws, you, me, and the equilibrium around us. The physical universe is a subset of the Theological universe. The only way the Theological universe acts in the physical universe, to our knowledge, is through our minds and actions. Humans are the conduit bringing Godliness into this universe.

          You are a spiritual machine. It is just much of your character, behavior, and likeness can be modelled and replicated. Except for one component – your self-awareness or spirit.

      • #3399457

        Intellectual discussion

        by generalist ·

        In reply to Co-incidentally

        Sounds fun. I hope the conference presentation went well and the bigwig briefings are a success.

        As an addendum to the discussions, it would be nice to have annotated references to various media forms that contain useful information promoting the concepts you’ve mentioned here and there.

        It would be useful if some of this information goes against what you’re promoting in order to give people an idea of what others may say. While being able to promote something based on its merits is good, it helps to know what type of ammunition is going to be used against you.

        Better still, if the ‘negative’ source has some principles that are useful, being able to quote them can be useful too. It can even help turn a critic into a supporter.
        Of course you may already be planning on covering all of the bases.

        • #3398970

          Things are in a positive direction

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Intellectual discussion

          I have been working through the challenges to the concept and one gentleman really challenged me in a brief made several weeks ago. I had answers for critical point and exhausted his efforts.

          On the website I had this idea to discuss things in a paragraph and then add a corroborating sound bytes from other’s speeches. But the problem is that people on 52kbps modems take too long to download the page. One page I tried with advertising concepts had 3 sound bytes and took over 15 minutes to load on older 52kbps modems.

          Most of the reading are written for CPA’s, advertising people, and the general public. They are kind of cryptic for a technical person and require the technical readers to make leaps in understanding to the technical sideand how to apply the concepts they are discussing. Some actually do get technical.

          Going against this is the command and control style and holding someone in a chain of command accountable. I deal with this everyday with my boss. In fact, I was briefing him and he told me I could not make certain decisions. I asked why and he told me that someone 3 levels above me had to make those decisions. Then I continued with my brief in which I argued against this asking permission to do things. I pointed out how it slowed the organization down in increased latency. He fidgeted in his chair then said I could make the decisions that I asked to do.

        • #3398957

          CPAs and Advertising people

          by generalist ·

          In reply to Things are in a positive direction

          I know what you mean about technical readers finding certain things to be rather cryptic, especially when dealing with stuff written for CPAs, advertising people and the general public.

          I sometimes wonder if a team should write a book titled “A Technical Person’s Guide to Understanding Group Dynamics”. Such a book would explain a lot of the concepts that other groups consider to be state of the art or even standard operating procedure. Various tech oriented cartoons could be added to emphasize facts that need to be known.

          If a tech type had that type of book as a reference, they might be encouraged to check out other areas.

        • #3398886

          Similar Situation here.

          by e-fellow ·

          In reply to Things are in a positive direction

          I have a very similar situation. I work directly for our CEO, however, the VP has been given control of operations and most other management. I am beginning an administrative process re-engineering and improvement project that could take years to compile and complete, as we have not looked hard at these processes since 1979 and they have never been mapped out. But with every little problem I find, he wants a report, work instructions and meetings. I cannot seem to get it across that quick fixesare just that, quick fixes to stop the blood from leaking then we will go back later and re-engineer and develop solid processes with complete and concise work instructions. It is becoming such a hinderence that I am ready to say to hell with it. But I do not give up that easy.

        • #3398762

          Design for flexibility

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Similar Situation here.

          It sounds as though your boss is detail oriented. I am not in your shoes but here is what I would do. Begin selling that the organization needs to be flexible and needs to be able to reorganize quickly.

          Many of the processes are fixed. Its thierrelationship to other processes that keep changing. Organize or aggregate the information processes into autonomous compartments. These compartments are JIT-like U shaped cells in which you want to manage only the inputs and outputs. Within a cell you manufacture information or knowledge. The cell itself is self-directed meaning the staff supporting the information process manages themselves. Its kind of like a big physical DLL.

          Then use web technologies and datamarts to exchange information between cells. As the business processes and market conditions change you either outsource cells or re-organize the cell relationships as necessary.

