2004 Archives

I came back from ANZAM a little early, so that I could attend the faculty Xmas bash. Part of the event consisted of the awarding of Teaching Excellence Awards. Having been nominated by Peter Boxall, and then spent some considerable time putting my teaching portfolio together, I was hopeful of an "honourable mention".

So, it was a wonderful surprise to actually get the award (and the $3,000 grant that goes with it).

It was wonderful to have my colleagues, and more importantly my students, recognise the effort I put into my teaching.

Whilst putting my portfolio together, I spent some time thinking about why I'm a good teacher. To mis-quote Newton, if I have seen better how to teach, it is only because I've stood on the shoulders of giants. In otherwords, I've learnt a lot from the excellent teachers who taught me, and the excellent teachers with whom I have shared teaching. In alphabetical order they are (and apologies for any omissions):

• Barabara Simpson
• Catherine Casey
• Chris Woods
• Darl Kolb
• David Barry
• Joline Francoeur
• Judith McMorland
• Judith Pringle
• Lisa Callagher
• Peter Boxall
• Richard Brooks
• Willie Smith

And of course, there are the many students who were tolerant (most of the time), as I tried new things, and when I made mistakes.

So, thanks to eveyone for your support.

With regards to supervision of PhD and DBA candidates, there seems to be some good ideas at work in Australia.

Firstly, only people on the University's Research Register can supervisor doctoral candidates. The situation is looser for those doing masters thesis.

To get on to the registers, one has to:

• have PhD,
• co-supervise on doctoral candidate to completion, and
• pass an annual half-day workshop on supervision.

Once on the register, one can be the main supervisor for a doctoral candidate. It sounds like a better plan than we have at my institution.

One of the workshops I attended whilst at ANZAM was entitled Best practices framework in doctoral education. It was 'hosted' by Ronel Erwee from the University of Southern Queensland. In principle, the workshop was about the requirements that Australian universities have to meet for their professional (taught?) doctorate programs, namely for DBAs. Being in charge of the USQ program since '97, Ronel has been active in this area for awhile and has written on it too.

Most of the participants are actively involved in DBA programs (mainly in Australia), but main of these programs are offered (very profitably) as distance education in Asia. In this regard, of particular interest was Aldelaide's program which has 50 local students and about 450 overseas! In addition, Clive Smallman, who has a lot of experience in the UK and Europe, is looking at what Lincoln might do.

Most of the programs are three years long. The first year comprising of a number of 'papers', and the remaining two years being spent of a dissertation. The Australian best practice requirements are that two-thirds of the degree consists of research. Entry requirements are an MBA, or other masters' degree (or a really good Bachelors degree). Full time students are expected to complete in three years (or maybe a little longer), and part-time students are limited to five years.

Typically, the papers (i.e. four of them) cover topics such are The Philosophy of Research, Quantitative Methods, Qualitative Methods, and Literature reviews. On completion of the papers there is a formal award such as a Diploma in Research Methods. This is often used as a tool to get people out of the program who are unlikely to complete the DBA. Having completed the papers, the student should have a well defined research question and a completed literature review.

Unlike the PhD, the topic of DBA research is often an applied industry problem, and consequently the research leads to the student's own network and mana being enhanced. Consequently, the DBA topic is often smaller in scale and scope when compared to a PhD. However, that isn't to say it is any less work -- it just means it is more applied (and less theoretical).

One feature of the applied nature of the DBA is the issue of intellectual property. A DBA is often results in the generation of valuable IP, but because of the nature of the DBA (often being embedded in the students host organisation or industry) ownership of the IP is often unclear. Thus for many institutions the IP issue is dealt with up-front with the ethics process. In this way everyone knows who will own which parts of the IP.

On the downside, there is some concern regarding the difficulty in publishing DBA research. It is not well loved by journals because of its heavily applied nature. Having said that, for many jobs (see the Economist), a PhD and a DBA can be treated as equivalent (but perhaps not for University positions).

For the next few days, I'm in Dunedin attending the 2004 ANZAM conference. The main reason for being here is to give a workshop on Strategising activity and practice.

In fact, I'm running the workshop in conjunction with Paula Jarzabkowski and Colin Campbell-Hunt. Gerry Johnson was going to be here too, but alas he can't travel (from Scotland) at the moment (he was also going to be the keynote speaker at the conference too).

About 60 people registered for the conference, but not everyone turned up.

What was most striking for me was how few people had read anything (not even the JMS special issue) on strategy-as-practice. I think for the majority of participants, this was their first exposure to strategy-as-practice. This has me wondering how much I might be missing out on in new areas of development. When one tends to focus on reading a few journals, how can one be sure that one is keeping abreast of what is happening across a whole field.? In particular reading the Strategic Management Journal, which many would say is the pre-eminent strategy journal, does not provide coverage of strategy-as-practice or other, dare I say, non-American, views. In addition, I'm reminded that John McGee told me that may good academics feel that their best work was published in second-tier journals.

So, I'm left wondering "How does one, keep 'up to date'"?

Somewhat unexpectedly, the Dean, Barry Spicer sent out an email to the faculty about "Changes at the Graduate School of Business". I say unexpectedly, because tucked at the end of the email was the following:

Peter Smith, presently Lecturer in Strategy in the Department of Management and Employment Relations, will take over the role of Deputy Director of the MBA from 1 February 2005 as well as teaching in the MBA programme. Peter has had significant business experience in Europe and is himself a graduate of The Auckland MBA programme. He is also the recipient of a distinguished teaching award.

Whilst this is entirely true, I didn't think it would be announced for another week; and even then, I expected something more 'low key'.

Anyway, what Barry failed to mentioned was the "why" behind my decision. In essence, I am taking up a part-time role to allow me to devote more time to my PhD. From my point of view it seems like a good plan. Nevertheless, I do regret the work that others will have to pick up (and prepare) for MGMT 301 and MGMT 302. On the plus side, I get to spend more time (and do more teaching) with MBA students.

I don't feel that I am leaving my current department. It is more of a temporary auf wiedersehen until we are all united in the new building.

So, after teaching summer school (MGMT 101, Organisation & Management), I'll be off to the GSB. Between now and then, I suspect there is a fair bit of work to do.

Since I've just finished marking my share of the MGMT 101 Organisation & Management examination scripts, I thought I'd put my reflections down whilst they are fresh in my mind.

Overall, it was a disappointing experience. The quality of the handwriting (which made the scripts hard to read), the quality of the grammar (which made the scripts hard to understand), and the lack of logic (which failed to answer the question), depressed the average grade well below the B range.

In particular, the lack of care in answering the question had a big impact on the marks. In the prep for the examination we told all the students to "read the question carefully and make sure you answer the question that is asked".

Well, for example, one of the questions was:

If you ran a small business providing office cleaning, how would you ensure that a quality product was provided? In answering this question, you should define what is meant by quality.

The key phrases from this question that need to be addressed are:

• Define quality
• Small business
• Office cleaning
• Deliver a quality product

The question doesn't ask for any of the following (and generally they added no value):

• A history of quality management
• The importance of TQM/Quality management/etc in contemporary business
• The impact of Taylorism of quality
• How the responsibility for quality has shifted from the worker, to the foreman, to the manager, and so on.
• A shopping list of every idea / theorist that had anything to do with quality.

I was surprised how well students are able to memorise the text book. Many of the answers began by repeating the first paragraph of the relevant chapter. Alas, that doesn't actually answer the question.

So, thinking of those key phrases in the question, what else might go wrong.

Define quality: Many answers said things such as "it is a complicated to define" then gave a one sentence definition. Others, said it means giving the customers what they wanted. And, of course, many people didn't define it at all. Those who did define quality, rarely linked the definition into what they wanted to do. Some answers went wide and said "quality is many things to many people", and didn't try and operationalise the term, i.e. provide a defition that allows you to do something with it. Overall, the definitions were short/trivial, e.g. one sentence long.

Small business: So it is a small business, that probably means that setting up a quality department isn't going to be viable. Massive training campaigns may not be feasible either.

Office cleaning: So, it's a service (good point), where production takes place at the point of delivery (excellent point), and we are highly reliant on people more than machinery (another good point). Also, it probably involves working non-standard hours -- who wants to have their office cleaned whilst they are working in it? Whilst students aren't meant to have a detailed knowledge of office cleaning (although a few did), it is necessary to have some sense of what office cleaning is about. Other features of the business are, that is a price sensitive which typically pays very badly; minimum wage or less (bonus points), so managing/motivating the people can be tricky. Often there is a high turnover of staff. Finally, we are dealing with a business-to-business situation, and not a business-to-consumer situation.

Deliver a quality product: Many people weren't consistent in what they said. For example, one student said he was going to use Deming's 14 principles and if a employee didn't perform he would fire them -- what ever happened to Deming's idea of "Drive out fear"? Many answers said they would build in quality by having supervisors do random inspections -- surely that is inspecting in quality. The important thing to do was to link the approach to delivering quality with selected definition, in the given context (small business, service provider). Too many answers didn't connect the dots so to speak. This was the biggest problem; consequently, many answers ended up looking like a shopping list of everything the student knew about quality.

Other boo-boos:

• Adopting statistical process control by surveying customers (the point of process control is that you are controlling the process as it happens and not at the end).
• Ignoring the cost of the service (bonus to those who brought that into their definitions).
• Choosing a technique that was different to the definition of quality. For example, if the definition was "zero defects" saying that the method is going to be based on surveying the customers needs and then doing what they want doesn't quite fit,
• Saying that TQM was the answer to everything without explaining why.

Having read the question, I always asked myself, "Could my mother have written this?" My mother has no training in management, and hasn't been to university. If my mother could have written the answer I have to wonder what "value" the student has taken from their time here.

Some of the nice answers came from a slightly different angle, e.g.:

• Control - pre/concurrent/post
• Leadership

Some of the more off-tack answers drew in ideas from the other questions, such as:

• Teams and centralisation
• Motivation (with out connecting it to quality, other than by having people work harder)

Anyway, that's it until next year. I do wonder if an essay based question (as a form of summative assessment) is a good choice in this course. Would some other type of examination, e.g. short answer or multiple-choice, be better (and still achieve the same result)?

I think the students sit their final examination tomorrow. And so Friday and Monday will be taken up with exam marking. The team will be 'locked up' and not allowed out until it is finished.

But we have already begun planning for next year. I'll be teaching this course at summer school. Since summer school only lasts six weeks, we pack in twice the number of lectures into each week.

Anyway, there are some changes in the pipeline. Perhaps the biggest is the shift to a new text book by Samson & Daft called Management. It will be replacing Management: A New Zealand perspective by Inkson & Kolb. The old book has served us well, but a new edition isn't available yet. So, it is onto Samson & Daft.

This means we need to re-work the lectures (and the tutorials) so they match the emphasis (and the structure) of the book. After all, trying to do things in a different sequence to the book can often be confusing because the book has its own internal logic.

I'm spending tonight working out some sample assignments for the course. Because of the tight timeframe, assignments need to be well crafted so that they can be turned-around quickly enough -- the students do need to get their feedback before each assignment.

Anyway, enough chat. I've questions to write.

One of the more difficult things to do when carrying out research is to negotiate entry into a research site (especially when carrying out case research, which is what I hope to do).

Fortunately, Nigel Haworth provided me with an introduction to the Chairman of my 'ideal' participant organisation.

So today, I met with the Chairman and we had an interesting dicussion about the firm and my interests and how those my intersect. I'm really keen to do research with this firm as they would be a rich source of data -- and they are large enough to be interesting to an international audience.

What's more, I think I might be able to provide them with some value too. So we could all win from this.

Anyway, I'm back their next week as we continue the process of 'entry'.

Most of the marking of the Case and Annotated Bibliographies are done. We, DPE, will meet next week to review the marks before releasing them. Unsurprisingly some are very good, and some are not.

What is surprising is the patterns that we've seen occurring in the cases and bibliographies.

Firstly, the members of each team seem to write about the same thing. E.g. Zoom and takeovers.

Secondly, the pattern of the case and the bibliography amongst the poorer cases often the same. The case goes along the lines of "We didn't do [planning], and so we had problems". The bibliography then often the consists of article saying "[Planning] is good" and the link that gets made is "We should have done more [planning]". You can substitute what you like instead of planning, be it leadership, sensemaking, strategy, etc. My question tends to be, where is the insight that the article generates about the case?

Finally, the issue that gets chosen is often very broad, i.e. "Things didn't work out for company X, I wonder what they could have done differently". This results in bibliographies that are they general (covering everything from strategy to leadership, etc). There is a variation on this where the case that is just a history of the company with a rather general issue bolted on the end. The better cases ended with a very specific question "i.e. Should company X try to takeover company Y", the bibliography is then focused on the pros and cons of takeovers ... which is much more interesting.

It's been another three months since I last saw the doctor, so it was time for a check up today.

My blood pressure is better, only 120/86. I'd like the second figure should be lower, say 70, but it continues to head in the right direction.

I?ve only lost 3Kg in the last three months. I think I've plateaued-off a little bit. Maybe it's time to revisit what (well, how much) I eat.

I've been working at improving my cholesterol. My HDL was too low last time, so I've been eating Brazil nuts, a lot more fish, and taking a little more olive oil. And it seems to have had an effect. Overall, it's gone up from 3.4 to 4.2 (which is still good), and my LDL is up from 2.0 to 2.4 (< 3), but the good news is my HDL (the good stuff) is up from 1.0 to 1.2 (They like it to be over 1.0). Overall the Total/HDL ration is pretty static at 3.5 (was 3.4). They like it below 4.5.

So, I think my cholesterol is still pretty good.

I had another fitness assessment at the university's Recreation Centre today. Here are the results.

Overall, my weight loss has plateaued, but I'm definitely fitter. I think I need to adjust my diet somewhat - It'll be interesting to see what the doctor says next. Most interesting was how poorly I did on the situps -- my boxing training has done a lot to improve on my 'abs' but it didn't show on today's test. I'll have to think about that (is it the test itself?).

Anyway, the results were:

Of course, this is all age dependent.

Sigurd Olsson also did a pretty good essay. I think it is interesting to compare and contrast it with the other two essays on Carl Zeiss Jena that I have already posted here.

Once again, thanks Sigurd for letting me use it here as an example to other students.

Lisa, my darling wife, and I went and saw the latest play at the Silo theatre. It's call The Women, and it's by the outspoken congresswoman Clare Booth Luce. Written about 70 years ago, I can imagine it was considreed risque in its day.

The latest edition of The Listener magazine gives ten quotes by Clare Booth Luce, and these give a sense of her progressive attitudes:

1. Nature abhors a virgin - a frozen asset.
2. I'm in my ancedotage.
3. I don't have a warm personal enemy left. They've all died off. I miss them terribly because they helped define me.
4. Lying increases the creative faculties, expands the ego, and lesses the frictions on social contact.
5. Communism is the opiate of the intellectuals with no cure execpt as a guillotine might be called acure for dandruff.
6. No good deed goes unpunished.
7. There is nothing like a good does of anotehr woman to make a man appreciate his wife.
8. All autobiographies are alibi-ographies.
9. A man's home may be his castle on the outside; inside, it is more other his nursey.
10. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home, but unlike charity, it should end there.

Actually, a couple of these seem familar and might actually be lines from the play.

Anyway, the eight women actors play an astonishing number of characters (IMDB says 130, but that seems too many). The dialogue is witty and fast moving; however the skill (as Lisa told me), is the way in which the plot is slowly revealed. I really enjoyed it.

The whole caste were good, and notable peformances were turned in by Anna Hutchison (ex Shortland Street), Hannah Tolich (also, ex Shortland Street), and Lucy Wigmore (yes, another from Shortland Street - is there anyone in New Zealand theatreland who hasn't been on that show?).

Given the size of the theatre, I was surprised to see that the performance was done 'in the round' and it worked really well. I do like the intimacy of the Silo, and this made it even more intimate.

All, in all, a big thumbs up for The Women.

Other reviews of this production can be found here, and here,

It was the last class of MGMT 302 - Business Policy & Strategy today. At the end of the class I played "Never can say Goodbye" (See below for the details), and I came over all melancholy. The students have been a good bunch and I like them immensely. But, for various reasons, this is likely to be the last Business Policy & Strategy course I teach for sometime.

Of course, I don't own the course, but over the past five years, or so, I have become attached to it. It will be strange not teaching it. And so, yes, I am feeling melancholy (but not sad).

There isn't much left to do with regard to the course, except:

1. Complete marking the assignments (which will be done on Tuesday)
2. Collate the marks (and send a copy out ot the students)
3. Get the course assessor approve the marks (all courses here have assessors - in fact I'm an assessor for a couple of courses)
4. Submit the marks to Examinations
5. Write-up my report on the course

And that's it. By the end of next week I should be able to file everything to do with MGMT 301.

I'm still marking essays from Business Policy & Strategy. I'm surprised by how long it is taking me - what does that say?

Anyway, I've just finished marking Howie's essay (Howard Hunt); and I really enjoyed it.

It has a very different feel to Pene's excellent essay. I think it goes to show how different answers can be and still be successful.

It's not faultless, but why not read it yourself and see what you think?

When is enough enough? The spectrum of revolution and eveolution.

The goal of this essay is to demonstrate the depth of my understanding of the concept of strategy based on my learning from the course text book. Through analysis of the written case of Carl Zeiss Jena I will make recommendations on the future of strategic change within the company, utilizing the materials in the text book, written by de Wit and Meyer, to justify my assessment.

For the purpose of this assignment it makes sense to start by outlining strategy as I understand it. As is with most issues of a strategic nature, the case involving Carl Zeiss Jena can be classified as a problem of organized complexity. Mason and Mitroff (1981) would define it as a ?wicked? problem because the factors involved are mostly intertwined and very complicated. Since it is impossible to simply tame them this means that, whilst there is no one true path that will lead the company into the future I can, under the circumstances, formulate a path that I feel is justified. Kenichi Ohmae (1982) would agree when I say that there is no formula for strategic success.

This is also to assume that my reasoning is from a perspective of rational thinking. Naturally I am limited by a sense of bounded rationality (Simon, 1957, as cited by de Wit & Meyer, 1998), however any decision I make has been measured against my own consistent and rigorous use of logic. Interestingly it takes a certain amount of creative imagination to conceptualize a solution to the case of Carl Zeiss Jena. This requires a generative thinking perspective (the other end of the spectrum) to devise. This tradeoff on the spectrum could be linked to my own need for uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 1993). I must decide to what degree imagination and intuition must meet fact and logic within and around the constraints of the ?square? of reality. It is dilemmas of this magnitude that makes strategy both complex and difficult to define. With an understanding of the types of paradoxes that exist, one is able to better justify solutions to the problems that they face.

The case Carl Zeiss Jena brings an early issue to light. ?Continuity?, in regards to strategy, is the issue of whether strategic changes should ?gradually evolve out of the current state of affairs, or mark a radical departure from the organizations past?? (de Wit & Meyer, 1998, p. 237). In other words it is to suggest a paradox of evolution and revolution. This case analysis will further examine this tradeoff with an aim to identify just where on the continuum my solution will be focused.

Carl Zeiss Jena has seen some dramatic changes over the years. There are a few standout issues that I believe will be most crucial to the continuing prosperity of the company. To begin the consideration of continuity, in regards to further strategic change, I believe that these issues need to be addressed immediately. It is probably best to outline these ideas so that my stance on revolution in this case can be more clearly identified.

If I were in Dr Dierolf?s shoes in 1991 I would be focusing on some very important factors that I think would contribute to the Jena subsidiaries continuation as going concerns.

Most importantly I feel is the change of mentality needed due to the macroeconomic changes in the environment. The ?cognitive maps? of the workers are heavily based on belief systems (de Wit & Meyer, 1998, p. 76). Primarily this is concerned with the disintegration of the communist state of East Germany and the subsequent reintroduction of the East to the West German Foundation. There are some key issues associated with this. First of all is the understanding of how Western economies operate. Capitalist ideals underlie these workings and a rapid re-education of the remaining employees will be key to transforming the morale and culture of the separate Jena identities. This undoubtedly requires a reprogramming of the cognitive maps to facilitate the shift to a free market. The challenging of these socially constructed paradigms will be the most important hurdle to overcome, as without this level of understanding, it will be very hard to defeat the long-term inefficiencies created by sluggish command economies. This requires a certain amount of re-education which leads me to my next point.

There is no doubt that for the entities to survive autonomously they must develop their own identities. This is noted by Dierolf. However for them to prosper in a free market economy, they need to understand the importance of efficiency and the different functions of a business that contribute to profit maximization. For this reason I would focus on using a combination of the knowledge of the West German managers and the independent consultants to increase the application of the ABM retraining programs. These workshops need to be designed around each function of the business as well as incorporating a cross-functional focus. The aim of this is for employees to develop a holistic view of how a business could be more efficiently run. These programs particularly need applications in marketing, cost accounting, pricing strategies, customer service, product design and distribution. Whilst technical skills are already very high, they are a product of a socialist system and need to evolve to incorporate many more facets. This flow of knowledge is a benefit of a joint venture and can be seen as increasing capabilities whilst hopefully uncovering new ideas. As Gattner put it, ?You have to permit some chaos to encourage creativity? (de Wit & Meyer, p.1006). The known entrepreneurial spirit that had been suppressed for so long could be better placed to flourish under the new structure.

With these early issues addressed, we can expect to see the building of these capabilities lead to the development of competencies. Prahalad and Hamel (1990) note that ?If core competence is about harmonizing streams of technology, it is also about the organization of work and the delivery of value? (de Wit & Meyer, 1998, p. 437). What this highlights in the case is that although Zeiss is technically apt, it lacks the skills to help develop and entrench the core value adding processes. How can this be achieved? Hamel and Prahalad (1990) would say that it is necessary to reform management principles which include issues of Human Resource management.

Human Resource policies are another such integral way of forming the necessary competencies. Due to the long-term instability of the worker environment it is essential that the remaining employees understand the structure and strategy of the staffing policy. The current strategy can be likened to a primarily polycentric approach. However the staff need to have clear communications about advancement opportunities and international strategy for growth. Transparency in communication and structure needs to be focused to boost morale and help the employees gain a long-term focus. Due to upheaval for so long, many have short-term orientations which only stability will change. Once staff have become aware of their place in the business and their ability to contribute to a greater picture, they may well become better assets themselves. This education should also help them understand the need for the earlier job cuts and may help ease tensions. At the same time this is in line with foundation principles, that is a commitment to the workers. Education is a commitment! With a longer term focus should come a shift towards a more geocentric approach. This involves selecting the best people for the job!