          This will take the burden off of IT from constantly responding to changing BS and redirect money otherwise spent into more productive efforts such as having IT generate revenue. I have a whole belief system here as well.

          Anyhow, I can go into more depth on this. Send me an email to

        • #3404883

          Not there yet!

          by e-fellow ·

          In reply to Design for flexibility

          Our processes are far from lean.
          Our management arrangements are far from flexible, its matrix this and matrix that, reporting on data that cannot be fully trusted.

          We have about 70, low paying hourly jobs but have 6 levels of supervision and mgt!!!!!
          We have 2 floor supervisors

        • #3404882


          by e-fellow ·

          In reply to Design for flexibility

          As I was saying we have 2 floor supervisors
          1 general production supervisor
          1 mfg director
          1 general manager
          i vp of ops
          and a ceo

          I work for the CEO and so does the accounting mgr.
          But the vp of ops seems to carry the power and that is ok until it hampers progress, and it has and does, trust me.

        • #3404735


          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Design for flexibility

          The frustration you talk of sounds like to me that the organization is flattening but the culture and architecture is unaware of what is happening. This creates a clash of the cultures. People complain of micro management and seniors who make decisions they should not be making etc…

          The top dogs create the culture below them to deliver the necessary information for them to make thier decisions. They are using other methods and the people below are getting frustrated.

        • #3398840


          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Things are in a positive direction

          Yes it is frustrating to find things other languages and have to be translated into terms that are more understandable in our language.

          One thing that I find is that all these people have some fragmented view of a bigger picture. What worstens this is that about every 3 years terms change for the new marketing fade to sell some other fragmented view of the bigger picture.

          It is like ISO, BPR, TQM, B2B, MRP, ERP, BI, CRM etc… keep being reinvented and clutter the picture. These professionals come running to IT screaming we are going to implement this. Most of activity is heartless and catch phrases run rampant as though ‘to meet or exceed customer expectations’. I’ll tell you if a company does not meet or exceed my expectation theydo not meet my money.

          If we step back and look at the larger picture everything begins to fall into place. Many companies are busy getting organized which is like cleaning the top of the desk off everyday and it keeps coming.

          You really need to begin with the end in mind.

        • #3397749

          Thanks for the personal insight :)

          by admin ·

          In reply to Things are in a positive direction

          If I was in that enviroment this would be a question on the front burner and frustrating.
          Sounds like you are turning it into something positive for yourself though. 🙂

      • #3399258

        Can I get into this forum?

        by e-fellow ·

        In reply to Co-incidentally

        Hey I am short on that Intellect, can I buy in with a little common sense management?

        After all “A Mercedes without a motor is like a knowledgeable degreed person without Initiative, Motivation and Dedication, one step below an imbecile.

        • #3398983

          i am scripting

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Can I get into this forum?

          I am scripting the discussion groups and article commenting features for the site right now. Tonight I hope to script the user registration. I am keeping it really simple so do not expect much.

          I am having a bit of a problem too. I got to figure how best to filter out bad words. For example the filter works well for identifying profanity but when you have words like ASSociation or reBUTle it corrects these too. I’ll have to probably build an another lookup table of these words.

          Any how you will be able to visit the site by next week i hope.

    • #3399739

      Computer give me the report!

      by jose mir ·

      In reply to LEADERSHIP and TECHNOLOGY

      “Leadership is different from management, but not for the reasons most people think. Leadership isn’t mystical and mysterious. It has nothing to do with “charisma” or other exotic personality traits. It is not the province ofa chosen few. Nor is leadership necessarily better than management or a replacement for it.”
      “Rather, leadership and management are two distinctive and complementary systems of action. Each has its own function and characteristic activities. Both are necessary for success in an increasingly complex and volatile business environment.”
      /// John P. Kotter, What Leaders Really Do, Harvard Business Review, Special Issue December 2001.

      Management and Leadership seems to be equally necessary in modern corporate world. It seems to me hard to imagine how technology can marginalize these roles (even deploying a HAL 9000 computer), in the actual state of the art.

      With some exceptions, the spirit beyond the messages in the present discussion shows IT people hungry with their CEOs because these executives look at them as the technicians they really are insteadof the “undercover” executives they feel they are.

      Jose P Mir

      • #3404786

        Your Points…

        by fluxit ·

        In reply to Computer give me the report!

        The limits of the human mind is determined only by its owner. MLK once said, “I have a dream that a man is judged by his character…” Einstien once said, “Imagination is more important than knowledge.”

        After over 20 years experience in industry,government, developing two of my own side companies, and acruing nearly 400 qtr hrs of education I do not know it all. That is why I am here – to poke and prod discussions for more.

        The points you made are interesting. I recommend other readings for definitions of leadership, management, and change.

        It is true that leadership and management are complimentary. Leaders build architectures behind them to facilitate the vision and culture they pursue. Human managers are part of that. Those same leader could choose to use technology in place of humans.

        We have seen this time and time again throughout history. At one time slaves dragged rocks along to construct pyramids. But the leadership had a hard time finding slaves when they kept dying off from the hard work and needed to come up with another way. They wised up and employed modern technologies of boats, cannals, and round logs to reduce the number of slaves required.

        Those same leaders some called Pharoahs then created a culture of servitude to the nation. Many citizens, former slaves, felt a need to serve the nation as a duty. They held professions like carvers, food preparers, and fabric weavers.

        Here we are thousands of years later. Pharoahs are now called corporate executives and Government officials who create various cultures. Millions of people, professionals and laborers alike, serve them with loyalty.

        Interestingly a cultural is emerging that may require many of those loyal workers to become leaders of thier own facilitated by technology.

      • #3404633

        We need to be more business oriented!

        by jose mir ·

        In reply to Computer give me the report!

        Nobody remember Einstein for his imagination. Maybe Jules Verne is a better reading for this topic. Even you don’t quote Einstein in quantum mechanics, but if you want to talk about light (waves versus particles) or relativity (the movement ofthe observer sets the reference frame) you can’t afford not to mention Einstein.

        In the same way, if you want to talk about management and leadership from a business point of view you can’t afford not to name John Kotter and the Harvard team.
        Maybe you could be more than confident about your own definitions, but you must give some attention to those who has mastered the topics.

        Technology is every day a more important tool. People find every day new application for Computers,even in playing Chess (Deep Blue vs. Kasparov). I believe some day computers will be able to emulate human thinking, because intelligence is, after all, the product of electricity and chemistry (Maxwell and Mendeleiev). Even if you surprise me in one of those philosophical days I could say that some day computers will be capable of duplicate human feelings (but those are my opinions, and are completely useless in a discussion forum because nobody should give a penny on my personal opinions). But nobody can deny the fact that in the modern corporate world is every day more important the good management and the proper leadership.

        If you find many companies having problems with making its servers run without crashes, or starting projects to deploy platform migration, how do someone think in deploying a corporate package to substitute proper management?


        Jose P. Mir

        • #3400545

          An Interesting Occurence….

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to We need to be more business oriented!

          I was talking to ONE of my bosses who was complaining that his boss was making too many decisions. One may have called this micro management but today it is occuring because of two architectures clashing. One formed by technology and one formed of human chains of command.

          The technology architecture enabled higher levels of management to get information that lower levels of management used to organize and prepare. The organization is flattening while management layers hang around.

          This flattening is going to the extent of removing nearly all human management and leaving leaders and worker bees tied together through technology. The worker bees then assume knowledge worker skill sets and become self-directed.

          I have a undergrad in operations management and extensive leadership training myself. I was going through a 6 foot stack of my leadership stuff. I am always amazed by it. I never subscribed to NLP but have effectively used it from time-to-time. Principle centered leadership always gave me the best gains.

          I have read many Havard documents. Recently, I read some of RosaBeth Moss Kanter’s work from the Havard Business School. I was bored with her old style organizational behavior analysis that was applied to digital world. She missed far too many key points. I wrote her with my review.

          All too often people only view a fragmented portion of the picture and build incomplete arguments that quickly become discredited.