All these suggestions so far are heading towards a key conclusion. That is to provide some stability. This is to suggest that Dierolf should restrict revolutionary activities as soon as possible. It is acknowledged however, that the issues outlined so far are revolutionary in nature. I put it that this is for the greater good in the longer-term. As Gattnar observed, never ?did we have the peace necessary to manage a business?We were always rushing from one crisis to another? (de Wit & Meyer, p.1006). With newfound knowledge and stability a focus can then shift towards growth in the much needed low and middle market segments. Overlapping of product lines can be eliminated and the expansion of global markets can be concentrated on. With regards to business portfolio analysis, it is clear that under the growth-share matrix of the four broad strategic categories (Hedley, 1977), analytical instruments are a dog that doesn?t justify further investment. Since the companies are in a wide array of businesses, liquidation as opposed to divestment is the right option.

This restructuring of the company into two separate entities can be analysed further. Carl Zeiss Jena GmbH will concentrate on core product lines. It is the integration and leveraging of these capabilities that will add to long-term competitiveness. Exactly which are cash cows and which are stars is unclear but it would make considerable sense to consider the options of the firm under this framework.

This leads to the discussion of global strategy at a corporate level. Through exporting, an international strategy can be mapped out for extending market coverage. Due to the increase of knowledge and likely technology, it is fair to assume that the collapse of the Eastern markets will give way to the necessity to find international destinations for the high quality goods that are prided on. Obviously this is a reactive method of planning as opposed to a proactive approach to strategy. Paul Strebel (1994) would consider this situation to be a result of the interactions of both change and resistance forces. The change arena is characterized by forces that cannot be rolled back. Since most of the resistance was based on culture and a reactive turning point has forced adaption, it is fair to assume that a path of revitalization is valid. This involves using the macroeconomic changes to drive the internal organizational change process. This change is often slow, however it is all-encompassing and continuous. I believe that this is essential, especially as a framework for bringing about much needed organizational stability.

This can be linked to the idea that until 1991 the organization had been through enough revolution and the focus of strategy I believe should be now aiming towards a more continuous change perspective. Michael Hammer (1990) makes an interesting statement, ?At the heart of reengineering is the notion of discontinuous thinking ? of recognizing and breaking away from the outdated rules and fundamental assumptions that underlie operations? (de Wit & Meyer, 1998, p. 254). Why is this important? Well as has remained poignant throughout the case, political instability has constantly threatened the business. As the change force lowered resistance, reengineering the structure of Carl Zeiss Jena and the appointment of West German management it will mean that for the first time the business has a chance to settle into a more stable position. A link from this statement can be made from the notion of ?discontinuous thinking? to De Wit and Meyers (1998) discussion on the perspective of discontinuous change. That is, a big change will equal a big shock and hence yearning for stability will also be big. Due to the magnitude of the changes in the environment of this case, I believe that the focus should be on establishing this stability.

Although there are many issues to discuss in this case, I have identified those which I consider to be most important initially. The suggestions in summary are as follows. Due to the need to re-educate and change the cognitive maps of the workers I believe that rapid re-training is most vital. This requires the increase of training programs and a focus on communication and inclusion. Raising staff morale will be the key to success. A focus on human resources will be crucial to seeing the transformation of the staff into the assets that they should be. I can say that due to the necessary restructuring and great instability, I would, in Dierolf?s shoes, steer the company towards a position that would reduce the need for further revolutionary change. This includes the focus on incrementally developing the internal capabilities and re-establishing market development as a focus. By planning for incremental and evolutionary change, the need (once initial shocks have been overcome) for revolution will be reduced. In conclusion I can say that whilst I believe that Dierolf should be focusing on stability, it is clear that this may require big changes to occur first. My stance on the spectrum of evolution and revolution has shifted depending on the circumstances. This shows an understanding of the issues of strategy as I mentioned in the introduction. Depending on the circumstances, strategy will depend on the interpretation of issues by the strategist. With reference to the case, long-term, a focus of building the competitive facets of the business should bring about the ability of the company to look towards a plan of foreseeable profitability and growth. Hopefully enough revolution is enough.

References

I'm about half way through marking the current assignment and several trends are apparent.

Firstly, the question is about the issue of evolutionary or revolutionary change. Many people are focusing on what they would do, rather than looking at the issues of what sort of change is appropriate for the firm. Many people deal with the evolutionary/revolutionary debate in a somewhat perfunctory manner, and show little depth of understanding of the subtle of the issues. Instead, they follow Strebel's "decision tree" with out paying heed to the supporting text/descriptions i.e. they have applied a common-or-garden understanding to his decision tree, rather than the more nuanced explanation in the rest of the reading.

Secondly, people focus on the strengths and weaknesses of of the content of the firm's strategy, rather than the strengths of weaknesses of the change process (which feeds back into my earlier point).

Thirdly, when people think (and write) about what they would do, they try and fix everything. If you reflect back on Ohmae, what is the central question that needs to be answered -- how does this all fit together (Mason & Mitroff?)? Why give a long "shopping list", with little sense of priority or importance?

Finally, there is a clear guide in the question to use Rumelt (1980) in to evaluate the proposed strategy. So far, no one has used Rumelt.

As part of Business policy & stratey, students have to write a small (guided) analysis of CZJ. This example is by Pene Geard.

Whilst I haven't finished reading all the cases yet, this is the best so far. Well done Pene. I hope others can learn from your work (and thanks for letting me post your essay here).

NB. Any problems with the formating are entirely mine.

Oh, well. It is the last psychodrama weekend of the year. The topic is sociometry. That should be fun.

So, I'll not be doing any marking until Monday.

To everyone who has posted their journals online, I'd like to express my thanks to you for making your work publicly available.

I've enjoyed reading what you have written, and I think many members of the class have benefited from seeing your work. They have been the source for many dicussions at the weekly 'Exec' meetings.

I had hoped that others would have provided you with more comments online -- but that type of culture takes more time than we have to develop.

If you would like to keep using your online journal (in the way Amit has), please do so.

Once again, thanks.

I think I owe my MGMT 101 class (in general) and some MGMT 101 students (in particular) an apology. Things didn't go as well as I would have liked. On almost every measurement I use to judge my performance in class, I scored a 'Not very good'. So, I'm left sitting here reflecting on "What went wrong?" How did I manage to turn today's class into (what might generously be called) a farce?

It would be easy (but wrong) to blame the students. Whilst, it takes 'two to tango', I should have managed events better. The responsibility for the class is mine.

But, before continuing, I hope the class will accept my apology for my lack of professionalism this evening. And, to the students to whom I was unfair, I hope you will accept this apology too.

So, what went wrong, and what have I learnt from this?

Basically, the class got lost, and both I and members of the class got over excited by out positions.

I think that I took the subject (business ethics) too personally (as opposed to too seriously). I've seen so many managers make unethical decisions with no real consideration of the consequences of their actions. Furthermore, I've seen students do likewise¹. And, often, I've been left to pick up the pieces. Hence, when I saw the direction the class (or some of it) were taking I got a little excited and very defensive. Certainly towards the end of the discussion I was adopting the classic "win do not lose" attitude that is talked about by Argyris & Schön]. I was well and truly stuck in Model I, and rarely ventured out into Model II.

So what could I have done differently? It would be trite to suggest that I be more Model II. Rather, I think David Barry's admonishment to slowing things down is good - if things had been slowed down I would have had more time to think about what was happening and try and change the direction.

My other reflection is this -- ethics is a difficult subject. Not hard, but difficult in that it can cause us to challenge some of our fundamental beliefs, and that can always make for an 'exciting' class.

Footnotes

¹ You can tell from that statement I'm not an ethical relativist.

² Argyris and Schön (1974) lay out is magnificent detail the realities of defensive reason in organisations.

So looking at the brief results below, the question is How did Eron have profit that is greater than their sales? (After all, their profit as a percentage of sales (after tax) was 231%)

Well the answer is probably that they are sucking cash out of Zoom. However, what isn't clear is would it have been better to leave the money in Zoom?

Other pundits are wondering how Zoom feels about carrying the 'dead wood' of Enron. (As an aside, Ballistic, who were previously owned by Zoom, are now worth 25% more than when Zoom sold them). Even more interesting is the low (or very low in the case of Enron) ROA of the former BEZ companies

And what will happen when Balistique stops pumping cash into Ultimate Cycles and Revolution Cycles -- is it a case of good money after bad? Will they be able to catch up with Enron.

We've finished marking the Peer Reviews, and spent the morning comparing and contrasting everyone's assignments.

A number of things stand out when looking at the assignments as a whole.

• Many essays came with a meaningful title -- super.
• The second paragraph often began with something like "I took the role of CEO ...", which is the same approach as the example essay in the Black Book. This got pretty tedious after awhile. Likewise, many assignments began by quote Socrates (or similar); again this was wearisome.
• A significant number assignments focused excessively on the team (as a whole), rather than on the author and the gap that the author has between their intended behaviour and their actual behaviour.
• Likewise, people focused on a wide range of theoretical bases but often ignored work that should be core in discussing the gap between intention and behaviour--Argyris and Schön (1974), or similar.
• A source of greater concern were the essays where theory was conspicuous by its absence.
• Despite the admonishment in the Black Book not to "t write your reflections on the same form as your peers", it would seem that some people did do this. The result was (as predicted in the Black Book in feedback where they tended "to get their reaction to your reflection, i.e., 'I agree with you, but?' "
• Generally, the use of theory tended to be superficial. That is, theory was used to label rather than to explain or predict. Or, theory was briefly mentioned, i.e. Argyris and Schön (1974) might be mentioned once - - Look at your essay, how many of your references are cited only once in the essay? (or worse, only cited once and that is in the conclusion).

So, what might be a reasonable 'density' of theoretical concepts that might be appropriate to find in this assignment? (Stage III, 30% of your marks.) Well looking just at Argyris (and Schön for example:

• Espoused theory or theory-of-action
• Theory-in-use
• The gap between theory-of-action and theory-in-use and why it is important.
• Action strategies
• Governing variables
• Model I and Model II
• Single- and Double-loop learning

Perhaps, this might led on to talking about:

• Defensive reasoning, defensive routines
• Skilled incompetence

So, for these two authors alone, there might be 20 - 60 citations (from two or three references). If you had actually read more widely about their ideas then perhaps this might blossom to 80 citations and four or five references. Add in a few more authors (as fitting) and the references could reach 10 or 12 references.

It doesn't seem so long ago that I was commenting on a recent edition of the JME (well actually it was a couple of months). Anyway, I'm just reading the latest edition 28(5), that is a special edition on problem based learning.

The editors' introduction, Citing Gijselaers and Woltjer, talks about the different ways of knowing that seem to apply to novices and experts. They say:

... novices tend to organise their knowledge representations around the specifics of the problem, where as experts move to the more abstract level to see the general principles.

How true this rang with my own experience. In my classes Business policy & strategy and Management theory & practice, (and to a lesser extent _Organisation & Management), I constantly see students anchoring on the details of a problem and finding it hard to work with the more abstract concepts. My experience has been that the more abstract a concept is, the bigger a 'lever' it is, and the more universal it is. Alas, I've never found a satisfactory way to get this across, and I suppose it is to be expected as it is hard to shift one's anchor (there are some strong links here to sense-making etc).

I had a really good class in MGMT 101 this morning, they were animated and talkative (in a good way). I wonder how much that was a consequence of having them all sit together at the front of the class.

Marie Wilson once reminded me of the difference that occurs in class dynamics as a result of how spread out the students are.

Anyway, one of the things that I don't think I made clear today, was the relationship between the Trait Approach to leadership and the music I was playing (O Superman -- see below for the details).

In a glib way, the trait approach presupposes that one either has, or doesn't have, the necessary characteristics to be a great (or heroic) leader. Alas, there are so many organisations and so few 'heroic' leaders -- that is to say, from the trait approach, perhaps the world doesn't have enough supermen/superwomen.

Actually, it is interesting to compare and contrast the Trait Approach to leadership with Jim Collins' ideas of Level 5 leadership. Although the traits are different between the two, one is still left wondering where these 'heroes' are going to come from.

References

I think one of the most powerful readings of the course, particular at this point in time (with the Commerce Comission, take-overs, insolvent firms, firms who are just realising that they might not win) is the one that is indicated in the Black Book (and in the Red Book?) by:

Also see website- http://www.jimcollins.com (Confronting the brutal truth)

Alas, out of all the journals I've read today, only one person seems to have made use of it (in fact no one else even mentioned it). Which is strange, because last semester, I'm pretty sure that most people read it (and it was 'advertised' much the same way). Is it a matter of timing -- were there just too many other things happening? Perhaps you could let me know for next time.

Anyway, I recommend the reading to you.

(Oh, BTW, everytime I read this article I'm reminded of the Vietnam veteran in Pulp Fiction)

In a thoughtful comment CR says:

...students in the course can't really be reasonably expected to have a detailed knowledge of competition law and hence we rely on what DPE say...

and I would agree with that; it would be unreasonable of DPE to expect students (commerce students?) to have detailed knowledge of the everyday law that governs commerce in New Zealand (Hmm, that sounds strangely wrong when I say it).

However, what I don't accept is that we have to/need to tell students everything -- producing "a guide on those [real world concepts] that are included (and their exact definitions as they apply to the game) in the black book" is wholely unrealistic. Part of what happens, in the simulation, and in the real world, is that we figure out what we don't know.

When I first came to New Zealand, I went to a meeting at New Zealand Post in Wellington. I parked my car just outside their building. The meeting went well, but when I left the building, at 4:30, I couldn't find my car. It was gone. As I looked around I round I say a sign - I'd seen it before, but I wondered if it was connected to my disappearing car. It said, "Clearway, Mon-Fri, 4:00pm - 6:00pm". I'd seen the sign when I parked, but we didn't have clearways at that time in the UK, so I didn't know what it meant. I was wrong. I shouldn't have parked there. Eventually, I tracked down the company that had towed my car, paid the fines, and got my car back. It was my own fault. I accepted my mistake. It was one else's fault. I didn't feel I was hard done by. Actually, I was sorry that I had probably caused some traffic problems. If I didn't understand the signs I should have asked. I didn't go around saying "Before I entered this New Zealand they should have told me everything about it". Rather, I learnt my lesson (and learned more about the NZ Road Code), and moved on.

I would hope that all of the students I spoke to about price-fixing would agree that I was unambigous in saying 'pricing-fixing would not be tolerated'. Some of those students would have heard that in Exec Meetings. Some of them would have heard it during one or more of the summits. Some of them would have heard it in one-on-one discussions. So, there is a pool of people out there who know that price fixing will not be tolerated (whatever that means). In the 'real world', even here in New Zealand, there have been a number of price fixing cases in the local news. (Let alone, Eron is the USA.) So, perhaps, some students had also read about price-fixing in the press.

So, I think there were enough clear signs around.

If any of those students was unclear as to what price-fixing looks like, why it is important in a market based economy that prices are not fixed, or what are the penalities for price-fixing (either in the simulation or in the real world), they did not make themselves known to me. I have no idea what responsibilty they took to clarify the matter and what responsibility they accept for what happened.

Likewise, mechanisms, against monopolistic behaviour (e.g. takeovers that would lead to dominate market positions) are built into the simulation, and yet, not a single student have ever questioned me as why they are there.

To often we rely on learning by our mistakes (see the Kolb Cycle), but we don't always have to 'suffer' that way -- we can notice the signposts and ask what they mean.

The reliance on the Commerce Act, in DPE's 'Commerce Commission', was not as a source of detail; Our intent was to make people think, we should have known all of this. Rather, it was to show that we wheren't being arbitary in our actions -- that it was really a serious problem, not just in the simulation but also in the real world.

Finally, I wonder, if any team in Brazil wins, and gets the 5 per cent; will any other team believe that they won it fairly (despite the penalty).

Let us suppose there there exists a small town, which has two bakers. Currently, the bakers sell their bread for $1.50 per loaf. Both bakers have been in the business a long time, and their cost structure for bread is pretty much the same. It costs them $1.00 to produce a loaf. So, their profit per loaf is 50 cents. Each baker sells the same number of loaves (800) each day. So, in total, each baker is making $400 in profit per day.

After doing some (very good) market research, one of the bakers discovers that dropping the price by 10 cents, will increase sales by 30%. The competitor's sales will decrease by a similar amount. In other words, if one baker drops the price, they will sell 1040 loaves and by making a profit of 40 cents each loaf, the baker will get $416 in profit. Of course, the other baker is now only selling 560 loaves, and making $280 dollars.

Should both bakers drop their price to $1.40 then there will be no change in the number of loaves sold by each baker (800), and their total profit will be $320.

So, should either baker drop the price of bread?

In the original prisoner's dilemma if there was only one change to sell bread then the 'best' thing either baker can do is drop their prices. However, if there are likely to be repeated rounds, then the baker should wait and see if the other baker drops their price.

Of course the problem becomes more complex when there are more bakers in the town -- with many bakers, breaking ranks can lead to the classical economics situation of the "tragedy of the commons".

But, I feel, that at the heart of these type of situations is the issue of trust. Can we trust our competitor to do the right thing? And yet... and yet classical market theory seems to be based on people acting in their own (self) interest.

As an aside, has anyone tried the 100 prisoner's problem ? I'm surprised this hasn't shown up in BCG interviews yet (or has it?).

Some relevant law

27.Contracts, arrangements, or understandings substantially lessening competition prohibited

1. No person shall enter into a contract or arrangement, or arrive at an understanding, containing a provision that has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition in a market.
2. No person shall give effect to a provision of a contract, arrangement, or understanding that has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition in a market.
3. Subsection (2) of this section applies in respect of a contract or arrangement entered into, or an understanding arrived at, whether before or after the commencement of this Act.
4. No provision of a contract, whether made before or after the commencement of this Act, that has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition in a market is enforceable.

And

30.Certain provisions of contracts, etc, with respect to prices deemed to substantially lessen competition?

1. Without limiting the generality of section 27 of this Act, a provision of a contract, arrangement, or understanding shall be deemed for the purposes of that section to have the purpose, or to have or to be likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition in a market if the provision has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect of fixing, controlling, or maintaining, or providing for the fixing, controlling, or maintaining, of the price for goods or services, or any discount, allowance, rebate, or credit in relation to goods or services, that are?
   1. Supplied or acquired by the parties to the contract, arrangement, or understanding, or by any of them, or by any bodies corporate that are interconnected with any of them, in competition with each other; or
   2. Resupplied by persons to whom the goods are supplied by the parties to the contract, arrangement, or understanding, or by any of them, or by any bodies corporate that are interconnected with any of them in competition with each other.
2. The reference in subsection (1)(a) of this section to the supply or acquisition of goods or services by persons in competition with each other includes a reference to the supply or acquisition of goods or services by persons who, but for a provision of any contract, arrangement, or understanding would be, or would be likely to be, in competition with each other in relation to the supply or acquisition of the goods or services.

Of course for all the details one should read the whole Act, which is available at the Public Access to Legislation project. Perhaps one of the most interesting sections is S.80 which discusses the pecuniary penality, and S.82A which dicusses

Finally,

98.Commission may require person to supply information or documents or give evidence?

Where the Commission considers it necessary or desirable for the purposes of carrying out its functions and exercising its powers under this Act, the Commission may, by notice in writing served on any person, require that person?

1. To furnish to the Commission, by writing signed by that person or, in the case of a body corporate, by a director or competent servant or agent of the body corporate, within the time and in the manner specified in the notice, any information or class of information specified in the notice; or
2. To produce to the Commission, or to a person specified in the notice acting on its behalf in accordance with the notice, any document or class of documents specified in the notice; or
3. To appear before the Commission at a time and place specified in the notice to give evidence, either orally or in writing, and produce any document or class of documents specified in the notice

Lisa and I went to the Maidment Theatre last night, and saw Who's afraid of Virgina Woolf.

I enoyed the movie when I saw it, but I enjoyed the play even more.

Whilst the whole caste were good, I think that Hera Dunleavy deserves a special mention. She gave an powerful performance in the role of Honey. I don't really remember Honey in the movie, but I'll never forget Hera as Honey -- a very moving performance. Bravo!

I was talking with Nigel Haworth today, and he pointed me towards an essay on improving our use of the English language by George Orwell. As far as I can tell, the piece is long out of copyright, so I have reproduced it here.

I subscribe to a number of email lists, which is probably passé in this era of RSS, but anyway, one of the lists I regular read is MG-ED-DV, the management education and development list of the Academy of Management. Last week, one of the postings was by Fred Nickols and pointed me to a review of the following book:

Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently ... and why. New York: The Free Press.

Having read the review, I really wanted to read the book, and so -- having navigated the vagaries of Voyager saying the book was missing, I finally managed to get (and read) a copy. It was well worth it.

There are few books that really change the way in which one views the world, but, for me, this is one of those books. I am already trying to change a number of things based on the insights this book presents. But what are these insights?

I won't try and summarise the book here; instead, I'll just highlight some parts that stood out for me.

The history of the Greeks on one hand, and the ancient Chinese on the other; the way in which language is structured in most Indo-European languages compared to the context driven approach of East Asian languages feeds into two different ways of seeking the world -- and not just metaphorically seeing but literally seeing. For example, show two similar pictures, Westerners will typically see more changes in characteristics of the distinct objects that make up the pictures e.g. they will see that an aeroplane has its landing gear down in one picture but not in the other. East Asians, are more likely to notice the change in relationship between things, e.g one aeroplane is close to another than in the other picture. East Asians are more likely to notice, and attend to, the difference in contexts of situations; Westerners are less likely to do so.

This plays out in other ways too. Westerners have a history and a culture of debate such that:

Western rhetoric, which provides the underlying structure for everything from scientific reports to policy position papers, usually have some variation of the following form:

• background;
• problem;
• hypothesis or proposed position;
• means of testing;
• evidence;
• arguments as to what the evidence means;
• refutation of possible counter arguments; and
• conclusion and recommendations

[This is also the structure of much of University work and of academic journal articles -- students doing Business policy & strategy and those who know the Minto Method, will be familiar with such structures]

I feel that it will probably come a surprise to most Westerners that such a "linear rhetoric form" is not well know or practised in East Asia. Rather, there is a quest for the Middle way which seeks to find a path through conflicting/paradoxical positions.

This lack of understanding and practice of rhetoric plays it self out in the class room during exercises requiring participation. The demand lectures make (such as myself) is for students to play out the rhetoric--to expose their stepwise thinking--and yet such analytic thought is the antithesis of East Asian holistic thought that seeks to encompass the whole (rather than by dissection). Thus, material is often understood by East Asians in a non-verbal manner which makes class discussion and debate almost impossible. For example, one researcher:

had people speak out loud as they solved various types of problems. This had no effect on the performance of European Americans. But the requirement to speak out loud had a very deleterious effects on the performance of Asians and Asian Americans. ... its practical implications are very important. How should one educate Asians and Asian Americans in American classrooms? Is it a form of "colonisation" to demand that they perform verbally and share their thoughts with their classmates? Would it have the effect of undermining the skills that go with a holistic approach to the world? Or is it merely common sense to prepare them for a world in which verbal presentation skills, even if it might be difficult to achieve them, will come in handy? ... the cognitive aspects of holistic, dialectic approaches to reason .. are so embedded in perception, philosophy, and even temperament that is seems doubtful that much in the way of change could be achieved. But I would be delighted to be proved wrong.

If I believe this, then I must necessarily try and change my teaching practice. Thus my initial response to this, is to restructure some of Business policy & strategy and I'm still considering what might be helpful in __Management theory & practice_.

Other interesting effects of the differences between Westerners and East Asians is the fact that many "culture-fair" IQ tests may not be so culture neutral. If East Asians are more sensitive to the relationship between things and their context, as opposed to the Western approach of categorising everything, then some IQ test are just plain unfair (e.g. those tests that are based on picking things that are the same as a previous sequence).

One early example in the book illustrates why this is a problem. Students were given a pyramid made from cork and told that it was a 'Dax'. They were then asked to select from a range of other objects which were also Dax. Most Westerners picked objects that were also shaped like a pyramid. But, most East Asians picked objects that were made from cork.

Anyway, enough said for now. I'm sure I'll return to this book as I continue to reflect on it.

Defining a field:
"identify communities of organizations that participate in the same meaning systems, are defined by similar symbolic processes, and are subject to common regulatory processes" (Scott, 1994, 71)
"those organizations that, in aggregate, constitute a recognized area of institutional life: key suppliers, resource and product consumers, regulatory agencies, and other organizations that produce similar services and products" (DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, 1983, p. 143)
"a field may be defined as a network, or a configuration, of object relations between positions" (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 97)
"a socially constructed structured space in which agents struggle" (Wacquant, 1992, p. 17)

How do fields change? According to Powell (1991) there are three ways:

1. Changes emanating from the periphery of the field
2. The failure of isomorphism to regulate firms choices
3. Political or legal upheavals that redefine the boundaries of the field

Furthermore, Scott (2000) suggests that transformation of a field arises from:

1. Changes in the relationships between firms
2. Boundary changes of existing firms
3. The arrival of new populations
4. Changes in the boundaries of the field itself
5. Changes in the governance structures of firms

References

Paula Jarzabkowski (2004) has recently had one of articles published in Organization Studies. Her article is based on an earlier working paper she wrote a few years ago. Good on her for getting it in to a tier-one journal. As it happens, Paula will be visiting the department in November and will be giving a couple of seminars. If you're interested in strategy (and who isn't), then I would commend her seminars to you.

Anyway, as I was reading her article, my attention was drawn to:

Mir, R., & Watson, A. (2000). Strategic management and the philosophy of science: The case for a constructivist methodology. Strategic Management Journal, 21(9), 941-953.

The abstract for Mir & Watson article goes like:

In this paper, we suggest that constructivism has the potential to inform research in strategic management. The realist paradigm currently dominates strategy research, and constructivism, a well-established tradition in the philosophy of science, is often ignored. However, a study of strategy literature and research reveals that it is drawn upon more frequently than is explicitly acknowledged. Constructivism occupies a methodological space characterized by ontological realism and epistemological relativism. Ontological realism is an important cornerstone of a field as applied as strategy, while epistemological relativism helps us explore the constructed nature of the field, where the researcher is an active participant rather than a reactor or information processor. In this paper, we demonstrate the precedents and possibilities for constructivist research in strategic management. We examine some of the existent constructivist works in the strategy literature, and point to specific techniques, including historical analysis, to demonstrate how this perspective may advance the boundaries of strategy research

For the constructivists, researchers are seen as skillful craftsmen [sic], much in the same way as strategists are seen in strategy-as-practices (no wonder Paula used this article in her work). Whilst there isn't total agreement as too the nitty-gritty of constructivism, Mir & Watson say there is agreement on six main principles, viz:

1. Knowledge is theory driven.
2. The separation of researcher and the phenomena under investigation is not possible..
3. The separation between theory and practice is not equally unfeasible
4. Researchers are never 'objective' or value-neutral
5. Research occurs within a 'community' of scholarship where mutually held assumptions are deployed to create 'conversations'.
6. Constructivism constitutes a 'methodology' [rather than a method]

It is interesting to counterpoint constructivism with realism. Citing Leplin, the authors say that realism is typified by ideas such as:

• the best theories are those that are close to the truth;
• the truth of a theory explains (and is the only explanation of) its predictive validity;
• we are moving progressively towards a true account of a phenomena
• the claims made by any theory are either true or false
• only through the deployment of 'reason' can a theory be proven or refuted

It's interesting to contrast (and compare) those views with my own about theories. So despite having some constructivist tendencies, there are still elements of realism in the way I think. Nevertheless, I do reject the notion that there are abstract universal principles¹ when it comes to research.

As it happened, I used this article as an opportunity to revisit my understanding of classic research issues of ontology² and epistemology³.

I liked the quote from Foucault that was used:

We must not imagine that the world turns towards us a legible face, which we would have only to decipher; the world is not an accomplice to our knowledge; there is no prediscursive providence which disposes the world in our favor. We must conceive analysis as a violence we do to things, or in any case as practice which we impose on them (emphasise added).

That strongly reminded me of David Thomas' es clues or cues comments.

Anyway, this will be a helpful article when I write the method chapter of my thesis.

References

Footnotes

¹ Nomothetic, by another name.

² Ontology - a theories of objects and things. More particularly, what things are knowable and what things can't be known. Main types of ontology are empiricism, rationalism, pragmatism, constructivism.

³ Epistemology - regarding the truth or falsehood of knowledge. How can we prove if something is true or false (given what we can know... ontology). I hope I've got these round the right way.

As requested, I think it was by Helen, I've opened up a discussion on Cecil to allow you to exhange ideas with one another about the up coming written case analysis of Carl Zeiss Jena (CZJ). I hope you find it useful.

If it is useful, I was wondering if you would like me to do the same thing for the remaining cases? I would imagine it would work something like this -- a student could choose to dicuss the case using the dicussion forum on CECIL or discuss the case in class. It would be one or the other, and the online discussion would have to be complete before the in class discussion. What do you think. If there is enough interest we'll talk about it in class on Monday (after the break).

Furthermore, I'm also thinking about the assessment criteria for the written case analysis. I'd like to get your ideas on that topic too.

(Of course, if you don't want to leave it until Monday, or if you'd rather write down your ideas, then leave your comments here).

I've had had a letter from the Graduate Centre that says I:

have satisfactorily completed the goals approved when you were initially registered. Accordingly your registration is confirmed.

Yippee. I'm fully registered at last. Now to complete the damn thing.

However, as I've said elsewhere I need to ease back a little. As part of that process I've decided to suspend my PhD studies for a while (until March). That should give me time enough to get things back on track.

So, the same letter said they have accepted my suspension of my PhD studies for six months. So, 40-hour weeks, here I come (and that is a novelty).

Yes

Because of Rochelle's bereavement, I had the class mark themselves using a little table I'd prepared. I think the table did two things. Firstly, it helped to structure peoples comments a little, and secondly, because it explicit allowed only four attempts, it caused people to be less forthcoming with 'off the cuff' remarks. In other words, people's comments seemed to be more substantial.

And so the participation played out like this:

Note how few 1s there were... So the average marks for the class were amongst the highest thus far.

If you want to see the total list for the class, have a look at the extended entry.

A few Porterian quotes taken from:
Harfield, T. (1997). Strategic management and Michael Porter: A postmodern reading. Electronic Journal of Radical Oranizational Theory, 4(1).

Competitive advantage is hardly a new subject. ... marketing, production, control, finance, and many other activities in a firm have a role in competitive advantage. ... Competitive advantage cannot be truly understood without combining all these disciplines into a holistic view of the entire firm.

In practice, a firm must understand where each of its competitors falls on the spectrum from good to bad and behave accordingly. A good competitor understands and plays by the rules of competition in an industry, and can recognize and read market signals.
Some bad competitors will never become good competitors. A firm must be prepared to fight battles in order to convert bad competitors into good ones. For example, a foreign competitor entering what it perceives to be a strategic market is usually a bad competitor. Its stakes are too high, and it may also not understand the rules of the game.
These considerations suggest that a firm must continually work to manage its competitors' expectations and assumptions.

Competitive strategy is about being different.

... a firm can achieve and sustain overall cost leadership, then it will be an above-average performer in its industry provided it can command prices at or near the industry average. A firm that can achieve and sustain differentiation will be an above-average performer in its industry if its price premium exceeds the extra costs incurred in being unique.

A firm that is stuck in the middle will earn attractive profits only if the structure of its industry is highly favourable, or if the firm is fortunate enough to have competitors that are also stuck in the middle. Becoming stuck in the middle also affects successful firms, who compromise their generic strategy for the sake of growth or prestige.

If a firm can achieve cost leadership and differentiation simultaneously, the rewards are great because the benefits are additive--differentiation leads to premium prices at the same time that cost leadership implies lower costs.

So, I wonder, what is your firm doing. How would you describe its strategy?

I've just finished reading:

Thompson, A. A., Strickland III, A. J., & Gamble, J. E., (2004). Crafting and executing strategy: Text and readings (14th ed.). New York, McGraw-Hill.

The preface of this text books says it aimed at the senior-level or MBA student, and so I'm considering it as a replacement for MGMT 302 - Business policy & strategy, because our existing text book is no longer available.

As this is the 14th edition, you can tell it has been around for some time (looking at the frontpience, it looks like it first came out in 1978). The book is quite unitarist in its views. For example the question "What is strategy?" (let alone "Do strategies actually exist at all?") is answered in a straight forward manner, with none of the nuances or dilemmas that something like de Wit & Meyer (2003) or Mintzberg, ., Lampel, Quinn, & Ghoshal (2003) insist on presenting. The emphasis of the book is largely on the content of strategy with little regard for the process or context of strategy. Consequently, the book does go somewhat 'against the grain', in as much as the mandate of the course is to focus on the process side of strategy; whereas, International Business to be more focused on the content issues.

That's not to say the book is bad; far from it. It does the job it sets itself admirably - it's just not what is needed for MGMT 302

For me, a good theory is one that does one or more of the following:

1. It allows one to predict what will happen, or
2. It describes (explains) why something has happened, or finally
3. It prescribes what one should do (this is a variation on 1 above).

In general, as a practitioner, it is the predictive power of a theory that makes it most useful.

I'm wary of theories that seek to prescribe actions (also known as being normative, as they say what is 'normal' course of action). This is because they are often not sensitive to the context in which action will take place

I thought it would be interesting to see the progress that the class, as a whole, is making. The table below summarises the 1s, 2s, and 3s awarded each week.

Two things stand out for me. Firstly, there is the trend as people start to get more 2s and 3s (and in particular, more 3s).

I feel I need to concentrate on helping those people who haven't participated much to get more chances to talk. So, I was wondering, would those people who often get 3s try not to talk until the second half of the class today...

I think it was Celeste who asked to see all the grades, so that she can compare her performance with the class average. However, since grades are, by nature, categorical, I feel an average is mathematically unsound, so here are the (sorted)grades for the class so that you can compare your position with everyone else.

Note: I'm at home at the momement, so I'm working off an old list that is missing a few of Darl's grades -- nevertheless, I think it should do the job.

I've been exchanging a few emails with Richard Tisdall regarding the 'unreliable' stepmeter, that I replaced. He has been concerned by the problem and very helpful in dealing with it. People sometimes complain that Kiwi's don't know how to do customer service, but I think my experiences with Tisdalls shows that some Kiwis give outstanding customer service.

One think I recall from marketing (many years ago) is that people are more likely to tell others of a bad experience, than a good one. So, let be unequivocal when I say, I have received excellent service from Tisdalls, and I always recommend them when people ask me about pedometers (I think they have had a half-dozen people buying them as a result of my comments). I'll certainly be shopping there again.

Tisdalls are my shop of the year

Immediately after class, Chintaka and Howie started talking about the case together. I was impressed by the quality of their conversation, and said that it was a shame that it hadn't happened like that in class ? and Howie pointed out that he did have his hand up when Chintaka was speaking but wasn't 'picked'. I thought no more of this conversation until Chintaka came by my office 30 minutes later.

We talked about the quality of the discussion he had with Howie, and how engaged they had been that had spilled out of the classroom into a larger discussion with another student. They would like more of those vigorous free-flowing discussions, and so would I.

He suggested that some of the process, such as writing things on the board or waiting to take turns, was killing the discussion (my words not his). That may be the case, and I wonder what to do about.

Part of the problem, I suppose, is that I don't know what someone is going to say, so sometimes what gets said doesn't stimulate the discussion -- rather it flattens it, or loops it back to old points. The other part of the equation is that, some people are less 'forthcoming' than others and need to be given 'room' to speak.

I'm trying to respond to what the class says it needs. I wonder if I shouldn't do that, and hope that the class takes a more active roll in managing what is going on (as Chintaka, Howie, and others are wanting to do).

I feel that many people are uncertain about what to say, so they take every chance they can to say something "just in case", rather than wait for the time when they have something well considered to say. Perhaps, the idea that it isn't necessary to say something every week (to get full marks) isn't being well heard. I don't know ? but it feels like some people are getting squashed out of the conversation.

Maybe next week, we'll try the card technique -- once you have spoke you turn your name card over (and don't get called again/cards turned up, until everyone has spoken, which might take a week)... What do you think? It would be helpful to get some feedback from the class.

Anyway, Chintaka and I had a most engaging discussion that, despite me having to leave, continued all the way to the car park at Shortland Street.

It's the glorious twelfth, and that means it's Lisa's and mine wedding anniversary. So, we decided to have dinner at Vinnies

To whet our appetites, we had a glass of Bollinger (non vintage), and the savoury cones. I particular liked the ostrich carpaccio with Japanese pickles, and the truffled hummus was a close second.

For entee, I went for that old favourite of homemade paua sausage with kumara miso mash whilst Lisa opted for the crayfish ravioli with poached pacific rock oysters. Both were faultless.

The main course was a hard decision, but eventually Lisa settled on the roasted duck breast with fig tortellini (prompted by our cab driver on the way in), and I went for pan fried snapper. The fish was done to perfection, and Lisa commented on the high quality of the duck.

Because of our choice of food, I though that choosing the wine would be difficult. I was leaning towards the 1983 Marc Bredif Vouvray, but in the end we went with Stewart's, our waiter's, suggestion of the 2001 Leeuwin Art Series Chardonnay. I'm still wondering if the Vouvray (at pretty much the same price), would have been better.

To finish, Lisa went for a selection of Italian biscuits and coffee, and I relented and indulged myself with the chocolate truffles.

All in all, a superb dinner. Hats off to Vinnies (again).

I was talking with Amit yesterday, and he was saying that he keeps on journalling/blogging because it forces him to reflect on what he has done. I think, like me, he finds it hard to be reflective in "the moment". No doubt a psychodramatist would refer to this a an example of the cultural conserve inhibiting spontaneity.

Any way, Cao Xue-qin asked me why I blog. Well, there is a part of me that enjoys the "sound" of my own voice. However, the three main reasons I blog are:

1. To keep track of what I've read and where I've been
2. To force me to write more and to reflect
3. To remove some ambiguity from students lives, by saying what I am thinking (oh, that's a bit egocentric, isn't it).

Okay, so there are two main reasons.

So, I say I like feedback, and yet I have comments disabled. Hmm. I have a lot of good reasons not to enable comments, but what is really going on. Oh it sounds a bit like that I want to:

(a) be in unilateral control; (b) strive to win and not lose; (c) suppress negative feelings; and (d) act rationally (Argyris, 2002, p. 212}.

So, from now, comments are now on¹.

Footnotes

¹ To prevent comment spam, they'll be automatically disabled after some period.

References

Argyris, C. (2002). Double-loop learning, teaching, and research. Academy of Management Journal, 1(2), 208-218.

The first (of many?) summits was held with the CEOs of the various companies that inhabit the Mike's Bikes world. A little over half the CEOs attended, and all the regions were represented.

Listening to them (I don't always do the talking), what struck me was how similar the problems they face, viz:

1. Not being clear on what their own role was; however, some people were very clear on this.
2. How to manage/support team members who are having problems; either because they don't understand their role, or because they aren't "putting in the work".
3. What to do about an uncertain future.

There are enough resources (smart people) making up the CEOs that they can probably deal with the first two types of problems themselves, and I was very impressed that some of the CEOs intend to keep on meeting. As I said at the summit, it is normal-in the outside world-for CEOs to meet and discuss the issues that they are facing; it's also normal for other professionals to meet and talk about their shared problems.

The third issue is somewhat more difficult, because I think the people's ability to tolerate (maybe even enjoy) ambiguity (aka an uncertain future) is a characteristic of ones personality and therefore its harder for people to manage it. The most frequent technique that people (in this class and outside) employed to deal with this issue is to seek more information. At the uncertainty of the moment is "How will the teams be rearranged after the last practice roll-over?"

Let's see, whilst not MECE some of the the ways that students have suggested might be used are:

• Let's see if you really did learn anything, or were you just lucky: No change; everything is reset to just the way it was at the start, same regions, same competitors.
• Equity and equality. Teams are grouped based on their rank after the last roll-over.
• The forces of chaos: Some process of random allocation.
• The brave new world: New/more competitors, new regions.
• You made your bed now lay in it: The simulation just continues the way it is, those who have an advantage still have an advantage.
• Just when you thought it was safe to go back inthe water: Something innocuous reset (maybe the forces of chaos) but there some kind of big change later on.

I wonder what the class would like to happen (and why)? What would be a rational approach, that also had some logical consistency with the real world?

Frankly, I've been a little caught out by the lengths some people are going to in order to "work out" what might happen. I know of one CFO who has tracked down four or five past 'winners' to see what they did and what DPE (or the equivalent) did. I suspect that whatever I say at this junction will make no difference at all to the rumour mill.

As the song goes, "Que sera sera. What ever will be, will be. The future's not ours to see. Que sera, sera."

I read a bit. One book I that had some interesting ideas was The McKinsey way by Ethan M. Rasiel. Many of the ideas are not new, the 80/20 rule, and elevator pitch, and so on, but it does talk about the need to be MECE (pronounced 'me-se') in writing and thinking.

That is to say, every plan, presentation, or even memo must be present their ideas in a mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive manner. The book puts it this way:

One of the most fundamental tenants of McKinsey problem solving is the concept of MECE, mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive. MECE can be used when developing and listing issues related to the problem at hand. First, the associate must ensure that the list is mutually exclusive, or that every item is separate and distinct. Then, she must check that it is collectively exhaustive, that it includes every issue relevant to the problem. This approach prevents overlap and confusion. A "major issues list" should contain no less than two, and no more than five issues, with three being the ideal number. The consultant must make a concerted effort to fit each business problem faced by the company or non-profit under one of the 2- 5 issues on the major issues list. If this fails, there is always the option of creating a category of "other issues", although this is most effective when utilized as a sub-heading for presentation purposes.

Everyone at McKinsey gets well drilled in the art of being MECE:

MECE structures your thinking with maximum clarity--when you think you have determined the issues, take a hard look at them. Is each one a separate and distinct issue? If so, then your issue list is mutually exclusive. Does every aspect of the problem come under one (and only one) of these issues? If so, then your issues are collectively exhaustive ... [so that] every document (including internal memos), every presentation, every e-mail and voice mail produced by McKinsey-ite is supposed to be MECE.

This is closely related to the pyramid method described by Barbara Minto in her book The Minto Pyramid Principle: Logic in Writing, Thinking, & Problem Solving.

The ideas behind the pyramid method and MECE are used a lot by the big consulting firms (McKinsey has already been mentioned, but BCG, Anderson/Accenture). They are also used by strategy case competition teams, and even by students writing thesies.

Here is a fragment (well 150k) of a presentation from the Harvard Business School that shows some of these ideas. It is also a good example of how to tackle cases in general.

This is a copy of an old article on sociodrama...

Mescon, Michael H. (1959). Sociodrama and sociometry: Tools for a modern approach to leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 2(1), 21-29.

Sociodrama and sociometry: Tools for a modern approach to leadership
Michael H. Mescon
Rich's, Incorporated, Atlanta, Georgia

Abstract: Professor Mescon's basic object in this article is to present a summarization and analysis of these techniques as tools of leadership rather than to introduce new and unique applications of sociodrama and sociometry. This he does in an unusual and interesting manner, describing how industry, the military, and other organizations may use these techniques in discovering potential leaders, in selecting individuals for certain key positions in leadership training, in determining the probable behaviour of employees in certain social situations, in the training of foremen and shop stewards, and in sales training programs.

I've another psychodrama workshop tomorrow. They seem to be coming thick and fast at the moment. Tomorrow we are focusing on the Canon of creativity. Just to warm myself up to the work, I thought I'd spend a few moments reading and thinking about it.

This is very briefly talked about in

Moreno, J. L. (1955). Canon of creativity: Analysis of the creativity chart. Sociometry, 18(4), 103-104.

and is shown diagramatically as:

I hope to fill in the detail of what this all means after the course. This diagram represents the interplay between the cultural conserve and sponteneity (that's awefully like the interplay between the forces of institutionalism / habitus / etc. and individual agency).

For Moreno, the cultural conserve are the routinised patterns of behaviours, especially in a group, that provide a sense of stability. Of course the problem with this is that the way in which we respond to new situations, aka sponteneity, is thus limited by our reliance on these ingrained patterns of response.

If I learnt anything over the weekend it is the way in which one becomes unsettled as tentatively attempts are made to break out of the cultural conserve (what was referred to as cracking, but I think that is a local term).

Today we discussed Branson's Virgin. What stands out for me is the two or three times that people actually began to talk to one another, rather than talking at me (or Rochelle). This is happening a little earlier in the course than normal, and that is great. I think next week I must ensure that people are linking to each others ideas -- hopefully that will foster more understanding and discussion, rather than people focusing on trying to score points.