          One time, 1995, I went into the Red-Crossin Columbus Ohio on Broad Street to service a Novell computer, version 2.15. It had been running for nearly 10 years per the onscreen counter. All it did was service one old DOS application over the network. Amazing!

          Anyhow, you are thinking in the wrong context. Management is not a application. Management is an architecture.

        • #3400945

          Come on guys!

          by jose mir ·

          In reply to An Interesting Occurence….

          Some day the computer will be able to invite you to play chess, and if you refuse it could say something like “.. I can do it well …” (do you remember “2001 a space odyssey”); but in the meantime is meaningless to discuss about the kind of voice most appropriated to make this invitation (from the computer’s point of view).
          If you need good management, all you have to do is to hire a good manager. If your company lacks appropriate leadership you need to work on it (promoting, hiring, etc.). There is not technology ready to replace management or leadership in the real world. Even the notion of reducing management or leadership efforts seems out of the reality for the modern corporate world. Every day we see more need to be efficient, to improve management, and to find better ways to motivate personnel. It seems nothing more than free philosophy to talk about replacing this complex task with technology. I agree 100% with the concept that technology must be involved, and with the need of continuous improvement in acquiring, sharing, and analyzing data, but even in a highly technology oriented environment the need for human management and leadership seems to me a must.

          The idea of computers replacing management in corporate america seems to me the dreams of unhappiest technologist that wishes to shake from his shoulders those “disgusting” managers that makes theirs lives miserable. Maybe the same technologist that enjoy talking about the “new” economy that “e” has created; or maybe those who analyze the corporate needs from the narrow point of view of theirs own experiences (remember Maslow and the hammer!).

          Application versus Architecture? Who cares, it’s only a dream!


          Jose P. Mir

        • #3397736

          The ultimate irony.

          by admin ·

          In reply to Come on guys!

          Of course, if you are right, the frustrated technical worker is overjoyed for a second after his “evil” bosses are replaced and then feels silly when he is then immediately replaced and finds himself the victim of his own devices. 🙂

          At any rate we are not to this point in AI yet, and when we are everything will be so different that we cannot begin to imagine what it will quickly become from this vantage.

          Another interesting read in getting technology to do the work is “Player Piano” if you want the fun spin of Kurt Vonnegut on these sorts of attempts 🙂

        • #3660005

          “The system is not responding”

          by jose mir ·

          In reply to The ultimate irony.

          If someone could probe the existence of a magic correcting feedback that has the power of make the things right after sensing something wrong, I will become alchemist!
          I always put the same example, and many people disagree with me: Once upon a time there was a company which products open an era: “PC Networking made easy and stable”; but this company was arrogant, and some day a dark spirit takes its place in the market with poor products (speaking of networking) and many many people accepted and recommended it. There was not happy ending, because the arrogant company is still arrogant, and many people (including, sometimes, myself) use and recommend poor networking products for some kind of small solutions.

          I’ve founded a web page of Kurt Vonnegut (but not the Player Piano you mention) and saw an article called “Avoiding the Big bang”. Maybe the “silicon manager” of MrMiami could be the starter (like the Terminator’s Sky Net) of thechaos (entropy?).


          Jose P. Mir

        • #3659630

          Manager of Chaos -p1

          by admin ·

          In reply to “The system is not responding”

          BTW- Chaos can be a wonderfully beautiful thing too….

          I am now reminded of something I believe Ayn Rand talked about . I am probably mis-using her terms, so please forgive me.

          There has been a relationship between Mystic (did she say “Witch Doctor”) and Conqueror for eons in human existence. The Conqueror (I am not sure if this is her term) is a person of action and the physical world. The prime desire is to bring action into reality and empires and new systems of order are brought about by this individual. This individual must be 100%+ sure of what they are doing to be successful and never stop to question their divine right and this is where they need help because their ego is unsure of whether they are “right” in what they do. They must seek the services of the Mystic. The Mystic has the ability to seperate from reality and find new paradigms which can build better systems. Their prime desire is to build the right world, the Godly world, the perfect order and they must too be 100+ percent sure and directed to the right or good (or evil). They however lack the ability to bring action into reality and affect change. They need the Conqueror as much as the Conqueror needs them. Between these two the “Leadership and Technology” sought after here may emerge. Rand herself felt the intellectuals were the new Mystics in her time, and an argument could be made that in our time the Technologists are becoming this (as are the new Physicists). The ability of “guns” (as Conquerors) in this case should not be crossed out if one wants success though.