I think it was Daneka who spotted when I wasn't engaging with one of the other students -- I think that was pretty astute of her, and it gave me a good chance to model the importance of asking for clarification.

So what did I take away from todays dicussion (and I've got to say it was different from any discussion I've been part of about Branson). Alas, my notes are back in the office, so this really is what I've taken away.

Well, Branson's personality and style is manifested in the type strategist he is. This has further played itself out in the structure and culture of the organisation. This has significant implications for anyone seeking to replace Brason. For example, the large number of firms that make up Virgin have, in many ways, been kept entrepreneurial -- quiet possibly beyond the usefulness of doing that. What is unresolved is the extent to which luck has been an essential ingredient in the success of the organisation.

I think it was Paula Jarzabkowski who talks about strategy isn't something an organisation has, rather it is something an organisation does, and thus we should talk about strategising rather strategy. In the same way (may be it is Weick), we should talk about becoming something, rather than being something. So for the class, Business Policy & Strategy, I tend to think of the students as people who are in the (endless) process of becoming strategists¹.

This is all prompted by a discussion I had with three students who came to talk about this week's case, Branson's Virgin (de Vries & Dick, 1998). The came looking to find out what I wanted them to say -- that old chestnut of "How should I approach this case?" I think they were surprised by the answer. I don't have an answer in mind; what I'm hoping for is that each student will bring what they know (about strategy, or marketing, etc) to bear on the case and to demonstrate that they understand what is going on in the case and what is going on in the class room. The second part came as a big surprise to them. If we treat the class as a strategy retreat or a strategy away day, many of the problems we face in the class, of getting stuck or going round in circles, are faced by strategists too. It isn't, after all, just about having good ideas; it is also about understanding other's ideas, getting ones own ideas accepted, integrating what other people have have said, keeping the 'conversation' going. Just think about what Mason & Mitroff (1981, 1998) said about the way to talk wicked problems. It requires input from many people, so part of what is desired is working with the rest of the class - not just defending ones own position or point of view.

So, pragmatically, marks can be earned, not only by making sense of the case (with a good dollop of theory), but also by synthesising understanding from everything that is being said in the class. Such synthesis can be started by something a simple as asking good questions of one another, or by seeking clarification on peoples' position.

Anyway, after the four of us finished talking, I was left really looking forward to Friday and what they might do in class.

Footnotes

¹ Many of the ideas here are drawn from my PhD research, so this really is research informed learning.

References

Jarzabkowski, P. (2004). Strategy as practice: Recursiveness, adaptation and practices-in-use. Organization Studies, 25(4), 529-560.

Kets de Vries, M., & Dick, R. (1998). Branson's Virgin: The coming of age of a counter-cultural enterprise. In B. de Wit & R. Meyer (Eds.), Strategy: Process, content, context. London: Thompson Learning.

Mason, R. O., & Mitroff, I. (1981). Complexity: The nature of real world problems. In Challenging strategic planning assumptions: Theory, cases, and techniques. New York: John Wiley.

Mason, R. O., & Mitroff, I. (1998). Complexity: The nature of real world problems. In B. de Wit & R. Meyer (Eds.), Strategy process, content, context: An international perspective (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Thompson Learning.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

I try to be active in the strategy-as-practice community. One of the ways I do this is by maintaining a bibliography of readings that is available through the web-site. A few weeks ago, I asked people for any suggestions to add to the bibliography. Gerry Johnson sent me a list he has been working on with Leif Melin.

I've start to work through the list, getting copies of the articles and reading them, as I add them to the bibliography. The first article is:

Langley, A. (1990). Patterns in the use of formal analysis in strategic decisions. Organization Studies, 11(1), 17-45.

The abstract says:

An empirical study examined how formal analysis is used in strategic decision making in 3 organizations of different structural types. In-depth investigation was made of the role of formal analysis at top levels in 3 organizations - a machine bureaucracy, a professional bureaucracy, and an adhocracy. It was found that formal analysis is used for a variety of purposes in organizations, and the way in which it is used varies from organization to organization. Three patterns of use were identified: 1. Analysis is used for substantive input to decisions, to control implementation, and to ensure convergence toward action. 2. Analysis becomes a key tool of persuasion and verification in the negotiation process between levels of the hierarchy concerning actions to be taken. 3. Analysis appears unproductive as people use it to put forward contradictory positions and to gain time in an atmosphere of indecision and divergence. This suggests that organizational structure is a key factor affecting the decision process.

There are a number of things that stand out after reading this article. Firstly, it reminds me that formal analysis is more prevalent in the later stages on strategising, e.g. in the evaluation of strategies or in filling in the details - maybe through into implementation, rather than in the earlier, dare I say more intuitive, formulation stages. I expect this is due the greater reliance on creativity in the 'earlier' part of strategising.

Secondly, the nature or configuration (e.g. Mintzberg, 1983) of the firm--in a structural sense--impacts the ways in which formal (and informal) analysis is used. I think this can be linked to Ranson, Hinings, & Greenwood's (1980) idea that structure and the way the organisation things are intertwined (the archetype as they call it) - although that explicit link is not made in the article.

Finally, it reminds me that I have to get around to reading Linblom's classic 1959 article on muddling through.

References.

Lindblom, C. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79-88.

Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ranson, S., Hinings, C. R., & Greenwood, R. (1980). The structuring of organizational structures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 1-17.

All firms start off in the same position. So, I'd thought I'd just record some benchmarking figures so I can compare them with what firms achieve in the future.

I subscribe to a number of journals, so every week or so, something new to read appears in my mail box. It's often hard to keep up with the volume of reading (and I'm not even reading some "standards", such as AMJ). Anyway, the latest edition of Strategic Organization has landed on my desk. I've recommended it to the library, but judging by Voyager it isn't generally available in the University.

Each issue contains an editorial essay, and I thought the following one would be very useful to my strategy students (albeit for later in the course). The article is called:

Delacroix, J. (2004). Another monkey on our backs: Falsehoods and truth about globalization. Strategic Organization, 2(3), 313-322.

Unlike the readings in the textbook, which argues about the tension between globalisation and localisation, this article focuses on the bad press that globalisation has been getting (as demonstrated at Seattle, Cancún, etc).

Having read the article, I can't help feeling that like the myth of globalisation as a source of evil (as it is portrayed on many websites) needs to be properly considered, rather than accepted (as politically driven rhetoric). It reminds me of the claims that the pace of change is faster than ever before ... I'm still waiting to see the hard evidence.

I had a fitness assessment at the university's Recreation Centre today. Here are the results.

Overall, I'm losing weight. Now I jsut need to build up some strength. So, I feel on track.

I've just finished reading the journals. And I'm prompted to ask the following questions.

• Should a firm try out its intended strategy during the practice rounds, or should it do some kind of bluff?
• Is ranking generally useful or generally not? What about in a team situation such as yours?
• Are the number of words in an assignment a good proxy for the amount of effort required? When might this not be true?
• Do CEOs really have it easy?
• Is any of the teams a 'real team' yet?
• Can a firm really afford to buy another in the first rollover, if they sell everything? (and will the have enough money to service the debt afterwards?)

One team asked Darl and me 'How long should a team agreement be?' Echoing the mantra of management, we replied 'It all depends'.

In some ways, a team agreement is there as an insurance policy in case things go wrong -- it may never be used (but it will be because of the marks). The team agreement may also be a tool to ensure teams and the lecturers understand each others positions. In other ways, the team agreement is a vehicle to build trust and commitment (think back to Katzenback & Smith).

Charles Handy tells the following story:

I remember my first exposure to the 'Chinese Contract'. I was a manager in South Malaysia for an oil company, responsible amongst other things for negotiating agency agreements with our Chinese dealers. I was young, enthusiastic and, I suppose näI've. After the conclusion of one such negotiation, the dealer and I shook hands, drank ritual cups of tea, and were, I felt, the best of friends. I took the official company agency agreement out of my case to fill in the figures, preparatory to signing it. 'Why are you doing that?' asked the dealer with some alarm. 'If you think I am going to sign that that you are much mistaken.' 'But I'm only writing in figures which we have agreed.' 'If we agreed them, why do you want a legal document? It makes me suspect that you have got more out of this agreement than I have, and are going to use the weight of the law to enforce your teams. In my culture,' he went on , 'a good agreement is self-enforcing because both parties go away smiling and are happy to see that each of us is smiling. In one smiles, and the other scowls, the agreement will not stick, lawyers or no lawyers' (Handy, 1994, p. 80).

So, one issue is how much you trust each other, and how much we (DPE) trust you. After all, you have been entrusted with something quite valuable -- that is to say, 20 per cent of your marks. My sense is that some teams have higher levels of genuine trust, rather than the rosy glasses of norming, and commitment than other teams. So, the length of each team's agreement will be different.

References

Handy, C. (1994). The empty raincoat: Making sense of the future. London: Arrow Books.
Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1991). The discipline of teams. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Pub.

Monday's are such a full day. From 9-12, I with teams; From 12 -1 DPE to discuss the teams, I'm teaching 302 from 2-3 (so I have an hour to 'shift gears'), and finally I'm teach 101 from 5-6. Yes, pretty full.

The first team of the day found me not at my best. I'd spent the weekend doing psychodrama and I think I was still processing what went on over the weekend. I did recognise what was happening for me, and I apologised to the team -- but I'm not sure it helped them.

One team I sat in with made a very good suggestion about evaluating each other (as part of the team agreements). For each of the broad categories in their TA, they suggested that they simple tell each person (anonymously as it happens) the thing they are doing the best in that category, thing that would make the biggest improvement in their performance (again in that category) and there rank in that category. It has a certain simple elegance I like (and I'm sure I haven't reported back exactly as the team member presented it, so apologies to that team too).

Thinking of Mike's Bikes, I wonder how many people have found the "offline" mode in Net Mike, and are using it to roll-forward and to roll-back? It's a useful training aid for many types of decisions (however, it is useless for some types of decisions too).

Gossip A general theme that seems to be emerging is how to deal with the issues of takeovers. There are two major ways to avoid being taken over.
* Be too big and expensive to buy
* Have too much market share so the commerce rules inhibit takeovers
Alas, both of these defences take time to put in place.

The first of the summits has been announced. They are normally very helpful to people. Of course, being geared to a particular role, they aren't that helpful to other people.

I spent the weekend (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday) on a Clinical Psychodrama course. Nothing much (clinical) happened.

It's been three months since I last saw the doctor, so it was time for a check up today.

My blood pressure is still high, but the Doc thinks its the 'white coat effect'. I only have to see a Doctor, and that drives up my blood peruse. I get lower readings during my monthly checks with the nurse.

It seems I've lost 8Kg in the last three months. Thats good news. The walking is paying off. Now I think I'll start going to the gym so I don't 'plateau' off.

Of course, this improvement wouldn't have happened with out the support of Lisa, my darling wife.

We had an interesting conversation about my cholesterol level. Currently, it is 3.4 mmol/l (and a good figure is less than 5). Whilst my LDL cholesterol is good (2.0 mmol/l and they like it below 3.0¹), my HDL is only 1.0 mmol/l. Alas, they like it over 1. So, I have to start eating more oily fish and exercise some more -- so I'm double sure to go to the gym. Just for completeness, I'll say that my fasting triglyceride level is 0.7 mmol/l (less than 2.0 - good), and my total cholesterol to HDL ratio is 3.4 (and they like it below 4.5). So, generally, it sounds good.

I had hope he might have reduced the Inhibace, but no, not yet. In fact he's put me on folic acid too. I'll have to do some reading on that.

Footnotes

¹ Actually, he said for heart attack patients with bad arteries (not me really), they like it to below 2.5 mmol/l so I feel pretty good about it overall.

I bought a new pedometer/stepmeter a few weeks ago. Alas, the new one doesn't do a good job. I finally figured out that it was under reporting by 20 to 50 per cent. i.e. it was missing as many as half of my steps. I'd dropped it a few times so I decided to take it to pieces. Nothing obviously wrong there - the pendulum seemed fine. Even so, I though the problem was probably the result of dropping it.

Off to Tisdall's to get a new one.

But, I decided to check out all the different models (I'm still choosing Silva). After much shaking and tipping of all the different models, both I and the sales assistant agreed that the pendulums in the cheapest model is definitely lighter and, I suspect, less reliable. My first pedometer was not the cheaper model. My second one was. So, maybe the problem was the pedometer design rather than it being dropped.

Oh well. I'll let Tisdall's know.

This means that my last two weeks 'peds' are probably grossly in accurate.

I brief, mentioned elsewhere about teams seeking to deliberately sabotaging other teams. I don't know if this happens in this course or not, but I was thinking about those comments when I read:

White, J., & Taft, S. (2004). Frameworks for teaching and learning business ethics with the global context: Background of ethical theories. Journal of Management Education, 28(4), 463-477.

So, I'd thought I'd recount a few of thier ideas, and see if anyone found they relate to the way in which they approach things in general, or the course in particular.

In the article two general Western approaches to ethics are discussed; teleological and deontological.

Teleological¹ approaches to ethics focus on the consequences of actions. It is the consequences themselves, whether they result in harm or not, that are evaluated rather than the actions themselves. The major teleological theories of ethics include utilitarianism, egoism, and care.

Utilitarianism³ focuses on the social costs or benefits of decisions. A common version of utilitarianism is the idea of the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Thus utilitarianism, considers everyone, even if it doesn't benefit everyone. On the other hand, egoism is about obtaining the greatest good for oneself, and doesn't consider anyone else. The ethic of care, whilst also deontological, considers the impact of one's actions on others, and not only considers harm but also peoples feelings. The interesting thing with the ethic of care, is that it explicitly requires one to consider the context in which actions/decisions take place. E.g. are there some conditions where it is okay to kill someone?

Deontological² approaches to ethics sometimes referred to as the categorical imperative. That is to say, there are some actions that, in themselves, are intrinsically good. Thus, "A moral person makes an ethical decision based on what is right, using moral principles or rules, regardless of circumstances or consequences" (emphasis added, p. 466). But what should these principles or rules be? Citing Kant's view, the categorical imperative is "Every person should act only on those principles that he or she would prescribe as universal laws, applied toe everyone, assuming what is right for one person is right for all persons" (p. 467).

There are a number of 'regimes' that come from this approach. The rights perspective is based on the notion of basic human rights, such as those articulated in the American Constitution. Similarly, the justice approach seeks to use universal principles to judge what is fair (with variations for compensatory, redistributive, and retributive justice). Finally, the virtue ethic desires that people follow agreed upon rules -- i.e. they live their lives by specific virtues.

For me, I tend to use a mixture of both approaches. In some areas (particularly when dealing with students), I tend toward Utilitarian approaches. However, I'm also aware that there are times when I've bent the rules for students because of the situation/context. Then again, if you look at the Academic Honesty Assistance tutorial (Aha - which I helped to develop) you'll see elements of deontology. And no doubt, from time to time, I fall back on egoism.

Truth be told, I suspect that we all use a variety of ethical guides for our behaviour. But, I wonder how much our choices, say taking the ethic of care approach, or a justice approach, is driven by a muted reliance on egoism?

Footnotes

¹ Teleology - to do with purposeful action; explaining phenomena by looking at final results.

² Deontology - regarding moral obligations.

³ See the works of John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham.

I just received a brief email from a student asking how to prepare for Friday's case.

That really is a hard question to answer because I don't know what the student knows about prepping a case. I could tell them all I know, but that probably wouldn't be helpful as the student wouldn't have an organising framework and it would be disconnect from their own experience and knowledge.

Not only that, I hope that this course is developmental. I've said it elsewhere, but my expectation is that students will become more skilled at doing a case over the duration of the course. Thus, what is good now, might be considered poor later in the course. There are pros and cons to this approach. Amongst the pros are; 1) it allows students to develop a sophisticate approach to cases, without having to know everything or analyse everything at the beginning, 2) it allows good work to be rewarded appropriately throughout the whole course -- this is important because whilst at the end of the course, students may know everything right now they don't; and since they are assessed each week it could penalise them for not knowing it all, and finally, 3) it allows students to become their own strategist rather than conforming to some normative/prescriptive/formulaic expectations.

The biggest con is that the target is moving; and this can be un settling. How is it that something that is okay one week, is poor a month later? I think the way to deal with this is for students to constantly evaluate the performance of the best students in the class and comparing it with their own performance. I've found that students are very capable at spotting who is 'best' in the class. Generally, it is a good practice, in this class, to constantly be marking ones own performance. If anyone has other thoughts, I'd be really keen to hear them.

Anyway, I think the best way for that student to move forward is to prepare a case, and then come and talk to me about it - that way, I can give guidance on what will make the biggest difference for that student, rather than spending hours (days, or weeks) writing down all I know. So generally, if you want help with cases, be it with regard to preparing on presenting them, then come and see me once your have had a go at preparing it.

I've just received the lastest edition of the Journal of Management Education, and there is an element of sychronicity about it. The first article is:

Cunliffe, A. L. (2004). On becoming a critically reflective practitioner. Journal of Management Education, 28(4), 407-426.

In this article, she writes about many of the things I've discussed today, or over the past couple of days, as can be seen from the abstract:

Critically reflective practice embraces subjective understandings of reality as a basis for thinking more critically about the impact of our assumptions, values, and actions on others. Such practice is important to management education because it helps us to understand how we constitute our realities and identities in relational ways and how e can develop more collaborative and responsive ways of managing organizations. This article offers three ways to of stimulating critically reflective practice: (a) an exercise to help students think about the socially constructive nature of reality, (2) a map to help situate reflective and reflexive practice, and © and outline and examples of critically reflexive journalling.

I think the articles literature review is very accessible. In particular, the idea of "knowing and being" (p. 409) that leads to the ideas that "Knowledge is not just theory or information; it also incorporates knowing from within, a tacit practical consciousness of everyday sense making in which we implicitly know things about our surroundings (people,places, actions) and act from this" (p. 410). For me this is very much about bricolage (Ortmann & Salzmann, 2002). It is something I hope to foster in the Business Policy & Strategy course.

The links the author makes to Argyris & Scön are also very appropriate for the Management Theory & Practice course -- hoepful this will be seen later on in the course.

Those students who have been able to achieve a B+ with their journals (for Management Theory & Practice) might like to consider reading the article to see how they might take them to a new level. In fact, I think that anyone in MGMT 301¹ could improve their journals by reading the article.

And, even better (for me), the article has implications for my own practice too.

Footnotes

¹ Management Theory & Practice

References

Cunliffe, A. L. (2004). On becoming a critically reflective practitioner. Journal of Management Education, 28(4), 407-426.

Ortmann, G., & Salzmann, H. (2002). Stumbling giants. The emptiness, fullness, and recursiveness of strategic management. Soziale Systeme, 8(2), 205-230.

I've just opened the flood-gates again and sent out an email with the login details for Net Mike. One thing I'm interested in is the way in which people use the messaging board of Net Mike. I wonder how (or if) it will be used this time.

Here I'm trying to make a deliberate link between the current class and past classes. We have a long history in MGMT 301, and we're experimenting with how we can make better connection between the semesters for students. In the future, we hope that sharing the company cases will do that, but for now, I'm just trying to create some sense of history for the class.

After the 'exec' meetings yesterday, the three of us (DPE) got together to talk about the teams we had seen during the morning. Despite that debriefing, it still takes me a long time to process what I have seen and heard, and to think about the Learning journals that people have written.

When we, DPE, originally talked about the learning journals, we thought that it would take a few weeks before people got 'into their stride' and began to do well in them. Judging by the current crop that I've read, some people are setting a cracking pace already. Not only that, most of the anticipated grades¹ (of the ones I read) are close, if not identical, to the grade I'm going to give them. For a long time, I've said that students know the grade their work deserves; this just seems to re-enforce my position.

There were a number of discussions that I found particularly helpful (in the sense that I feel I understand a little better where the students are coming from). Firstly, with one team we had a robust discussion about the pros and cons of making assumptions -- I think this really leads into a discussion of how we construct our own theories of the world. Perhaps so of the later readings will be helpful with this, but many theories of learning, such as the Kolb cycle (1976), are not predicated on the individual discovering some fundamental, or scientific, truth. Rather, they are geared towards people find out how to function 'better' in the world in which they inhabit². This leads us to a very subjective view of the world -- and I'm aware that some, or even many, students find that an uncomfortable thought.

Second, is the issue of sharing information and learning. I hear that with in some departments or faculties, with regard to team projects, there is a culture of deliberately misleading other teams--I presume this means feeding them wrong information. I struggle to understand why someone would do this (either in a course, or outside of university). It isn't as if there are a finite number of As to go around³. Related to that, was this issue of the ranking of team members, and the intra-team competition that this might generate. True, it is possible to construe it that way; however, it isn't the only construction that can be placed on it. Later on, one of the readings discusses catalytic mechanisms. and forced ranking is an okay catalytic mechanism⁴.

¹ The grade that the students expected to get for their journal.

² See also something like George Kelly's experience cycle

³ The argument for grading on the curve (and thus having a finite number of As) is sometimes based on the idea that it encourages competition, and thus raises standards. In this department, we mark to a standard, rather than to a bell-curve.

⁴ I've read this in Jim Collins book, Good to great, but I think the class get it as an article (by him again) in the Harvard Business Review

References

Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap--and others don't. New York: HarperBusiness.

Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs (1st ed.). New York: W. W. Norton.

Kolb, D. A. (1976). Management and the learning process. California Management Review, 8(3), 21-31.

After class today, a number of people came up to me and asked if the format of the class, in particular the type of questions I asked, would be the same each week.

I think my opening question on the Telecom Case was something like, "In 1999 would you have bought shares in Telecom?" A simple question, but to answer the question well it is necessary to have a sound understanding of the situation Telecom found itself in, and the problems it faced. Anyone, who had a prepared position on the case should have been able to provide a robust answer to that question (and some did).

We then sort of plodded through the BCG / Mintoesque approach of situation, complication, solution, and impact.

I doubt we will tackle a case using this approach (in this course). Firstly, using a structured approach, like this, is useful for those who find it hard to know where to begin with a case. But, in future, students will have a larger body of theory and experience on which to draw. In fact, each case is can be well address based on the readings for the week.

Actually, now I say it I wonder what Mason & Mitroff would have to say...

References

Mason, R. O., & Mitroff, I. (1998). Complexity: The nature of real world problems. In B. de Wit & R. Meyer (Eds.), Strategy process, content, context: An international perspective (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Thompson Learning.

Yesterday, in MGMT 101 - organisationa and management, I was laying out some of the territory that the class (and I, I suppose) will be covering in the coming weeks. For whatever reason¹, much of the course is structured around PLOC²; planning, leading, organising, and controlling. As I pointed out in class, this isn't an accurate description of what managers do. I mentioned that since the 1970s we (academics) have had a much richer view of the work of managers. In fact, I was alluding to the early (earliest) work of Henry Mintzberg³.

Anyway,as I was reading today, I came across a nice introductionary article to Henry Mintzberg. It's well worth reading by stage I students, and is called:

de Holan, P. M., & Mintzberg, H. (2004). Mangement as life's essence: 30 years of The nature of managerial work. Strategic Organization, 2(2), 205-212.

Additional, the article shows the serendipitous way in which new management ideas are 'discovered' and how they rise to prominance. There is a link here for later - in future we'll talk about In search of excellence, by Peters & Waterman. At that time, remember to ask why the book was so sucessful.

Henry also makes a point of saying how hard it is to teach management to those people who aren't managers - he is so right. Until you've been there it doesn't make much sense. Management is a practice (in Turner's sense) more than it is a science (or even an art), and so there is a significant element of management that is tacit (as there is in most parts of social life).

¹ Well, a good part has to do with the requirement that ICANZ put on institutions about the content that wanabe accountants have to be exposed to.

³ Which of course is based around Henri Fayol's ideas of planning, organising, commanding, co-ordinating, and controlling -- the commanding was reinvented as leading, and co-ordinating became organising.

² Mintzberg is mentioned quiet early on in the textbook - Inkson & Kolb, 2003 - but I dont' think it explains how he debunked the myth of the manager spending her/his time PLOCing.

References

Inkson, K., & Kolb, D. G. (2002). Management: Perspectives for New Zealand (3rd ed.). Auckland: Pearson Education.

Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America's best-run companies (1st ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Turner, S. P. (1994). The social theory of practices: Tradition, tacit knowledge and presuppositions. Cambridge: Polity Press.

I've just finished reading:

Augier, M., & Sarasvathy, S. D. (2004). Integrating evolution, cognition and design: Extending ?Simonian? perspectives to strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 2(2), 169-204.

The abstract is:

Several streams of research in strategic management and organisational theory build upon the early work of Herbert Simon. Yet, as content analyses of articles published in leading management journals show, key ideas from his later years are for the most part either neglected or misinterpreted. We bring to strategic organization three constructs from Simon's later work and make a case for their use in future research in strategic management and entrepreneurship: Docility is a fundamental behavioral assumption in lieu of opportunism or embedded networks of trust; Near-decomposability is an evolutionarily robust structural feature that permeates Nature?s designs and has implications for human artifacts; and, Artifacts are products of human design that reshape local environments and/or help select between them to create and achieve human purposes. Each of these constructs embodies a uniquely Simonian integration of evolution, cognition, and design. Together they enable us to conceptualize empirical phenomena as thick three-dimensional reality rather than as abstractions entailed by any one of these perspectives alone.

I was particularly struck by the ideas of docility and near-decomposability. Citing Simon (1993 - which may be wrong), the authors explain that by docility they "mean the tendency to depend on suggestions, recommendation, persuasion, and information obtained through social channels as a major basis for decision" (p. 176). At first glance this may sound a lot like social learning theory, however they combine it with the idea that "for the most part, most human beings seek and give advice" (p. 178) this is a mechanism for the efficient distribution of learning, or as the authors might put it, it facilitates greater evolutionary fitness. Furthermore, docility leads to "the evolutionary dominance of intelligent altruism over economic or other forms of opportunism" (p. 176). I suspect that this is brought about by the way in which docility relies on and creates identity.

On the other hand, one of the features of near-decomposability (or ND), is that "in ND systems, each component [of the organisation] can evolve towards greater fitness with little dependence upon changes taking place in the details of other components (p. 179). Thus, each component is loosely coupled to others - but bound together by identity. The consequence of this is that rapid change can occur in a component without disrupting the whole.

At this point, I'm remind of Beinhocker's (2000) article, where he describes how components move across a fitness landscape, where vision is limited (maybe by bounded rationality) and so the 'best' strategy might be just to continue to move upwards -- but where in the long term it is more effective to also seed distant sites, in case they provide access to 'higher ground', e.g. greater fitness. This kind of approach can be successful if units are loosely coupled so they can adapt (or even die) without destroying the whole organisation.

The example they use is worth remembering.

27 expert entrepreneurs who where presented with exactly the same imaginary product and asked to make typical decisions that occur in a startup form. Received wisdom suggests that these experts would identify the most promising market opportunities for the product and devise strategies to capture leading positions in those markets. In contrast to this, the subjects often ignored or rejected market research data. Instead they leveraged who they were, what they new and whom they knew to construct very local and immediately implementable opportunities. They then imaginatively combined these initial segments together with contingencies to stitch together meaningful identifies that in turn pointed to new markets that neither they nor the market researchers could predict ex ante. (emphasis added, p. 183).

Thus we have two important mechanisms of evolutionary development. They consequences of using the two together, is that it can reduce transaction costs, whilst increasing altruism.

Overall, the article suggests that docility, near-decomposabilty, and artifact (which I've not discussed) overcome a number of troublesome dichotomies. However, I'm less convinced about this.

References

Beinhocker, E. D. (2000). On the orgin of stratgies. In C. Willhoite (Ed.), The McKinsey-Quarterly Anthology: On strategy (pp. 81-90): Mckinsey-Quarterly.

As part of the course MGMT 302 student's have to prepare a CV (well, complete a form that asks for some specific details) and get some work experience using Solo Mike (aka Mike's Bikes Advanced - Single Player).

A few people seem to be having problems in raising their shareholder value (SHV) from about $9 to $25 in four of five years. In the past we have seen students who are able to double their SHV every year. e.g. in four years, their SHV will be over $70. Anyway, what is worth noting is that when Solo Mike is started, there is an area in the simulation where a record can be made of the strategy that the player intends to use -- and in this area a default strategy has been filled in already -- and its a good strategy. If students follow it (in Solo Mike anyway) they should do okay.

Thinking of CVs I'm reminded of a time a few years ago. Imagine someone sitting at home. They have 5 identical positions for an entry level economist to fill, and over 300 people have applied for the job. So, they have a box (or two) containing 300 CVs. Each CV has been 'stripped'. Any fancy binding has be removed, as has any fancy covers -- doing that it makes it easier to handle and file the CVs. They create three piles:

• Definitely not
• Maybe
• Yes - go forward

In the next three or four hours they are going to go through the CVs (that's as many as 100 an hour, or just over 40 seconds each). Any flaws in the CV (spelling mistakes, missing information, poor grades) go straight in the Definitely not pile. The covering letter is used to distinguish between those in the Maybe and those in the Yes piles. At the end of the evening there are 40 CVs in the yes pile, 80 in the maybe, and the rest are definitely not. Given the number of CVs that got a Yes, the Maybes are never looked at again. (Oh, they never mentioned it in the advert, but they a looking for people who have worked well in teams; in undergrads, this often means they look for people who have played a lot of team sports, or have worked in a team - no team experience results in the CV being a Maybe instead of a yes.)

The next day, the 40 CVs are whittled down to 20, those twenty go forward for psych testing. Not even an interview yet...

At least in MGMT 301 we have exactly the same number of jobs as there are students.

And so semester two has started.

I've quiet a heavy teach load on Mondays. From 9-12 I have Management Theory & Practise (MGMT 301), after that the team has a debriefing meeting from 12-1, from 2-3 its _Business Policy & Strategy (MGMT 302), and finally I have _Organisations & Management (MGMT 101) from 5-6. It makes it a long day - but, generally, you know when it has worked well because you come away energised. Typically, when a class doesn't work it sucks the energy right out of you. Anyway -- today was a good day.

I'll think I'll talk about my day in reverse order.

MGMT 101 went well. Having listened to them talk about their favourite movies, it seems that they are a more eloquent and talkative group than many 101 classes would be. They seem to be willing to participate, and they enjoy a laugh. Thinking about what went on today, I'm not sure that I spent enough time on what my role in the class and in 101, in general, is. With regard to my general role, in the 101 teaching team I work with Joe (who has responsible for the course) and the other lecturers (Sanjay and Nigel) to shape the content of the course and the format of the assignments. Joe, besides doing that too, is heavily concerned with the processes in course - making sure the mechanics work. Joe is quiet skilled at managing the 1,000-odd students who are doing 101 at any one time. My role is the classroom is not about delivering content - it is showing the students how to think about the material. This is hard - it is much easier just to do a brain dump of information; but how to think about the material -- that's a different matter altogether. Given a situation, why (and when) is it better to treat it as, for example, a problem of motivation, and when might it be better to consider it as a matter of discipline. These are important distinctions. Furthermore, what are the limits to "our" managerial "knowledge? How much do we really know, and how much is transferable between context, e.g. why can you tackle some organisational issues one way -- say in a car dealership -- and why won't those same, successful, approaches fail in a not-for-profit, such as Greenpeace (and what learning can be transfered).

I'm always struck with the demographic split in MGMT 101. There are so many students there who attend because they have too--it's a mandatory core paper in the BCom--rather than because they are interested in the subject (I'm making a bit of a leap here, but I think it holds). This presents some interesting challenges to the lecture, as the two groups want (and need) different things. I wonder if this would be worth while bringing up in class for discussion - it makes an interesting management issue. Actually, one of the things we (the department) has discussed, for time to time, is "Should there be two stage I courses for management?" One course for those who need to do it as the core (much in the same way as we created the successfully SCIGEN201 course for the BTech students), and a separate course geared towards those people how intend to progress on in the management arena. It works for the BTechs, because it is quiet clear where their interests lie (in science and technology). However, with students doing a BCom, we've never been too sure about how fixed they are on their major (and being typical managers, we don't want to close off options early -- either theirs or ours).

MGMT 302 started really well too. It wasn't too long before some of the students were openly disagreeing with me and putting forward their positions quiet solidly. There were even some people who explained quite well the benefits of my stance. This all bodes well for the class - it's good to have people who can think for themselves. Talking of demographics, it is interesting to see the number of students in the class who have done the IB paper Foundations of strategy; having so many of them at the same time will make a difference to the dynamics of the class. I've had the occasional IB students (who have always done well), and they always bring a different type of approach to the cases. I'm looking forward to Friday and seeing how they will do with the cases.

So my day started out with MGMT 301. I was a little surprised, that I ended up doing most of the talking. But, then again, I had taken it upon myself to do some a 'deck' of slides for the class, so I suppose it was natural for me to most of the talking (as I was most familiar with where the slides would take us). Emma's video was good. After class, she reminded Darl and I how much of a defining moment the class had been for her. It will be interesting to see who is affected similarly in this cohort. As I looked around the room, I kept wondering "Which one of you will be taking on Emma's role in couple of years?", is there another "David Thomas" in the class?". Who, at the end of the semester, will we be tapping on the shoulder and saying "We think you should consider Honours or a Masters degree"?

During lunch, I walked down to Tisdall's and brought a new pedometer. I lost mine yesterday somewhere in between going in to School to watch the BCG case teams present. I do like to know that I'm getting enough 'peds' in. Any it's lost, so I brought a new one...

I'm still sticking with the Silva brand. They (Lisa's used them before) are pretty reliable. If they have one problem, it's that they can fall off your belt when getting into a car (or similar). I think that's what happened to my old one. So, I'll be getting my toolbox out and making a few modifications to this one.

So, the peds keep racking up.

Google still isn't crawling the site (much). I think part of the problem is that there are very few sites which link to this one. Besides The Woolseys and Consulting, I can't find many sites that link here.

Oh well. I expect time will take care of that problem.

As we move towards a new semester, Darl and I are pondering "When is the best time to rollover the simulation?"

In our class, we use the business simulation NetMike as a practice field for our students. Typically we simulate between seven and ten years. Each simulated year occurs when we rollover the simulation to a new year.

In the past we have done the rollovers every Monday at mid-day or, alternatively, at 4:00 on a Friday. Thus each simulated year takes a week in real time. The advantages of doing the rollover on a Monday is that it allows teams to meet over the weekend to make their decisions. However, do we really want to encourage students to work during the weekend? Are we facilitiating bad habits? That is why we have also tried to have rollovers on a Friday, so that students are constrained to stay within the working week, so to speak.

On top of that, I suspect that when we have a Monday rollover, some students are being 'coerced' into working at weekends when they would rather not. I'd be interested to hear from past and current students as to what their 'take' is on this issue.

I guess you can tell I'm back by the volume of my postings ...

Anyway, I've been running a couple of link checkers over the site to find any dead (or incorrectly entered) links. I've fixed most of the problems that are internal to the site (i.e. within http://www.thereflectivepractitioner.org/), but some of the links outside the site have suffered from link rot.

Of course, it may be possible to find a copy of the material that has been lost at the Wayback machine (aka the Internet Archive).

I wonder how many people know their sites are being archived like that?

On my recent trip to EGOS, Lisa and I spent a couple of days in the UK catching up the Lisa's family. Here I am with Malcolm, her brother-in-law, cooking at a BBQ in the 'English' manner -- that is to say in the pouring rain. It actually had been a lovel day up until we started to cook.

We also took the time to go on the London Eye. By chance, rather than by good planing, we got there early and didn't have to queue too long. This is a lovel picture of Lisa, with London in the background, taken in mid 'flight' as they call the ride.

I see that Amit has an interesting comment on Google. He says that:

Key words "armi reflective" appears number two in google amazing, "reflective practitioner" comes up about 6th ... amazing!

I'm a little surprise as I've been having problems getting google to trawl the site correctly. Although Google comes to http://www.thereflectivepractitioner.org/ every day or so, it never crawls through the whole web site. It just reads the robots.txt file and the main index of The reflectivepractitioner and then stops. I can't figure out what's going on.

The robot exclusion file, that is to say robots.txt, shouldn't stop it crawling. The meta data in the index.html page, i.e. <meta name="robots" content="index,follow,noarchive" /> shouldn't stop it -- so what's happening? I emailed the folks at Google and got a very general reply back. I should try emailing them again. In the meantime, if anyone has an idea why the site isn't being crawled - please let me know.

Last night, on the spur of the moment, Lisa and I decided to go and see Shrek 2. What a hoot. It was very funny film. There were so many in-jokes, allusions and references to other movies (e.g. a giant gingerbread man that was reminiscent of the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man in Ghost Busters, which itself was a parody of the Pillsbury Dough Boy)

I think the animation is the best I've seen. Look out for some of the details on Prince Charming (e.g. his mole, the way his clothes are rumpled, the movement of his hair). However, like many animated features there are times where the animation isn't up to the same high standard.

Two performances really stood out -- Antonio Banderas as Puss in Boots and Jennifer Saunders as the Fairy Godmother. In particular, the songs ("Holding Out for a Hero" and "Fairy Godmother Song" ) sung by Jennifer were very well done; I didn't know she could sing that well - this will be one sound-track I have to buy.

All in all, another one for the DVD collection.

Today, I gave a department seminar on my PhD topic Strategising in professional service firms. I've posted a copy of the slides in case anyone in interested.

If found it strangely nerve wracking. As I said at the start of the presentation "How do I know what I think until I've said it". With such a view, I suppose it is unsurprising that I was nervous.

On a technical note, I had a few problems with the presentation. I decided to use a tree-like structure for the slides, i.e. a main trunk, of about four slides, branching of to many supporting slides. This was all done using hyperlinks. Alas, I found the hard way that you can't hyperlink (in PowerPoint) to a slide whose title contains an apostrophe. E.g. A title such as The people's choice. This made some of the slide titles clunky, to say the least. Secondly, I set up a transparent block as a hyperlink on each of the branches, that should have returned me to the main 'trunk'. Oddly, sometimes it is really easy to 'select' the block (i.e. to click on it), but on some slides it only works if you click on the edge of the block. This is most frustrating and I haven't gotten to the bottom of the problem yet.

But overall, I was please with the mechanics of the presentation.

The general feedback I had (from the small, but select audience) was that it was a solid presentation. I found the discussion we had at the end very useful. Special thanks need to go to Brigid and Rachel for their helpful comments.

As I've mentioned before, one of the things I'm researching is the organisation and management of law firms. This research is based on work done by John Gray. It's taken almost a year to get everything into place but last Friday we sent out the surveys.

I had a couple of emails yesterday about the survey, but today, completed survey forms have started to arrive. So far I have a 2 per cent response rate - I hope to get that up to over 80 per cent. Once I get back from EGOS, and my Research Assistant gets back from Australia, we'll start following up with the outstanding firms. It really is nice that the firms have responded so promptly, and that they have taken the time to complete the survey.

On a technical level, the research is really designed to do two things. Firstly, we hope to find the extent to which law firms are moving from the P2 form (professional partnership) towards the MPB (managed professional business). I'd also like to compare the aggregated results with the results from Australia and Canada (and maybe the UK if they are ready). There are some practical implications of this which I will discuss at a later date. It is also design to confirm some results of Stan Malo's work on Options Theory in law firms and on they way the firms manage progression of professional staff through the firm.

My hope is that in doing this work, beside producing useful research outputs, I'll be kept at the forefront of the literature of professional service firms -- which will be a big pay-off for my PhD.

Bibliography

Gray, J., McAllister. G. & Hinings, C. R. (2002). ?Why aren?t Australian law firms confined by national boundaries??. Paper presented to the ACSANZ Conference, 'Converging Futures', National Convention Centre, Canberra, 12-15 September.

Gray J. (2002). Reflexivity and emerging forms in law firms, in D. Brock, C. (Bob). Hinings, M. Powell (eds). Restructuring Professional Organizations. London: Routledge.

Gray, J. (2002). Stars or Question Marks: Strategically Organising Small Law Firms. Business Quest Georgia, USA: Georgia State University Press.

Malos, S. B. & Campion, M. A. (2000). Human resource strategy and career mobility in professional service firms: A test of an options-based model. Academy of Management Journal 43. 749-760.

Malos, S. B. (1996). Individual mobility in the downsizing age: An options-based strategy for career survival. Proceedings of the Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management. 63-66.

Malos, S. B. (1996). Promotions, up-or-out strictness, and career development in professional service firms: An investigation of linkages suggested by an options-based approach. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings. 76-80.

Malos, S. B. & Campion, M. A. (1995). An options-based model of career mobility in professional service firms. Academy of Management Review. 20. 611-644

McAllister, G. & Gray. J. (2002) Why are Large Australian Law Firms Merging? Paper presented to the Workshop on Professional Services Firms at the University of Alberta, Alberta, 15-17 August.

After my little scare, I'm doing many things to try and put the problem (well at least the majority of the medication) behind me. In many ways it is the 'usual suspects', viz:

• Exercise
• Weight loss
• Diet
• Low sodium food (less than 1,500 mg per day)
• and, of course, medication

For exercise, I'm doing a bit of walking. (Well that's pretty much all I'm allowed to do.) So, each day I try and walk 10,000 steps. My progress is shown in the graph. The red line is my daily average; the blue band is my target.

So far, the exercise (and everything else) seems to be having a pay-off. I do feel that I've lost some weight. I've actually had to tighten my belt a couple of notches -- and some of my clothes seem to be a bit baggy.

I took the idea from Lisa - she's been doing it for over a year now - and she is definitely fitter and slimmer. The trick is to buy a pedometer and record what you actually do. I find it is a great motivator.

I'll probably never get off all the medication, but I hope to minimise my dependency on it.

PS: The graph is built automatically using JPGRAPH from data stored using MySQL. The whole thing is glued together using PHP.

I was talking Rachel about some of the work she has been doing with regards to strategy in Maori organisations. We digressed on to Johnson's (1992) and since neither of us had a slide on it, I quickly made this copy using PowerPoint (it looks much better full-size; just click on the image).

In analysing any organisation, understanding what is going on inside it is important -- and the cultural web helps with just that. I think it is one of Gerry's most practical contributions to strategy.

References

Johnson, G. (1992). Managing strategic change: Strategy, culture and action. Long Range Planning, 25(1). p. 28-36.

I've noticed that when I quote something, by using block-quotes, e.g.

block quotes

That the subsequent paragraphs don't display correctly under Internet Explorer. They are fine with Firefox. I suppose I should look into at some stage. Alas, the only time I have is at home, and their I don't use Microsoft... So it might have to wait until the next time I work during the weekend (which should be a long time away).

I've fixed it. Alas, Internet Explorer doesn't handle having a left border and no right border well. Removing the borders and colouring the blockquote gets around the problem. I found this by accident.

I've was reading Wilson, D. C., & Jarzabkowski, P. (2004). Thinking and acting strategically: New challenges for interrogating strategy. European Management Journal, 1, 14-20. It talks about many things, of which I Will say more later, but I was intrigued by the references to an article by Emirbayer Mische. So, I got a copy - all 62 pages, and have spend the past four hours or so reading it.

Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 4, 962-1023.

The abstract says:

This article aims (1) to analytically disaggregate agency into its several component elements (though these are interrelated empirically), (2) to demonstrate the ways in which these agentic dimensions interpenetrate with forms of structure, and (3) to point out the implications of such a conception of agency for empirical research. The authors conceptualize agency as a temporally embedded process of social engagement, informed by the past (in its ?interational? or habitual aspect) but also oriented toward the future (as a 'projective' capacity to imagine alternative possibilities) and toward the present (as a 'practical-evaluative' capacity to contextualize past habits and future projects within the contingencies of the moment)

But that hardly does it justice.

This is a marvellous synthesis and reconceptualisation of human agency. It's clear why Wilson & Jarzabkowski (2004) used it in their EMR¹ article .

I particularly liked the article for two reasons. Firstly, it situates the concept of agency in history. This represents one of my own personal peccadilloes -- I always like to know the "story" behind something; it's one of the way I make sense of things. The range of ideas the article draws on is impressive (even considering its length): Turner, Bourdieu, Parsons, Mead, Weber, Lacan, Aristotle, Kant, -- all the usual suspects. The trick is the skillful integration and synthesis of ideas.

For me this has to be the definitive article on agency. Five stars!

As I was reading the article, I had a sense of strong links with the underpinnings of psychodrama. After all, much of psychodrama is about being more agentic -- or as they² say, helping people to exhibit more spontaneity -- to be able to act in new (less 'routine') ways. If I had some time, it would be fun to try and do a point by point comparison between the article and psychodrama.

Talking of psychodrama, where is the new theory in psychodrama coming from? Is there any new theory. Most of what I read seems to be reinterpretations and expositions of the works of the masters³. (Of course, my knowledge of psychodrama isn't great, so I'm probably missing out on whole chunks of that literature.)