        • #3659629

          Manager of Chaos -p2

          by admin ·

          In reply to “The system is not responding”

          I hear in places of this thread a crying out for the Mystic and the Conqueror to unite and effect the desired change of a better system with less systematic overhead and nonsense. A “Conquering” government program and National trend and a techno-philosophic Mystic order wished for. The reality of this union will likely happen someday and it is visionary to see it now IMO. I think it will be difficult for a lot of people who wish for it however, as it will immediately evolve into a new state of being unpredictable from our present paradigm and may in fact, “kill the creators” first. I’m not judging it ethically here. I don’t even think I can from this paradigm, it will be different, and I as humans do so well, will adapt.

          Anyway, arrogance, or pride, still goes before a fall, and in the fallout we may be alchemists (or seen as them) after all 🙂

        • #3404312

          Technology vs Management

          by john tieso ·

          In reply to An Interesting Occurence….

          I might suggest that there is less of a threat from technology than from complacence in the road to innovation. Doing what is ‘respected’ and ‘waht works’ because the major writers say so is easy to accept. Millions accepted Mike Hammer’s view in “Reengineering the Corporation”–even though Mike Hammer had never done a major reengineering project himself. Ross Beth Kanter has the same problem. She can discuss the seminal directions that change should follow, but developing innovative tracksthat have not previously been traversed is not her thing.

          That major innovator needs to find new paths–describe them and follow them to success. In some cases, even first failure, well-documented, is acceptable so that others can avoid similar pitfalls.

        • #3397741

          Personal Opinions.

          by admin ·

          In reply to We need to be more business oriented!

          All facts really are personal opinions ultimately anyway so don’t belittle your own. We can’t handle seeing all of history as it really is anyway either, so it is good it is managed for us through time in it’s own mysterious way.

          Having said this… as far as human emotion etc. yes, all indicators lead to the conclusion that electronic mechanisms will achieve this and most likely surpass this in ways we cannot yet dream of. 🙂

          I believe humans however, solve human problems ultimately although many would like to get out of their own current inability cheaply and painlessly by putting this on machines in the post “slavery is an acceptable human place in the universe” days. I think there is something to be said for confronting your ownproblems and taking care of them. Learning and growing are inherent in going outside of one’s comfort zone.

          Of course, as you have aptly said, the technology to do this ain’t here yet anyhoo so this is kind of moot with all of us trying to keep servers from crashing in real life. 🙂

        • #3659538

          Imagination and Science and Business

          by generalist ·

          In reply to We need to be more business oriented!

          If you think that Einstein didn’t use his imagination for coming up with the stuff he did, you don’t know much about certain types of science. You need a fair amount of imagination to think outside the box and come up with ideas that nobody has thought about. Then you need knowledge and analytical abilities to review the ideas and turn them into theories or even engineering.

          At the same time, you also need imagination for certain types of business activities. Napoleon Hill’s “Think and Grow Rich” repeatedly mentions imagination throughout the book. Lots of companies got their start with somebody using their imagination to come up with an idea that made money.

        • #3404313

          I agree

          by john tieso ·

          In reply to We need to be more business oriented!

          John Kotter is one of my favorites in terms of his innovative approach to management. While I still consider others as mentors, I do read with avid interest each of his new books since he represents the best of Toffler’s “New Wave.” (At least in myopinion.

    • #3400687


      by fluxit ·

      In reply to LEADERSHIP and TECHNOLOGY

      Look around you. Are you using a web page to manage your bank accounts? Do you use ATMs to make deposits and withdrawn money? What about you utility bills? Is your paycheck direct deposited?

      At one time these were large departments that had several layers of management running them. Today it is a room with perhaps a manager/operator.