¹ Interestingly, I was made aware of the European Management Review as a result of an e-mail from the strategy-as-practice web site and e-mail list. There was a special edition of the journal (regarding strategy-as-practise) which was available free on the the Internet.

² Psycho-dramatists, that is.

³ J. L. Moreno and Zerka Moreno

I've notice that I haven't been writing much about my PhD (on my other blog). So, I've decided to unify that blog with this one ... not a easy thing to to (from my previous experiences).

So, I'll be putting up my notes on articles that I read here.

For the past three years, I've been using TurnItIn with my classes as a means of improving the quality of students work. Besides using it as a tool to prevent plagiarism, I've been using the Peer Review option to allow students to see and comment on each others work. Feedback from students, and by looking at their marks, this has been generally successful.

Recently, TurnItIn introduced an array of new products including GradeMark ™. According to the advertising blurb and what I read in the manuals, GradeMark should improves the process flow of marking and grading - allowing lecturers to electronically markup assignments. I've trialled other products and have been generally impressed by their ability to facility the use of structured feedback - in the form of rubrics - and the way the speed up the marking process, whilst allowing greater feedback.

So, it was with some excitement I set about marking a small set (30) of assignments from one of my classes. I spent a few hours setting up some generic rubrics that would apply to case analysis. This was probably too long but the documentation is weak in this area - it is a "how to" rather than a "why to" so it isn't always clear what needs to be done and why.

Anyway, I sat down to start marking. It normally takes me between twenty and thirty minutes to mark this type of assignment.

Oh dear - TurnItIn being web based, and me being in New Zealand resulted in some really long response times. Even a simple mark up, using the quick tags, e.g. "SP" (spelling), could take 5 seconds or more. This is too long. The quick tags are almost exclusively geared towards typos, and there is no way to add to them. So even adding a comment like "Good" (or if I was using a pen and paper, a tick mark), meant at least two lots of 5 second delays. What aggravated the situation is that if, between delays, I scrolled ahead reading the document, then at the end of the fie seconds or so, I be repositioned back to where I was originally. No, those delays were here to stay.

Now it isn't all bad. When I wanted to add an extended comment the delays had no real impact. But for the bulk of my comments (except at the end) tend to be rather small.

After half a dozen essays I gave up. It was taking me nearly an hour to mark a single essay and I found that I wasn't giving the normal quality of feedback I like.

So, I printed the rest of the out and marked them the old fashioned way.

Que Sera - it's important to try these things out. I hope the students don't' feel disadvantaged in anyway.

Reflecting back on the assignments I have marked so far, there are some interesting interpretations of the critical part of critical incidents. The on-line Merriam-Webster dictionary says:

of, relating to, or being a turning point or specially important juncture : as (1) : relating to or being the stage of a disease at which an abrupt change for better or worse may be expected; also : being or relating to an illness or condition involving danger of death

And it is in this type of sense that many students have interpreted the word critical. However, in academic work we often use words in very particular/specific ways, and this is a good example of that (sometimes subtle) difference.

Flanagan, in talking about critical incidents, is very precise in what he means by the word 'critical'. As was said in an earlier post (which was based on Twelker citing Flanagan):

In order for the incident to be considered critical, it "must occur in a situation where the purpose or intent of the act seems fairly clear to the observer and where its consequences are sufficiently definite to leave little doubt concerning its effects."

Now this is a very different meaning to the word critical than is in common or garden usage as given by the dictionary above

Flanagan does not use the word critical to man "a specially important junction". By critical he means that these is a clear link between what was intended to be done and what actually happened are pretty clear. There is little ambiguity between that action took place, and there was a consequence. In our complex world often we do things and there isn't a clear link between the action and the consequence. For example, each day I check my email, but what (if any) is the link to the level of my research output? Thus, checking my email is not critical (in Flanagan's sense) with regard to my research output.

However, sometimes actions and consequences are much more clearly linked. E.g. "We met with the intention to talk about the future of the firm, and by the end of the meeting we had written a new strategy document", or "we met to address the issue of the declining number distribution outlets -- subsequently we increased the margin to the retailers, but in two rollovers this had little effect". There is a deliberate action and a consequence.

Thus, in the last example, the questions/reflection/analysis/etc would revolve around understanding how it came to pass that the decision was made in increase the retailers' margin - even though it was ineffective.

(Oh, well. I'm aware that many of these postings are a desire on my part to take a break from marking. So, back to the salt mine, I guess).

PS. Talking of Flanagan. I wonder how many people actually bothered to track the article down and read it before they casually inserted a reference to him (when all they did was read it on the web here)?

Besides the recommend readings, some students are finding and using (in their assignments) other excellent readings. They are using some real classics in the field. Based on that, I've decided to read at least one article that each student references (assuming I haven't read it already). The results so far have been mixed.

• Some students are finding and using good articles, and using them well. They clearly understand the main message of the article and the limitations of the article. Hurrah!.
• Others are selecting rather poor quality sources. E.g. Web sites (like this one¹), trivial "Letters to the editor" types of short pieces, and journals of dubious quality. Good, reliable sources, typically come from good journals (well respected) and the individual article is cited in many other articles (in other journals). Just Googling three or four key words is unlikely to deliver up high quality sources. Nor will putting the same key words into EBSOChost. The easiest way to find good sources is to start with a known good article and read the articles that the good article cites, or search for articles that cite the good article. That, combined with keyword, searching is a much more effective technique.
• A few are picking good articles and are making little on no sense of them, or even using the incorrectly. E.g. an article might say "Some people think that team rationality is important, but they are wrong. Much more important is X Y Z" and the whole article goes on to prove the authors point. Anyway, some students will take a 'sound bite' from the article, such as "rationality is important", and use it to support their point of view. This is bad research and bad writing.

¹ There is nothing I say in class, or that I write here, that is worth citing (in an academic context). In class, and here, there are pointers to some good sources - but don't' waste time by referencing me. Go back and read the original articles to which I refer.

In an earlier entry I wrote (complete with typo - out should be our):

Maps filter out perceptions of the real world. They bring some things into sharp relief and diminish the importance of other things.

Which seems all well and good. But, I'm reading an assignment and I find:

Maps can be used to filter out perceptions of the real world, they can bring some things into sharp relief and they can diminish the importance of other things.

Spooky. And there is no attribution (citation, reference) whatsoever... Oh dear.

I'd be interested to hear from anyone in the class with regards to what they thought were the best parts of MGMT 301 (those things that shouldn't be touched) and what were the least useful parts (those things that could go, or weren't well understood).

I used to hate writing assignments but now I enjoy them.

I realized that the purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity.

With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog! Want to see my book report?

"The dynamics of interbeing and monological imperatives in Dick and Jane: A study in psychic transrelational gender modes ..."

Academia, here I come.

(An old Calvin and Hobes cartoon)

The teams gave their final presentations today. Here are some quotations (well, this is what I copied down) taken out of context -- but the truth is out there.

"We didn't use what we learnt in the practise rollovers in the real rollovers" (Random Bikes)

"We thought that everbody ... thought like us" (Plan 9)

"We talked a lot about strategy ... but never really had one" (Cyclomatrix)

"You can't be nice in business" (Sexy Bikes R Us)

"We're only near the top because those below us were pretty pitiful" (JX Bikes)

"It was all luck" (Da Bomb)

"We didn't know what we were doing" (Cyclomatrix)

"Amit was inconsolable" (Pantheon Peddles)

"We thought we knew what we were doing ... we were wrong" (Armstrong Bikes)

"We haven't learnt anything in this course" (The lads in Unique) "It shows" (Voices off)

"It is better to use [good] judgement rather than simple rules" (Unique)

"We found most of our success in destroying wealth" (Random Bikes)

"None of us had any understanding of the simulation ... so we became a learning team, rather than a performance team" (Random Bikes)

"our perfect strategy kicks in ... it was a demonstration of our superior talent and teamwork" (Performance Bikes)

"I lied" (Performance Bikes)

"We were actually very lucky" (Performance Bikes - the wining team)

"Our biggest problem was the lack of criticism of ideas" (Random Bikes)

Well it's the last class of the semester for MGMT 301, and I'm really looking forward to it. Not because it is the last class, but because the teams present their stories to us (DPE) and the rest of the class. This is where a good portion of our learning takes place (and they are often very entertaining). I'm always impressed by the creativity and learning that some of the teams exhibit.

No doubt, when the marking is over we'll have a debriefing of how the semester went. I'm sure the teams' presentations and the students' integrative assignments will loom large in that discussion.

Lisa and I met up with Brownie & Vicki Brown, Dennis & Kay Lally, and Brodie Jones at Cafe Extreme in New Market. The common thread between us is that Brownie, Dennis, Brodie, and I all worked together at Philips New Zealand. We meet every 6 months, well may each year, at the same place.

I surprised to hear that Brownie was at Woodstock. He is such a good raconteur; he has so many interesting stories to tell, and some pretty good(aweful) jokes too. I could--and have--listen to him for hours.

It was nice to catch up with everyone. Perhaps we should do it more often.

Anyway, Brownie says that once he is out of hospital, we'll all go for a ride on his boat round the harbour. From all accounts, with the engine he has, it won't take long (smile).

So, here's to our next meeting.

Well I spent a happy hour from 4 to 5 yesterday collecting the assignments from Commerce B, checking them against the class list, checking the class list against the TurnItIn results, and sorting them into teams ready for marking. That should only take 20 minutes or so, but because some things are missing it takes a whole hour.

The complicating factors are that some people haven't handed the paper copy of their essay in and some haven't submitted it to TurnItIn. However, the main complicating factor is that some students still aren't putting their company name on the coversheet.

Perhaps next time, we should have students hand in their results from TurnItIn with their assignments. That way the matching will done automatically by the students, rather than by one of us.

Anyway, I've taken the assignments of two teams home with me and have started marking.

I've marking from MGMT 302 (Business Policy & Strategy) coming in on Monday so I have a strict schedule to meet if I'm going to get it all done in the required time.

As always, it was interesting to read this week's The wonderful world of Armi. It does sound like he has had a real aha moment.

Providing student's with meaningful aha's is very difficult. Here's why. For me, learning can only be said to have occurred if behaviour changes. If people reflect on their time at university, I wonder how much their behaviour changed. For example, how much has changed in the way assignments are tackled; e.g. how much do you rely on sample assignments to guide you.

Behavioural change is hard because it only happens if a person's maps change. And maps only change (usually) when they are shown not to work in some way. Firstly, we might not be able to find a map to use i.e. We might have a street map of Auckland, but be lost in Los Angeles (Hmm, what would Wieck say). If we know the that we have the wrong map that we experience it as a problem. George Kelly¹would say that when our construct system (maps) fails in this way we experience anxiety.

Secondly, we might be using a map and then realise that it doesn't work anymore. For example, if you're driving round Auckland using an old Auckland map (or as I did a few years ago, driving around London using an old map of London), you might find that roads you intended to use are now one-way, or closed off, or even there are new roads which you didn't expect. Your map is broken. When you notice your map is broken, George Kelly would say that we experience it as anger.

So, for us to recognise our maps as being broken (in some way) we have to experience anxiety, anger, or something similar. All of which is uncomfortable - and people are very skilled at avoiding being uncomfortable.

Now lecturers know this. And here's the dilemma. If real learning (changes in peoples maps) only happen through a degree of "discomfort" (and there's plenty of evidence for this), what impact does that have when student's carry out evaluations of the class. We'll the research seems to say that lecturers get marked down ... so the challenge is "How can I engender real learning, without shooting myself in the foot² (career wise)".

¹ George Kelly, and the ideas of personal construct psychology are pretty useful here, because it is a very 'map' orientated view of people (well, he uses the term constructs) and it really is geared to the idea of "man [sic] the scientist", that is people as constant learners. His experience cycle is much like Kolb's learning cycle.

² Because the evaluation sheets students complete really do matter³.

³ One of the best ways to assess a course (and the learning that has occurred) is though the use of pre-tests and post-tests. I wonder how popular that would be (and how difficult it is to do behaviourally).

I had an really good conversation with a student today about maps and incidents. Alas, he didn't mention his name -- and I forgot to ask, so the credit for much of this entry is due to the "un-named student".

What's an incident? Well, basically it is an event. It has a point in time when it starts, and a point in time when it finished. You can describe the behaviour of people during the incident. An incident typically has outcomes (look back at the earlier definition.) Usually the outcomes are positive, but sometimes they are negative -- they tend to be positive because we are generally successful in most things we do (Darwinianism doesn't suffer fools). I think an event should be distinguished from an incident. An event is a something that happens a particular point in time. E.g. The television broke. Our stock price collapsed, The CFO hit the CEO ? in may ways an event is too brief to be an incident (in this context).

So, a specific team meeting is incident, and a particular telephone call between team members is an incident. Decision making ability, isn't an incident - and decisions in general aren't incidents either. Feeling despondent, is not an incident (think, what was the event that triggered the feeling). Lacking leadership isn't an incident. Having said that, some things such as "doing MGMT 301", or "doing a BCom" are incidents; but I'd suggest that they are too big for this particular assignment.

Doing an assignment is an incident. Having coffee is an incident. Thinking back to the event of "the CFO hit the CEO", it might be more useful to consider the incident that was the whole meeting where the hitting occurred. The outcome of the meeting might be that the CEO stopped coming to meetings.

There are lots of incidents to choose from; then it's just a matter of narrowing it down to a critical incident (again, go back to the earlier definition). Sometimes, (we hope and expect), a useful incident will already be (partially?) documented -- perhaps in a journal, or in one of the other assignments.

And so to maps.

"So, I did a search on ABI/Inform for maps and it turned up too many references - I couldn't narrow them down to a manageable number of meaningful entries", said the student. Hmm, in an echo of lectures past I hear Emma talking about "Information overload, ambiguity, uncertainty, equivocality. Sounds like this person might have problems with the map being used for assignments...

A mental-map is a model of the 'real' world we use to guide us through our lives. We have many maps that we use for different things. For example, if I want to go from the University of Auckland to Cornwall Park (assuming I know the addresses) then a copy of Wise's street map will do the job nicely. However, if I want to lay a fiber optic cable from the University to Cornwall Park I need a different sort of map - a map that shows many things the street map doesn't and doesn't have some of the features of a street map. Both maps are useful, but they are useful for different things. Of course, if I want to go from the University to Cornwall park, and I don't have a car, it might be that a bus map is better than a street map.

Maps filter out our perceptions of the real world. They bring some things into sharp relief and diminish the importance of other things. For example, if I'm a marketing major, when confronted by Mike's Bikes I may notice or attend to the marketing issues more than other aspects ? because my map is a marketing map.

Maps are the shortcuts we employ as we make sense of the world. Whenever we confront a situation, we automatically pull out a (mental) map to help guide us through a situation. When I want to drive from A to B, and I don't know how to get to B, I don't think ?hmm, what map should I use?, I just grab my Wise's map from the back seat of the car. But maps aren't the real world ? they are simplifications of it. So sometimes they are misleading. Thinking back to the example (in class) of the London Underground system, sometimes its quicker and easier to walk between stations even though it looks like a long way on the map (because the distortions in the map hide the real geographical separation between some stations).

In the example above about searching ABI/Inform, the student's map of how to do an assignment has certain features on it -- how much research is needed, how many pages it should be, the structure of the assignment. (Interestingly, when it comes to assignments students will often seek to check that their map is correct by asking questions of the lectures - questions that check out if the features of the map fits; but many times we don't check out if the if the map itself is right for the occasion.)

This is just some notes to help people along. They shouldn't rely on this notes in isolation ? the readings say much more about maps in much better ways then I can in the brief hour or so it's taken me to write this.

The final word in Armi's journal entry was "ok". That brought back some strong memories from last night's psychodrama training. One group member, the protagonist, had just finished saying a rather long and deep piece, and at the end of it the director simply said "ok".

Well the trainer, probed to find out what was behind that rather simple statement. As it turned out, there was a lot more behind the ?ok? than just an acknowledgement or encouragement of what had said by the protagonist. The "ok" was masking a whole lot of understanding and assumptions -- a bit of a double edge sword really. So, as I write this I'm carrying over feelings from last night which prompt me to think "what is the other side of this?" What understandings and assumptions has it raised for me.

Perhaps one is around leadership. I'm not sure that Wilfred Bion and his ideas¹ are fashionable in the leadership literature. Anyway, to summarise on of his ideas (rather poorly), Bion suggests that when things don't work out the way they want it too, the group will often 'kill' the leader and seek to replace him/her with a new one (who is often seen as a saviour). This, unsurprisingly, can be cyclical.

So there it is my weak understanding of the situation. Only those who are in the situtation can assess which parts are assumption and which parts are useful understanding.

¹ This piece is by David Boje. He has a lot of interesting things to say. His piece, "Boje, D. M. (1995). Stories of the Storytelling Organization: A postmodern analysis of Disney as 'Tamaraland'. Academy of Managment Journal. 38(4). 997-1035? is marvellous, and might be of interest to some of the more advanced students with the next assignment.

There have been a number of questions about the up coming assignment and especially about critical incidents. So, what is a critical incident. Well it isn't what common sense might tell you. Paul A. Twelker has a pretty good definition of a critical incident:

An "incident" is best thought as "any observable human activity that is sufficiently complete in itself to permit inferences and predictions to be made about the person performing the act." In order for the incident to be considered "critical," it "must occur in a situation where the purpose or intent of the act seems fairly clear to the observer and where its consequences are sufficiently definite to leave little doubt concerning its effects." (Flanagan, 1954)

And that's about it. I wouldn't get sidetracked by the Critical Incident Technique (or it's plethora of uses in medicine). That's probably not helpful for this assignment -- too much of a distraction.

There are also some questions about maps. Alas, I don't have a short answer for that one. If you missed the class then you'd best start with revisiting the readings.

It's strange the things that stand out in this recent assignment.

Firstly, many people chose to use the 360 degree feedback type of forms. This is fine, but a disproportionate number of people emphasised the topic of emotional intelligence field. My guess is that came from peoples previous experience with EI or EQ in MGMT 201. As Darl said a few weeks ago in class, to many people are engaging with stage II topics and not moving into the stage III content of this course. I suspect that, as a consequence, they are often engaging at a stage II level, rather than at a more sophisticated stage III level. e.g. So, did anyone who focused on EI or EQ consider that it is a socially constructed map (possible based on other, more established, personality factors from the big five)?

Anyway, I think for next time we should remove that topic from the survey and replace it with something else.

Also, people are not indicating on their cover-sheets to which team they belong - despite it being in the Black book¹:. For next time, Darl thinks we should put a sample coversheet in the black book. I'm not sure if this will make a significant difference to the problem. Having said that, a number of people seem to have slavishly copied the form (and even the style of the opening paragraph) from the essay exemplars in the Black Book. I, on the other hand, think it is just a mater of some negative reenforcement (e.g. explicitly taking away marks). I wonder which is would be more effective. Comments anyone?.

¹ The Black Book is the course syllabus and handbook for MGM 301 - Management Theory & Practice.

I end up at a psychodrama class to night. I say ended because I only popped in to drop off some books to the library at ATCP. I'd had some confusing calls during the day about classes being on, so I went in just in case I was still confused (about the class being on or off). It was on.

It was an unusual class. I wasn't really expecting to attend class I wasn't warmed up (in the way that I usually am) for class. I was strangely disengaged. Of course, that could be related to the other things that are going on for me. But I did leave feeling somewhat unsatisfied. All the more so, because Vivienne had challenged me with a line like "Are you getting what you deserve? Are you going for gold in your life?"

I found these two seemingly simple questions difficult to answer, and actually, I didn't answer them in any meaningful way. I recall that I called my answer "unstatisfiying". It was then, and it still is now.

Having slept on it for a while, it occurs to me that I tend to take two different roles. Firstly, there is the happy rambler, cheerfully wandering through life, finding enjoyment in most things. Secondly, there is the focused achiever, determined reach whatever goal he wants. The interesting thing is the focused achiever sometimes pretends to be the happy rambler (especially, when things aren't going as expected), and sometimes the focused achiever is subsumed by the other.

I suppose that only having these two roles is limiting, so I wonder how my role repertoire in these areas can be expanded.

I've been re-reading the articles for next week ahead of our usual teaching meeting. In particular I've been thinking about Marilyn Daudelin's article Learning from experience through reflection. Firstly, I've been wondering if this reading should be earlier in the course; say during the first week. Would it make a difference to quality of the journals that people have to do? (This is a very different from the question "Could it make a difference to the quality of journals that people have to do?"). But then it struck me - perhaps we should adopt learning journals instead of 'vanilla' journals. (There is plenty of information on learning journals on the web. See here , here, or here - these are just a few from a Google search - I didn't even attempt to find a quality source from somewhere like the Journal of Management Education -- and yes, there are a couple of article there (one even cites Daudelin)).

So maybe in week one we could have student's read the Learning from experience through reflection article, do some research into learning journals, and then write a learning journal each week from that first week.

My questions are: (1) would students learn more this way, (2) how many marks, if any, should be associated with this task, and (3) would students actually read more?

Anyway, I'd be interested in some feedback on this, so please mail me with your thoughts.

Having said all of this, and having read the afore-linked articles above, including the two in JME, I'm very tempted to do trial it. And so, a la Kolb (David A. Kolb, not Darl Kolb), I prepare to go round the leaning cycle again.

When we, that is DPE, were putting the course together we had a logical, albeit obtuse, link between the assignments. I don't think it matters if that logic is known or not, and I suspect that some people have already spotted the link. Nevertheless, for the sake of transparency, I thought I'd write a little about that link. However, I should point out, before anyone gets too anxious, this is how we constructed the assignments - it isn't about what the assignments should be - or what the students need to deliver.

Standing back, and looking at the first assignment two themes emerge for me - the 'theory' of teams and the role(s) the student will have in the team. Because of the timing of the assignment, there is often little to write about the team per se. Rather, it is about the student's anticipation of the team life.

Whereas, the second assignment, coming much later in the course, allows the student, and given the nature of the assignment, compels the student to explore the relation between themself and the team at large. In this way the assignments move from something reflective, and largely geared to the individual, to a reflection on the individual in relationship with the team. Casting this in socio-dramatic terms it is really about the social-atom that is the team,

The final assignment, hopefully, is still reflective but continues to expand the circle of interest. Thus, the student now needs to make sense of the whole course which entails moving beyond the relationship with the team and put themselves (and there learning) in a broader relationship.

The 'ideal-type' of final assignment will draw on the prior two assignments to provide a rich insight into a 'critical incident'. Drawing on sense-making that has already occurred (via their journals), student's will be able to demonstrate the value of their learning.