      What is happening at American Airlines? have you heard about smart offices where everything is linked via fiber optics? Did you know that several projects are underway with delivery dates around 2010 for human centric computing? 128bit IP are already here so that your toilet paper dispenser could be on the internet!

      Financial experts are forecasting a major depression around 2008 to 2010 that is shown historically in long term economic trends. They believe that a major shift will occur in the way we live coming out of the depression. They state that most of the population will become self employed enabled by technology. The US government has created the S-corp to encourage small and home businesses.

      I would say that the ground work is here for this entire conversation. Those who do not smell the roses will probably lay in a bed of thorns they made.

      • #3397724


        by admin ·

        In reply to MR ROBOTO vs MR MIR

        I am extremely well stocked in heavy munitions and electrical targeting devices. I have my own power source and no fear of toilet paper dispensers. I have some ideas for a small business with these tools that may be of use in a depression or governmental collapse. I will likely lay waste to rose beds when the opportunity arises.

        OK…. I’m completely joking here, but there is some truth in this. If you want to keep your systems working in a severe depression you better have a strong arm to keep it running. I can just imagine how well people are going to show their love for anything computer related when they and their kids can’t get enough food. We’ll see how good stewardship is developed electronically when this goes down.

        • #3397614


          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Guns.

          In most of these readings I see most of you are attempting to relate your present organization and social order to technology. Some think in terms of applications. Meanwhile others think in terms of thier current company having millions of acres of automated cubical farms in the future.

          In truth, very few of the companies today are the same company they were 25 years ago and this tranformation will continue right under our noses at higher rates of acceleration.

          I recall getting my Novell cert only to find that it was devalued by time I was certified. Then I rushed off to get my Microsoft cert only to find that I am overqualified for most companies having both certs.

          How this impacts you today while you are rushing around to keepservers up and screaming users quiet? Know where we are going, organize for it, be prepared. Work with an end state in mind. That end state is not simply quiet the issue. Your daily woes will become less.

          In the future, the economy and personal desire will drive much of the population into self employment. Yes there will still be a few around that will need to be spoon fed. They’ll work in Government and a few larger corps. But even the corporations today are moving towards outsourcing labor. Engineers, cpa’s, attorney’s, banking seniors, technology people, medical billing, electricians, plumbers, carpenters, etc… work on contract and often form small businesses. This will expand to advertising, information processing, and other possiblities.

          Larger companies will be a collage of smaller businesses pulled together in a cooperative.

          I would think you would be really interested in this as you possess the skill to move people along in these businesses.

        • #3659628


          by admin ·

          In reply to FRAMES OF REFERENCE

          “I would think you would be really interested in this”

          I am really interested in this, that is why I have continued in this thread. Thank you for sharing it with us 🙂

      • #3660009

        Metamorphosis (Franz Kafka)

        by jose mir ·

        In reply to MR ROBOTO vs MR MIR

        “Larger companies will be a collage of smaller business pulled together in a cooperative” – Mr. Miami, “Frames of Reference”, 5/20/02; and the phrase could be ended that way: “, where the corporative management will deal with the complexity of the new distributed-operations model”.
        Technology is here, everybody knows it; and I think all of us, at least in this site, are technology driven professionals, so why could someone think that I am not aware of the wide use of ATMs and eBanking?
        But we can’t lie ourselves. Computers are tools in corporate america, and management is a human activity who is not more in jeopardy of extinction because of technology than any other. Of course that companies, at least many of them, are rightsizing; but management is not eliminated; instead of 100 employees now the modern offices can operate with 8, but if you look at this 8 I’m sure you still will be able to locate “human” management.
        Do you think Microsoft Networks are the ultimate enterprise platform, and active directory a great invention without simile? If your answer is “no” at least you will agree with me about the deep impact management and leadership has have in Microsoft’s example (poor product, great penetration). If your answer is “yes” maybe you need to think twice when the time of deploying your “silicon management architecture” over Microsoft Datacenter Server arrives.
        There is a world outside not managed by arithmetic-logic units, and in this world technology is a tool and human management will be around another 50 years, at least!
        I want to tell you, MrMiami, that I enjoy writing this and participating (in the few moments I have to do it) in this kind of forums. I know that maybe my attitude could be a little sarcastic, but this is not my intention. I am still fighting with my poor engl

        • #3659534

          Frustrated… No worries…

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Metamorphosis (Franz Kafka)

          No problem. When we get bogged down in some of the details I always feel we are moving away from the vision. This happened to Einstien. He had a great vision and then he got bogged down in details and never advanced his orginal vision.

          The bottomline is that what we will occur is a over architecture that component businesses insert into. These component businesses will be most likely under 5 employees. They will be self actuated and pursue things they enjoy. Larger companies will plug them into thier architecture via standard transfers. The architectures does the management because the relationships of these plugin units can be ordered as needed. so the larger company may be only a hand full of self directed employees who order the information relationships. Each unit buys and sells information from other blocks.

    • #3659532


      by fluxit ·

      In reply to LEADERSHIP and TECHNOLOGY

      I have been working up a forum to exchange intellectual dialogues. I anticipate it coming online soon. It is crude and scripted in Server side Javascript with an access db behind it. Two features include a linear open forum and an article review dialogue.

      My first content items are on how to facilitate what we are talking about here.

      One feature I want to add up the road is a nonlinear method of crossing dialogues. My thinking is to evaluate sentence structures and index words then cross dialogues. This will take time so until then it is crude.

    • #3659075

      Visit from BS fairy.

      by timseery ·

      In reply to LEADERSHIP and TECHNOLOGY

      All this sounds good, if you believe it and you may actually stumble into fame and fortune. But it all sounds to me like BS fairly has paid a visit to the discussion center and left an emerald city under everyone pillow (or an OZ of pot).

      For all you believers he is some suggested reading by Scott Adams to bring you down to earth.

      Fooled By Randomness, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Nassim explains how almost everything in the realm of business and finance that looks like “talent” is really pure luck. – Scott Adams

      Blinded By the Right, by David Brock. The author is an admitted scoundrel and liar.

      Great reading – timseery

      One Nation Under Gods, by Richard Abanes. It’s about the early history of the Mormon Church and it’s either a bunch of outrageous and slanderous distortions or a thoroughly researched eye-opening service to humanity. (How would I know the difference?) It’s not supposed to be funny but I found myself laughing out loud on almost every page. – Scott Adams

      This is one my personal favorites, this book is on the bestseller list in Salt Lake City (Home of the Mormon Church) – timseery

      You Got Nothing Coming, by Jimmy Lerner. Jim sat in the cubicle next to me when we both worked at Pacific Bell. Since then he strangled one of his friends with a belt, went to jail for three years and wrote a wonderful book about the experience. (Really. And did I mention that Jim worked in Marketing?) Find out how Jim used his corporate skills to survive prison. The “facts” are in question, especially about the self-defense claim, but it’s an amazing and hilarious read. He’s a gifted writer and I don’t say that just because he knows where I live. – Scott Adams

      Also anything by Scott Adams, which shows even a cynical person, has a chance at success.

      • #3659053

        Catcher In the Rye?

        by fluxit ·

        In reply to Visit from BS fairy.

        Do you feel that you are the ‘Catcher in the Rye’? The children play in the rye fields without regard to the danger they could possibly fall off the cliff but you are there to catch them and put them back in the field. Holden Caufield thought of himself as the catcher in the rye.

        The difference between sanity and insanity is quite large. Holden Caufield was insane. Sanity is when you create your future and step into it. Insanity is when you ‘stumble’ into your future and end up butt first.

      • #3402680

        So long and thanks for all the fish!

        by admin ·

        In reply to Visit from BS fairy.


      • #3402574

        BS vs Religious Writ

        by generalist ·

        In reply to Visit from BS fairy.

        One person’s BS is another person’s Religious Writ. And vice versa.

        The key is keeping a balance between various points of view. If you are stuck in any single extreme, you lose the advantages of the other viewpoints.

        Being completely down to earth would mean that you would never make any progress with new concepts and new processes.

        At the same time, being completely isolated with your head in the clouds means that you would never take any action to turn the ideas into reality.