I think next semester, we'll make the link a little more explicit and reshape the assignments a little ...

It seem's that Simulation & Gaming are finally going to publish, in June, the two reviews that Doug Carrie and I wrote about Mike's Bikes. Well, that's a relief - we wrote those well over two years ago.

I've used several business simulations over the years, and I do like Mike's Bikes. However, there are pleanty of other good choices out there - such as Marketplace, or the good work of the folks at Strategy Dynamics. They all have their pros and cons - it really depends what you want to do.

For MGMT 301, Mike's Bikes is a good choice because of the richness of the data. Students from most business disciplines can find somthing familar to work with, and yet few students really get to grasp all the intricacies (and when they do, it feels like SmartSims seems to higher them).

It seems like Friday Five has ended.

As the site says:

This is the end of the Friday Five. I know most of you have seen this coming and I appreciate you humoring me. I haven't enjoyed it for some time now and because of that I can no longer justify the bandwidth. I'm not going to give it away or sell it or bring anyone on to help; Two-and-a-half years is a good run. Let's let it go. :)

By luck, one team using NetMike managed to catch up with me on Friday. They are sure they will win (at least in their world) because their EVA is so much better than the other teams.

I've had a quick(?) look at the numbers (in their world), and I think they have every reason to be confident. I'm not going to bother looking at the others -- that's not the point. What is interesting is that someone (their CFO) has brought a really useful tool to bear on the situation -- they know that in the long run they will win, because they are constantly seeking to improve their EVA.

Once upon a time, we had teams develop a "balanced scorecard": http://www.balancedscorecard.org/, but few teams would develop measures that would provide them with useful information and that would guide them into the future. Too often the measures where vague, and goals unclear. So, it's really pleasing to see a team having a clear measure of how they are doing, rather than just relying on simple measures, such as SHV or capitalisation.

Just a big thanks to all the nurses at Auckland Hospital - they were truely marvellous.

Whilst I was in hospital, or soon after, I heard a piece on the radio about errors in prescription occurring at ADHB.

That doesn't surprise me after my experience. At one stage a consultant insisted that my cholesterol was too high at 7 -- later that day a registrar apologised and said it was actually, 3.9. At one stage, I was told my treadmill test was inconclusive because I was still taking beta-blockers (I've never taken beta-blockers). And, on discharge, I was told to stop taking all of my prescribed heart medication, but that I should continue taking my Losec prescription. That was a surprise, as I wasn't taking taking and hadn't been prescribed either heart medication or Losec.

I think the problem is one of pigeon-holing, as Mintzberg would say. Because I didn't fit neatly into a standard pigeon-hole (not a heart attack, not angina) they weren't quite sure what to do with me, or who'd be responsible. So, the default came into play -- back to the GP.

Actually, I have the impression that the whole of the 'High Dependency Unit' exists mainly as a holding pen whilst patients are categorise (pigeon-holed) before being dispatched to the 'correct' location, e.g. The cardio ward, Gastroenterology, etc.

I've been away from school most of this week.

It has been an exhausting week, to say the least. I've been feeling under the weather for the past month or so, and I seemed to be getting worse rather than better. So, on Monday, after my first class, I paid a visit to the doctor. Fairly quickly, he'd organised an ambulance to take me to hospital -- I tried to protest that I could take a taxi, but he wouldn't consider that option. So, I spent all of Monday, Tuesday, and some of Wednesday hooked up to an ECG because they thought I might be having an angina attack, or worse still I might have had a heart attack. After two days in the 'High Dependency Unit' and what seems like endless tests, they came to the conclusion that the problem was my 'rampantly high' blood pressure.

I've always had slightly high blood pressure, but it's never needed treating. I think the expression used was ?top of the normal range?. Anyway, it isn't like that any more. More like ?top of the top range?.

Having spent to and a bit days with nothing to do but watch my heart monitor I now know what happens. My blood pressure starts to go up, I begin to get a cracking headache (I've had those for a long time, at least now we know why). The pressure keeps on going up, I start to get pains in my chest. It keeps going up, and my left arm begins to go numb (that's why the doctor rushed me in to hospital). Alas, I've not been given any clear reason for what triggers the episode -- but sometimes, that's just the way it is.

Just to make sure that the heart hasn't been damage I've had an ordinary treadmill test which was inconclusive. A scintigram (strangely enough, it was done by a private company down in Penrose). Basically, they inject you with an isotope and measure its uptake around the heart (the scan takes 15 minutes). Later that same day the do a Bruce protocol treadmill test. Of course it isn't quite as straight forward as an ordinary treadmill test. No. For the scintigram, when you just about reach exhaustion, they inject more isotopes and make you go on for another minute. Even with the 10 minutes to relax, and the 15 minute scan afterwards, I was very 'worn'. Alas, the results haven't arrived with the doctor yet, so he is sending me for a ?stress echo?. Another treadmill exercise, but they'll do a ultrasound of the heart.

Anyway, it's all been a bit of a wake up call. Not as bad as Erling's but a wake up call nevertheless. So, I've got to make some chages. Firstly,lifestyle. No more 60-80 hour weeks. I've got to get back to 40 hours ? that will help with my stress levels somewhat. Exercise: an hour a day, says the doctor. A low sodium diet (and low fat). Weight loss: An immediate target of 95Kgs, a goal of 80Kgs over the next couple of years. And, of course medication. It seems I have no option on this. Some of it will be for the rest of my life, some might just be while we are getting things settled down (i.e. The next few years).

Well, I've started doing all this, and at the moment I feel awful. But, its like that when you start with strong medicine. But, I should pick up over the next few weeks. At least the chest pains and the headaches have abated.

I was looking at some Bike industries just trying to figure out what was going on with the retail margins that are being used. And this is what I came up with (I've mangled the numbers a little - but the proportions are right):

So what does it all mean? Well, not a lot if you don't know the retail margin or the amound of extra support being given. But I'd suspect that one firm has an explicit strategy in this area.

I was reading Amit's weekly journal entry today and I was struck by the change that seems to be happening in that team. In general terms, I think we (DPE) have noticed such changes in the past in other teams. I know I'm reading a lot into a relatively brief journal entry, but it does sound like a significant change has/is ocurring.

But why do such changes come about?

There are many candidates when looking for theoretical explanations. Is it a case of the team moving from one stage of group development to another (as per Tuckman & Jensen)? Is it the team seeking a leadership change (according to Bion)? Are we half way 'there' a la Gersick and punctuated equilibrium? And those are just the first few theories to spring to mind; there are many more (e.g an ecological model of variation and adaption).

But, we've never really nailed down what is the most useful explanation for the 'typical' revolutionary change we seen in MGMT 301 teams. Alas, we rarely get enough feedback to make a solid diagnosis. If anyone is going to 'hit the nail on the head', it is going to be someone in one of the teams - someone who is close enough to the action to see what is actually happening and knowledgable enough to match that rich description to the 'right' theory.

Perhaps some people will take this to be a foreshadowing of the final assignment -- but, it isn't intended to be that. I'm just curious to understand the teams more fully.

BTW, for those who are interested, I read a pretty solid lit. review on Virtual Teams this morning. If you're interested in virtual teams, then it presents an interesting summary of some of the literature.

Well at last I saw Kill Bill Volume 2. I was going to buy Kill Bill Volume 1 and watch it first, but alas I couldn't find a copy. I had assumed because it was for rent at Videon that I was on general release - but alas no luck. It seems that there are a few Zone 1 recordings available (at a price) and few Japanese recordings too (which come with a 'free' sword). Of course, the move has been cut differently for the two markets.

Anyway, back to Kill Bill Volume 2. I do wish I'd seen Volume 1 again first. The movie pretty much starts where the second one ends, and there isn't a lot of scene setting -- it really is a second volume, rather than a sequel.

Much of the movie is stylised after other (obsure) genres, and there are many 'in jokes'. At one stage, I reminded of every 'Kung Fu' movie I'd ever seen when living in Germany¹.

Some of the scenes where quite harrowing; for example the entombment of Beatrix Kiddo (Uma Thurman) was mastefully done.

As I was watching the credits at the end², I noticed that the writing credits were to Q+U, which Lisa quickly pointed our was Quentin (which I had guessed) and Uma.

That started me off wondering about the film-makers art. It seems that nowadays, many movies are written a produced (and sometimes acted) by the same person. I wonder why that is? What is the impact on the person who aspires to be a writer, only to find that a 'star' has their ideas accepted over the writers.

How might this play our in organisations? Or is it playing out in them now?

Oh well. tomorrow it's going to be comedy with Greg Proops. That'll be a change from the carnage of Kill Bill.

¹ Back then, most movies were dubbed into German, and, to start with my German was so good. But I found that I could enjoy Chinese movies becuase of the style signalled the meaning of what was going on, so the words were less important. Bring back the One armed swordsman

² Is that a surprise? That I watch movies all the way through? E.g. For a laugh, watch Ice age (a cartoon) and see who the caters are.

And here is this week's Friday Five (Okay, I've recycled an old one, as there is no new F5).

1. What's the most daring thing you've ever done? Daring or stupid? I've overtaken in dense fog. That was stupid. The car didn't make it, but I got lucky. That taught me a lesson.
2. What one thing would you like to try that your mother/friend/significant other would never approve of? Take $100,000 to the casino and try to do a Martingale at roulette (yes, I know the statistics are against me).
3. On a scale of 1-10, what's your risk factor? (1=never take risks, 10=it's a lifestyle) 7
4. What's the best thing that's ever happened to you as a result of being bold/risky? Doing a PhD, I should have completed my second masters degree first, but someone suggested that I go straight to the big game.
5. ... and the worst? Doing PhD (we'll you've caught me on a bad day for writing). But really, doing a PhD is a double edged sword. It has it's really good times and it's really bad times - and I'm never sure if it is worth the effort, reward, etc.

This was recycled from Chirir Blog

The School of Business held a diner at the North Club in celebration of this years completing MBAs (who graduate on Monday).

I was happy to be there, both as an alum' of the program (MBA'95) and because I taught on the intergrating stratgy course last year.

There were MBAs there from every year. including two from the first MBA program - MBA of 84.

Rob McLeod was the major guest speaker. being rather right of centre, he did prompt some interesting debate. In many ways, his address felt like the Greed is Good speach from Wall Street. I seem to recall, that the speach was attributed to some executive who gave it to an MBA class in the US. I'm not sure if it is true or not, but if it is true, it would be nice to find the orginal speach.

I was reading Argyris' Double-loop learning, teaching, and research again today, and I was struck by his comment that: "Model I theory-in-use is composed of four governing variables: (a) to be in unilateral control; (b) strive to win and not lose; © suppress negative feelings; and (d) act rationally" (2002, p. 312). But what does that mean? Well, does that prohibit other governing variables. I'd say no. Well, I actually say "No, but".

The thing is that there might be other governing variables, but they are probably going to be subordinate to the big four. In every example I've seen A & S work with, they are always tackle the big four. Now, these are probably the hardest to work with, but they also have the most impact. So let's go back to my example of my espoused desire for participation in the class. What is the really driving that? I'll leave you to work out (there I go saving face again).

I think I mentioned before that most people who run web sites are curious about the "source" of their visitors. Well here is an abreviated list of where people are coming from (This is jsut a lsit of the most popular launching points - no particular order).

Cecil
Yahoo
Xtra mail
Hotmail
Firday Fives
Someone on Geocities
Where I go this idea from
Hotmail
XML storage
Eatonweb
ICQ
A Russian Site
"Fake trail left by a Chinese web crawler - probably harvesting email addresses"

I think this will be a long entry. I feel like there is a lot to write about. But perhaps, I'll try and keep it brief.

The ideas of Argyris and Schön are central to MGMT 301 ? it is, after all, called management theory and practice. Of the three recommend readings, one imparts the language of theory-of-use (T-o-U), theory-in-action (T-in-A), etc., whilst the others show how much work/practice/skill it takes to 'get it right'. For that reason, the two articles can seem like hard going, and not offering much to the reader. But, that's the point, they aren't about content ? they're about how to think and apply this ideas.

We could, and perhaps should, spend the whole of the rest of the course just looking at things in terms of T-of-U, T-in-A, governing variables, action strategies, consequences, single loop learning, double loop learning, the characteristics of Model I and Model II.

There probably isn't time to get into organisational learning.

Can we spot the Model I and Model II behaviours from today? And I'm using these illustratively ? not because I'm fixated on them?

The BHAGs can be seen as an action strategy. Alas, the consequence (results) haven't been what the proposers wanted (the class didn't buy into them). What might be the unintended consequences of the BHAG (Kim pointed that out quiet eloquently, as did Jeff)? So, will those affect re jig their action strategies (tweak the action strategies), or will they go back and look at the governing variables. Will they consider DPE's governing variables?

Taking Brendan's comment about valid (and full information), and in some ways Howie's too, was the class actually being set up to operate under Model I conditions. Was I trying to structure things to win, not lose? How much was I con straining choice and being defensive? How much (and how usefully) was I emphasising the 'rational position'? . I think after a moments reflection most people, including me, would agree that I was very Model I.

And how was that different when the CEOs met together? (Sharing control?) How much of attribution making went on, how much public testing of evaluations went on.

Returning to Brendan's comment about available information. I wonder what full and valid information would like? Would it include:

• Who was involved?
• What was their circumstances? (How critical is this paper to there situation?)
• Precise details of how much was copied? (We don't have that information, we only have what was noticed.)
• What they've done to ensure they understand referencing?
• How much work would be really involved in the BHAG? (To echo Gilbert & Sullivan, does ?the punishment fit the crime??)
• What feedback and information have they received before about referencing

At first it seems like a lot (and I'm sure the list is still incomplete), and it is ? and it does require a lot of commitment (Model II) to do ? but then again, I've never thought that management is easy (despite rumours circulating that it is just ?common sense?).

Thinking about Mike's Bikes ? I wonder what peoples individual governing variables and action strategies are. From memory, the typical governing variable are those given by A&S.

To end I'd like to ask a question. Earlier today, I had a meeting with some colleagues in another department in Business & Economics. As always, we enquired about each others courses. At the start of their course they talked about the need to reference, cite, and quote correctly; and where met with yawns, and ?Yes, we've heard all this before?. And now, they've handed back the first assignment in their course, and the incidence of problems is higher than in our course:

So, I'm curious to know, what would have to be different for us never to need to address this problem again. That is to say what could we (that means the class too) do differently that no one would fail to correctly reference, cite, and quote?

Some mail from the IRD finally caught up with me. I was a little very surprised to find that that they felt I owed them about $7,700 in penalty tax, interest, etc. According to the tag line at the bottom of the statement, interest was accuring at $2.38 (which is about 11% - I wish I could get that from the bank).

Now, of course, I felt that I probably didn't owe them anything (I tend to be a little bit obsessive about paperwork); but, I was troubled by the thought that I might.

Anyway, I called the 0800 number, and waited in the queue for 10 minutes or so, then I was automatically transfered to another queue (I know that because the second queue told me how long I could expect to wait). That reminds me, I recall visiting one major Government department in the mid-90s because I was looking to buy a PABX system (a phone system, aka a switch) and the company I was buying from suggested I visit this particular department. The managers of the departement were delighted with their new phone system because it had enabled them to reduce the average time that clients/customers/citizens were waiting in a queue from three hours to 20 minutes. Yikes!

Meanwhile, back to the IRD. After another six or seven minutes in queue number 2, I was put through to a woman called Amy. I have rarely dealt with anyone at a call centre who was as professional, helpful, and considerate as she was. Hats off to the IRD. Some of the people with whom I am training in psychodrama work with the IRD - I must remember to pass on how my thoughts about how excellent was the 'service encounter'.

I think what came across most strongly was here concern for me rather than the money. I know over the past few years the IRD have been trying to make a huge shift in their culture (no small undertaking), and from my point of view it is working. (BTW, cultural change is on my very hard to achieve list.)

As a final aside, one of the most engaging movies about people in tax department is A taxing woman (Marusa no onna). It's Japanese with English subtitles, but it is so funny. They made a sequel, but it wasn't nearly as good.

The title of this is a pun on "work, work, work" said by Mel Brooks in Blazing saddles. Of course he isn't doing any really work - but I was.

I chose to go into to school to write, and it's been a really productive day. With now real distractions, or easy diversions, I just got on with the task at hand - writing. Well, I did have a few minutes diversion, printing out the complete PBRF and apparently tying up the printer for hours (I didn't hang around for it, and it's over 250 pages).

The title of this is a pun on "work, work, work" said by Mel Brooks in Blazing saddles. Of course he isn't doing any really work - but I was.

I chose to go into to school to write, and it's been a really productive day. With now real distractions, or easy diversions, I just got on with the task at hand - writing. Well, I did have a few minutes diversion, printing out the complete PBRF and apparently tying up the printer for hours (I didn't hang around for it, and it's over 250 pages).

Well, I was wrong. Kill Bill: Volume 2 isn't on here yet. So instead we went and saw Starsky & Hutch.

Nice touch having David Soul and Paul Michael Glaser make cameo appearances.

I didn't recognise Juliette Lewis (who played Kitty) until I saw the end credits.

Huggy Bear was played by Snoop Dogg (is that how you spell it?). Not the greatest of actors.

All in all, I'd give the movie a thumbs up - well wortht a trip to the video store (or the cinema).

I noteice that there are a lot of blogs out there (on the wild wild web) by people doing their PhD work. We'll I guess I'm one of them now.

I noteice that there are a lot of blogs out there (on the wild wild web) by people doing their PhD work. We'll I guess I'm one of them now.

I've set up a new (and relatively private) blog for all my PhD notes.

I'm embarrassed by how few entries I have here – and I suspect that it is a reflection on my PhD progress (not a lot).

So, the plan is to:

• Make an entry everyday on what I'm doing with my PhD
• Return to study and writing at school (at home I goof off too much)
• Only prep teaching on Mondays and Fridays (and the odd evening)
• Keep on top of my reading by doing it in the evening
• Write during the day.

The problem is that I have too many projects on the go. Namely:-

• EGOS conference paper due at the end of July
• My PhD work (of course)
• A survey of legal firms, to do with changes of archetypes within the profession
• Work on the Oral History project which deals with accountants
• Not to mention my regular teaching work

And I've still got to get access to some research sites for the PhD.

Oy Vey!

I'm embarrassed by how few entries I have here -- and I suspect that it is a reflection on my PhD progress (not a lot).

So, the plan is to:

• Make an entry everyday on what I'm doing with my PhD
• Return to study and writing at school (at home I goof off too much)
• Only prep teaching on Mondays and Fridays (and the odd evening)
• Keep on top of my reading by doing it in the evening
• Write during the day.

The problem is that I have too many projects on the go. Namely:-

• EGOS conference paper due at the end of July
• My PhD work (of course)
• A survey of legal firms, to do with changes of archetypes within the profession
• Work on the Oral History project which deals with accountants
• Not to mention my regular teaching work

And I've still got to get access to some research sites for the PhD.

Oy Vey!

And here is this week's Friday Five (Okay, I've recycled an old one, as there is no new F5).

1. What was the last song you heard? Ya-Ya by Buckwheat Zydeco Ils sont Partis Band
2. What were the last two movies you saw? Girl with a pearl earing and Paycheck
3. What were the last three things you purchased? The Queer Eye music CD, a MP3 player/radio/voice recorder (for Lisa), and a telephone extension cable (problems with the ADSL line).
4. What four things do you need to do this weekend? Write more for my PhD, See Kill Bill: Part 2, Brunch out, and the MBA reunion dinner.
5. Who are the last five people you talked to? Lisa, John Briers, Marie Wilson, Darl Kolb, Emma Dawson. I've just realised that when I'm working at home I talk to very few people except Lisa - to get this item on the list people back to Tuesday.

This was recycled from last years F5.

One of the few blogs that I regularly read is Jon Udell's. Jon was once an editor at Byte, which some say was the best computer magazine ever, so some of his columns can be a bit techy. However, there is gold in them thar mountains.

In a recent post he alluded to an earlier article in which he talks about using a blog as a way to manage somewhat virtual team for project management. What struck me (besides the elegance of the idea) was the link to storytelling. The idea of story telling and narrative has been quite popular in certain strands of the management literature (e.g. See David Barry's and David Elmes classic article Strategy retold).

This ideas of presenting a coherent story is very potent. Whether one is trying to sell a strategy, manage a team, or motivate an employee, having a story - rather than somewhat disjointed facts - helps those involved to make sense of what is going on (might go on). This can be seen as a link here back to R, H & G. That reminds me, I've promised PB a couple of thousand word outline on how R, H & G might impact on the RBV of the firm.

[Meanwhile, back with Jon and story telling]

So, I suppose I'm hoping that someone in any of the classes I teach will pick up on these ideas and explore them - how might a shared blog work to cordinate a team? What stories are being used to make sense of what's going on? What are the archetypes of the stories being used (heroic? fatalistic - I recall a seminar about this; I must look it up).

And here is this week's Friday Five (Okay, I've recycled an old one, as there is no new F5).

If you...

1. ...owned a restaurant, what kind of food would you serve? It would be something hot and spicy - may something New Mexican.
2. ...owned a small store, what kind of merchandise would you sell? FMCG. Maybe a Dairy in the right location.
3. ...wrote a book, what genre would it be? Probably, Science Fiction - or a business book.
4. ...ran a school, what would you teach? Strategic thinking.
5. ...recorded an album, what kind of music would be on it? Music for motorways (probably wounldn't be that popular in New Zealand).

Thanks to Rayne for help with this week's questions

Getting back to the series of articles I'm reading that use Ranson, Greenwood & Hinings article "The structuring of organizational structures", today I've chosen a book review and response. Review is by Kenneth Starkey, and is of Andrew Pettigrew's (now well know) book The awakening giant: Continuity and change at ICI. Starkey's review and Pettigrew's response appeared in the _Journal of Management Studies, 24(4) a couple of years after the books publication - the book was published in 1985, the review in 1987. I think the gap in time between the two events is a measure of the amount of time it takes to get an article (even a book review) published. (Some of my own reviews have taken over two years from when the final version was submitted, to when they appeared in print - the wheels of academic publication grind exceeding slowly and maybe not all that finely.)

Any back to the book review and response. What stands out for me is Starkey's 'iron fist in a velvet glove' approach. He starts off by saying how good and important the book is (that's the first page) then spends six pages explaining why Pettigrew got it wrong (for example, he did pay enough attention to Starkey's own work!).