        Hmmmmm. Maybe I’ll try reading various Dilbert books while going through “Atlas Shrugged” and “Think and Grow Rich”. It would be an interesting juxtaposition of realities.

      • #3404549

        The Infamous RFC

        by fluxit ·

        In reply to Visit from BS fairy.

        The entire internet was developed by dialogs called Request for Comments. I do not see a difference there nor here.

      • #3402243

        Scott Adams of Infocom fame?

        by tomsal ·

        In reply to Visit from BS fairy.


        This “Scott Adams” wouldn’t happen to be the same guy who used to write text adventure games published by a company called “InfoCom” back in the 80’s.

        One of his most famous games with this company was the very popular “AHitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”.

        (God I’m showing how long I’ve been a geek now…since the glory days of Commodore! lol)

        At any rate, I doubt I’m speaking of the same Scott – if I am though, he’s not a writer who’s opinion would impress much importance on me. He’s great at fiction – but that’s about it.

        • #3402232

          Oops–correcting myself…

          by tomsal ·

          In reply to Scott Adams of Infocom fame?

          Sorry I was thinking of the wrong “Adams” it was Douglas Adams who penned “Hitchhiker’s guide to the galaxy”…

          HOWEVER, there STILL was a Scott Adams who wrote many text adventure games for the Commodore. 😉

          (I remember, because I played several of them)

        • #3402068


          by admin ·

          In reply to Oops–correcting myself…

          Hope it wasn’t my “So Long and Thanks…. reference messing you up 🙂

          I do think it’s interesting how both of them have different applications, but striking similarities in thought. 🙂

        • #3402231

          Oops–correcting myself…

          by tomsal ·

          In reply to Scott Adams of Infocom fame?

          Sorry I was thinking of the wrong “Adams” it was Douglas Adams who penned “Hitchhiker’s guide to the galaxy”…

          HOWEVER, there STILL was a Scott Adams who wrote many text adventure games for the Commodore. 😉

          (I remember, because I played several of them)

        • #3402230

          Oops–correcting myself…

          by tomsal ·

          In reply to Scott Adams of Infocom fame?

          Sorry I was thinking of the wrong “Adams” it was Douglas Adams who penned “Hitchhiker’s guide to the galaxy”…

          HOWEVER, there STILL was a Scott Adams who wrote many text adventure games for the Commodore. 😉

          (I remember, because I played several of them)

        • #3402228

          Oops–correcting myself…

          by tomsal ·

          In reply to Scott Adams of Infocom fame?

          Sorry I was thinking of the wrong “Adams” it was Douglas Adams who penned “Hitchhiker’s guide to the galaxy”…

          HOWEVER, there STILL was a Scott Adams who wrote many text adventure games for the Commodore. 😉

          (I remember, because I played several of them)

        • #3402229

          Oops–correcting myself…

          by tomsal ·

          In reply to Scott Adams of Infocom fame?

          Sorry I was thinking of the wrong “Adams” it was Douglas Adams who penned “Hitchhiker’s guide to the galaxy”…

          HOWEVER, there STILL was a Scott Adams who wrote many text adventure games for the Commodore. 😉

          (I remember, because I played several of them)

        • #3402226

          Oops–correcting myself…

          by tomsal ·

          In reply to Scott Adams of Infocom fame?

          Sorry I was thinking of the wrong “Adams” it was Douglas Adams who penned “Hitchhiker’s guide to the galaxy”…

          HOWEVER, there STILL was a Scott Adams who wrote many text adventure games for the Commodore. 😉

          (I remember, because I played several of them)

        • #3402227

          Oops–correcting myself…

          by tomsal ·

          In reply to Scott Adams of Infocom fame?

          Sorry I was thinking of the wrong “Adams” it was Douglas Adams who penned “Hitchhiker’s guide to the galaxy”…

          HOWEVER, there STILL was a Scott Adams who wrote many text adventure games for the Commodore. 😉

          (I remember, because I played several of them)

        • #3402175

          Stutter much

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Scott Adams of Infocom fame?

          Stutter – spasmodic or spasmatic repetition.

Viewing 13 reply threads