Anyway, Pettigrew is not shy in defending his work. In a four part defence "exposing some of the confusions and inconsistencies in Starkey's critical review" (p. 420), and at one stage challenging Starkey over Starkey's own work; "where is this growing body of evidence?" (p. 421).

In many ways I found Pettigrew's response to Starkey more illuminating about the book, than Starkey's own review of the book.

Nevertheless, what stands out for me is the way in which both authors promote their own work and how they both call on the 'gods' of Freeman, March & Olsen, Chandler, Giddens and Minitzberg (oh and of course Ranson, Greenwood & Hinings); but yet they seem to talk past one another. It reminds me of a documentary about Michael Porter where his critics (and him) don't actually hear one another - the just keep pushing their own 'party line'. This is one of the great problems of management literature (and perhaps more generally, sociological literature). It is too easy to come at things from a different perspective that prevents one from understanding the other.

Did you know you can have photos in your blog? It is pretty easy. Just choose "Upload file" from the main menu (that is is, if you have a blog here).

We went and had a look at the new railway station in downtown Auckland. As we were wandering through the building I was struck by the beautiful windows. Click on the image for the full size picture.

The 'window' is actually a glass dome in the ceiling.

It really is a lovely station, but it is a shame that there are no trains -- I've been there three or four times and there is never a train in the station. In fact, all the people I see there seem to be tourists exploring the architecture - not actually going anywhere. In the defense of the station, I should say I've only been there at weekends. How different is it during the working week?

Oh well, back to writing ...

As some may know, we (MER) have a reading group. The book selected for today?s meeting was:

Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism: The third logic. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Thus, my reading for today is that book. Some parts of these notes are shamelessly taken from my current PhD thesis draft.

By my calculation, when Freidson wrote this he was 78. I hope that I can write as well when I reach that age.

For Freidson, professionalism is used ?to refer to institutional circumstances in which members of occupations, rather than consumers or managers control work? (2001, p. 12). Whereas, "'Market', refers to those circumstances in which consumers control the work people do, and 'bureaucracy' to those in which managers are in control [of work]" (2001, p. 12). In taking such approach, to the occupational control of work, the notion of autonomy looms large. And in taking such an approach, he is harking back to his earlier work, and the ideas of authors such as Johnson (1972), Brint (1994), and Larson (1977).

Secondly, from this basic idea he derives five elements that he sees comprising an ideal type of professionalism. This is not a return to a trait based approach to definitions, but more accurately, ?it is intended to serve as a stable standard by which to appraise and analyze historic occupations whose characteristics vary in time and place? (Freidson, 2001, p. 127). The five interdependent elements he describes are:

1. specialized work in the officially recognized economy that is believed to be grounded in a body of theoretically based, discretionary knowledge and skill that is accordingly given special status in the labor force;
2. exclusive jurisdiction in a particular division of labor created and controlled by occupational negotiation;
3. a sheltered position in both the external and internal labor markets that is based on qualifying credentials created by the occupation;
4. a formal training program lying outside the labor market that produces qualify credentials, which is controlled by the occupation and associated with higher education; and
5. an ideology that asserts greater commitment to doing good work than to economic gain and to the quality rather than the economic efficiency of the work (Freidson, 2001, p. 127)
   Having said all of that, the heart of Fredison's book is really the notion of there being three logics at work ? that of the free market (and let the buyer beware), that of the professions (let the buyer trust us), and that of the bureaucratic (let the buyer beware? I'm not sure).

As Catherine says, Freidson is unashamedly ?for? the professions. Actually, I'll just drift in to talking about reading group for a moment, as it is connected. Being professionals ourselves, the book was of particular interest, as it highlights the types of issue we face everyday with the competing imperatives of managerialism, market forces, professionalism. It's a shame that more people don't come along -- but that is indicative, I suppose, of those competing demands.

I agree with others in the group that we don't give students a good understanding of the alternatives to the contemporary 'obsessions' with managerialism and the market. Perhaps we do need to spend more time on the subtlety and applicability of the professional form of organising.

References

Brint, S. G. (1994). In an age of experts: The changing role of professionals in politics and public life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism: The third logic. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Johnson, T. J. (1972). Professions and power. London: Mcmillan.

Larson, M. S. (1977). The rise of professionalism: A sociological analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.

I've made a couple of changes to the site. Firstly, on The reflective practitioner, I've arranged to display links to the first few new comments that have been made. This can be seen on the left hand side of the main site. I've also changed the way entries from the individual blogs are aggregated and presented on the main site - this will hide some of my longer (and more tedious) entries.

On my own site, Post Script, I've changed the templates so that a word count is displayed for each entry - this also happens on the main site too.

By the way, if your blog is hosted here and you see a blog style elsewhere that you like (e.g. at Movablestyle) let me know, and I'll change your site too (if you can't do it yourself)).

Today's reading is:

Pondy, L. R., & Huff, A. S. (1985). Achieving routine in organizational change. Journal of Management, 11(2), 103-116.

I thought I'd have a look at how popular (that is, well cited) was yesterday's (monster) reading, A quick skim on EBSCO Host showed that it had been cited over 113 times (not bad I thought). So, I?ve had a look at all the articles that used The structuring of organizational structures reading and picked a selection. So here is the first one (of several that I?ll read over the coming week). I've decided to do them in historical order, earliest to most recent; there is no rhyme nor reason for this order, other than I like historical flow. So, with no further ado, on to my summary of the article.

The background of this article is that Pondy and Huff have been looking at decision making in a school district for four years. This is article is based on one of those decisions -- I expect somewhere there are more articles based on other decisions that were taken there.

Organisations make undertake significant changes in their operations. However, the magnitude of the change may not be apparent until after the change has been undertaken. According to the authors, one view of change, put forward by March, is that change can be treated as routine. And so, the "article therefore explores the routines as an achievement of management" (italics in original, p. 104). So, how the drama of significant change be avoided? How can it be presented in a way that is seen as routine?

Drawing largely on the work of (Ranson, Hinings, & Greenwood, 1980), the authors suggest that there are two things to consider ?First, those who wish to minimize change inan organization's structure must seek to de-emphasis or counteract changes in interpretations, power or context, and to resolve or smooth over apparent contradictions in values/interests or situational context? (Pondy & Huff, p. 114). ?Second, for those who whish instead to maximize¹ " the proper strategy is to induce changes in context, power, or interpretive schema, or to highlight or introduce contradictions in values or situations context" (Pondy & Huff, p. 114). This is facilitated by the fact that organisations do have routines, and thus the routines can be exploited to signal either the routine nature of the change, or to emphasise its non-routineness.

Thus for the Pondy & Huff, "the task of administration is two-fold: first, to construct a repertory or library of routines; and second, to make use of those routines for routinizing the new and unfamiliar" (p. 114). "Routines are eoliths, tools that are shaped by the uses to which they are put ? the point of this article is that administrators are both tool-makers and tool-users" (p. 115).

So what are my thoughts on this? Well firstly there Darl has talked (and written) about the need for continuity in organisations. I don't recall if he drew on this work - but there are some strong links between his work and Pondy & Huff, and back to March, too.
But, more importantly, when is change 'big'? The answer to that, seems to be when people thing its big (And that is the same answer to the questions "When is a class big"). The power of treating big changes as routine (or usual) is impressive. When a lot of ambiguity exists around a change, the managers (or in the case I'm think of, the lecturers) can successful present it as routine and in doing so, shape the interpretive schemas of those affected by the change. Thus, as posited by Ranson, & co., the change can be accomplished without drama.

Consequently, I regard this as a very practical and useful article.

References

Pondy, L. R., & Huff, A. S. (1985). Achieving routine in organizational change. Journal of Management, 11(2), 103-116.

Ranson, S., Hinings, C. R., & Greenwood, R. (1980). The structuring of organizational structures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 1-17.

¹ Why might someone want to maximise structural change? The answer to that questions is back in Ranson, Hinings, & Greendwoods article.

This is a brief summary of:

Ranson, S., Hinings, C. R., & Greenwood, R. (1980). The structuring of organizational structures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 1-17.

One of the most enduring 'problems' in organizational theory is the question of "How do organizations change?" In particular, how can we incorporate both the structuralist perspective, with its emphasis on constraints and the integrationist perspective with focuses on the agency of organisational actors and their ability to shape their context.

The idea of organisational structure can be understood in two different and competing ways. Firstly, and classically, it can be seen to simply a configuration of activities that is characteristically enduring and persistent? (p.1) which is manifested as a formal roles - for me this is a succinct conflation of the ideas such as specialisation (aka division of labour), and administration. It is this view that emphasises constraint. The other way in which structure can be understood is as "the patterned regularities and processes of interaction" (p. 2), with its emphasis on agency. Whilst there has been some research and discussion on this approach, much of the undergraduate study of OT (Organisation Theory), a has been ground in the structuratlist rather than the integrationist literature.

Now it is important not to through the baby out with the bathwater. The classical notion of organisational structure has important (and well researched) consequences when it comes to explaining the effectiveness of the organisation. Nevertheless, structure as the patterns of interaction--what people actually do--might provide a much deeper understanding. Alas, for some people see them as "incompatible" (p. 3). This has not deterred the article's authors (or others) from working with this problem. The approach they adopt is to focus mainly on the analytical level¹ of meaning and causality.

At this level (of meaning) makes "explicit the way reality is experienced from the pot of view of the action and, by dissolving 'factual reality' as the skilled accomplishment of members, sustains the agency behind much organizational working: actors reflexively monitor their experiences and thus remake and recreate that experience" (p. 4, my emphasis).

One of the interesting comments the authors make, is that that studies of the 'micro', because of the research methods they employ are necessarily going to privilege the agency of actors, over the constraints of the context (aka macro). So we should not be surprised, when research into agency says that agency is important. Thus, in order to test/understand this we need to look for a solution that incorporates the issue of time - and by doing so, we can look at the issue of causality.

At this point, they bring it altogether and saying:

Three abstract and interdependent conceptual categories are integral to a theoretical model that seeks to articulate the way in which the process of structuring itself defines and mediates organizational structures: (1) Organizational members create provinces of meaning which incorporate interpretive schemes, intermittently articulated as values and interests, that form the basis of their orientation and strategic purposes within organizations. (2) Since interpretive schemes can be the basis of cleavage as much as of consensus, it is often appropriate to consider an organization as composed of alternative interpretive schemes, value preferences, and sectional interests, the resolution of which is determined by dependencies of power and domination. (3) Such constitutive structuring by organizational members has, in turn, always to accommodate contextual constraints inherent in the characteristics of the organization and the environment, with organizational members differentially responding to and enacting their contextual conditions according to the opportunities provided by the infrastructure and time. (p.4)

And there we have it. Provinces of meaning. Dependencies of power. Contextual constraints. This is the genesis of their (Hinings and Greenwood) later work on archetypes--where they put forward the idea of the archetype as an organisational configuration (as in the classical concept of organisational structure) plus the interpretive schema of organisational actors².

Here are a few key points on these three categories

• Provinces of meaning
  • They are "on the one hand, interpretive schemes that enable us to constitute and understand our organizational worlds as meaningful; on the other hand, the intermittent articulating of elements of interpretive schemes as purposive values and interests that lie behind the strategic implementing or warranting of structural frameworks" (p. 5). I'd link this back to my interest in Kelly's Personal construct psychology - this is really about how people construe things.
  • "Such frames [provinces of meaning] typically remain taken for granted and incorporate both evaluative sentiments about the relative worth of things, as well as implicit 'stocks of knowledge' and systems of belief 'which serve as the reference schema for my explication of the world'" (citing Shutz and Luckmann, p. 5). For me, here we have a direct link to the work of Argryris and Schön's single and double look leaning. I'm also reminded that "David Siedl": http://www.bwl.uni-muenchen.de/personen/person.asp?id=999 is keen on Luckmann and uses his work a lot in his work on strategy-as-practice. That our 'provinces of meaning' are taken for granted, should be no surprise. They are embodied in our assumptions about the world, and our assumption are, all too often, unspoken. But the big link here is to values, which the authors place closer to the surface, whereas, I think, Argyris and Sch?ould say they were less accessible than that.
  • Citing Cicourel, "they enable the actor to generate appropriate (usually innovative) responses in changing situated settings--to sustain a sense of social structure over the course of changing social settings" (p. 5). Again, for me there are links back to psychodrama; after all, the idea of spontaneity--creating new responses like this--is at the heart of Moreno's psychodrama.
  • This is the juicy part, the link to RBV; "[provinces of meaning] embody a conception of the organization and therefore a view of the appropriate allocations of scare resources. The notion of interests is an 'incorrigibly evaluative' on--in that it referes to both the distribution of scare resources and to the ineluctable³ orientation and motivation of members to maintain and enhance their sectional claims" (p.7). We've know for sometime that, as one moves up the organisational hierarchy, managers see things differently, in terms of threats and opportunities--they must also see things differently in terms of the resources they feel they have at their command.
• Dependencies of power
  • It has to be said, that structuring the organisation, is necessarily an exercise in power by a few actors in the organisation. In this way, we should consider those actors to be privileged. This back to the earlier comment that "Since interpretive schemes can be the basis of cleavage as much as of consensus" (p. 4). This results in the production of interests that can be seen as sectional.
  • It's good to remember here, that organisations themselves can be seen as the exercise of power. Citing Perrow, the authors say: "Organizations must be seen as tools -- A tool is something you can get something done with. It is a resource if you control it. It gives you power others do not have. Organizations are multipurpose tools for shaping the world as one wishes it to be shaped. They provide the means for imposing one's definition of the proper affairs of men on men" (p.7).
  • Of course, I would argue that this is not limitless power, and we can?t shape the world endlessly. But, nevertheless, we can shape to the extent of the power we wield. The rub is that it depends on "the skill which actors bring to bear using these resources [power] and in mobilizing support of their claims" (p. 8).
  • Now for some, this skilful application of power is manifest in strategic decision making. But, it must be remembered that those in power not only get to exercise their decision making fiat, but also they "can suppress or thwart challenges to their values and interests by confining the scope of decision making to relative 'safe' issues" (p. 8). This is done by shaping the basis on which ?making decisions? is understood. (Note to self: Big idea).
• Contextual constraints
  • I'm a big fan of the social construction of reality, but the authors warn against giving it too much credence. They, via Luckmann, suggest that currently organisational actors "more than in any previous historical period [are] entrapped by his [sic] institutional and organizational systems in that they are less open to social reconstruction" (p.9). Indeed, this limited choice -- the reliance on --contextual determinants? is the basis of Contingency theory -- whereby the circumstances presented by the environment, technology, etc, necessitate the organization adapting in order that it remains efficient.
  • But the contextual constraints facing the organization are not just a function of environmental characteristics. They are also a function of organizational characteristics too (e.g. scale of operation -- size; and the type of technology employed in production -- more generally, the resources the organisation has at its command).
  • The larger environmental characteristics, cf Emry and Trist, etc, have been well documented and explored.
  • But organisations also exist within an institutional environment - see Neo-institutionalism?
  • There is a link here back to the provinces of meaning, as these shape the type of organisational responses to the situation presented by the environment.

Anyway, there are some important implications of all of this; namely, the five ways in which structural change can come about:

1. "there will be a change in structuring if organizational members revise the provinces of meaning, the interpretive schemes, which underpin their constitutive structuring of organizations" (p.12).
2. "structural change can result from inconsistencies and contradictions between the purposive values and interests that lie behind the strategic implementing and warranting of structural features" (p. 12).
3. change may occur through organizational revolution resulting from significant changes in the organizations resources -- undermining the "dominant coalitions and permit the creation of new power dependencies" (p. 13).
4. Likewise, significant changes in the 'situational exigencies' (the contingency factors) can have a similar effect.
5. Finally, "contradiction imperatives of situational constraints", will lead to structural change.

Thus, structural change can arise out of changes or contradictions of any of the big three; provinces of meaning, dependencies of power, or contextual constraints (internal or external).

A brief note about causality. It terms of time we can think about it as three temporal modes:

"evenements," the events, incidents and episodes, the contemporaneous pieces of flotsam which 'blind the eyes' and dominate the present; "conjunctures," the medium-term movements of population, trade cyles, transitions in political domination and "structures," long-term durations of geographical and cultural patterns (p. 13).
bq. In short, the closer the 'horizon,' the more visible the actor but constrained by his [sic] context; in the longer time perspective, actors become less 'visible' but their frames of meaning, the product of their structuring more determinate: constituted structures have become constitutive (p. 12).
And there we have it. I would say, that somewhat counter-intuitively, the more visible the actor (in the short term) the more they are constrained. In the long term, the actor is less visible (as time goes by) but the meaning they have made has an impact of the structures of the organization.

Notes

Overall this is an important article and I'm surprised I didn't find (!) it earlier. Thanks to John Gray (and his PhD) for alerting me to it.

¹ Levels of analysis ? this is something I need to remember. Too often the debate on levels of analysis in strategy-as-practice retreats to the ephemeral micro or macro without too much to hang one?s hat on.

² Alas, in they later work, the are less concerned about the multiplicity of interpretive schemes in any one organisation.

³ \in-ih-LUCK-tuh-buhl\, adjective: Impossible to avoid or evade; inevitable; irresistible; "inescapable conclusion"; "an unavoidable accident"

I've set myself a target of reading and documenting (here) one article or book a day. I might read more than that; but the 'kicker' is to actually write them up. So, the first one is due now!

The idea is to force me to be more reflective in my reading.

Update: Well normally it takes me a couple of hours to read and article and to 'inwardly digest it'. So far, it's taken over five hours to read the article and put my thoughts (and key points) down. Thank heavens it's not a term paper.

Update, Update: Well that took too long. I need to be more efficient than that.

I've installed the necessay meta tags for GeoURL to work with this site. you can see the registered sites that are physically close to this one, here. It's surprising how many sites there are around here. If you like things more visually, have a look at the maps.

We went and saw Girl with a Pearl Earring today. Lisa's read the book and was pretty happy with the film adaptation. However, she did point out that a few important parts of the book were missing; for example, the opening scene with the plate of vegetables - that all makes sense if you know that Vermeer hires Griet because of her arrangement (and its explanation) of the vegetables.

We both thought that when we (the audience) looked in the Camera Obscura, the picture should have been projected either upside down or reversed (this depends on the exact nature of Vermeer's camera). Perhaps the film makers were taking poetic licence?

For more details of Vermeer's camera have a look here

Anyway, back to the movie. Apart from three other males, the audience in the cinema was entirely female. The film was beautifully crafted. I particular liked the attention to detail with the ice on the canals. All-in-all, a pleasant way to spend a couple of hours.

After the movie, we spent half an hour wandering around the local Borders. I still can decide if I have time to read anything other than material for my PhD (and that's plain sad).

I was reading Media Tinker when I came across the quote A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds by Ralph Waldo Emerson. A quick trip to Bartleby confirmed its providence as coming from his 1841 essay Self-reliance. It would be easy to make some half-baked link from this quotation to the topic for next week's class on single and double loop learning. But, his essay is neither short, nor a straightforward; and such a link would do little credit to me (and no credit to Emerson). Taking these few words out of their complete context is a naive thing to do.

I seem to recall Barbara Czarniawska (who likes to link management and literature) once saying that a good way to study management is through great novels and stories. I'm not an aficionado of Emerson ? he wasn't on my reading list at school ? but what I do know about him makes me think that Barbara would be happy to engage with his work.

Thus, I think it would be really interesting for someone to weave the Emerson essay and the issues that will be presented in next week's class (and indeed throughout the whole course) together.

And here is this week's Friday Five

1. What do you do for a living? I mainly teach and research at the University of Auckland. I also do a bit of management consulting too. I suppose into this list, I should put that I'm currently a doctoral candidate¹ researching the way in which strategy comes about (is created) in professional service firms.

1. What do you like most about your job? The flexibility - I can work the way I want to, when I want, and how I want to. On top of that, I can read and research the things I find interesting. For me, I'd say that was pretty hard to beat.

1. What do you like least about your job? Having to write. I enjoy the reading and the research; I'm okay and the synthesing of ideas, etc; But, I've always found writing a chore - I can do it, but it takes discipline.

1. When you have a bad day at work it's usually because ... Either, I haven't written enough for this week's PhD quota, or I'm worried about the students. Strange, one I can something about, the other is really beyond my control.

1. What other career(s) are you interested in? Day trading - again its the flexibility and the ability to do some analysis. Process consultant - since leaving IT (does anyone actually leave), I've become more and more interested in people and how they work/think/etc. Process consulting² would allow me to explore that more.

This week's questions, are from melanie .

¹ The actual title of my PhD research (at this time) is Strategising in professional service firms

² It's Edgar Schein again!

When we return for the Easter Break, we start the class on the topic of single and double loop learning (Search for Argyris and Shön Google or through Learn).

I find their ideas crucial at this juncture. It allows us to explorer, explain, and understand our behaviours issues around:

• The up-coming assignment
• What has been happening so far in the simulation.
• Our behaviour in general

I think once the theoretical underpinnings are in place (in general in the class), I'll try and revisit some of my previous journal entries, and try and apply double-loop learning to them. (That is easier said than done.)

Intellectually, for me there have been three or four big ideas that have shaped my thinking in the past 10 years about people in management. In no particular order,they are:

1. Career anchors by Edgar Schein (thanks for that one Darl). With that idea and a little help from Charles Handy's Sigmoid curve, I was able to make sense of my opportunities that lay ahead of me. I'm not sure how useful (aka practical) this is for people early in their careers, but it was profound for me.
2. Single and Double loop learning by Argyris and Sh?Somewhere there must be a brilliant essay linking these with Career anchors.
3. The social construction of reality; I group a hotch-potch of ideas under Berger & Luckman's original work, and no doubt some people will say that I'm wrong. Kelly's Personal Construct Psychology; Wieck's Sense making; The whole of the nascent strategy-as-practice literature; Bit's of Bourdieu, de Certeau etc;
4. The joy of sex Neo-institutionalism ? good one by diMaggio & Powell. Not necessarially original, but it woke me up to the whole debate around structuralism vs. existentialism; agency vs. Institutional imperatives; and even links to nature vs. nurture.

In 'reality' these three things can be considered very close to one another, and certainly almost all my understanding of people and organisations are tied back to these ideas (be it strategy, organisation theory, post-modernism, and so on)

It's curious to me that two out these have ended up in MGMT 301 ? it was never planned that way; it just evolved.

For the past eight months, in my spare time and with a small grant for technology development, I've been working with a small group of colleagues (three) to develop a self-paced package designed to:

• Define academic honesty.
• Explain the principles, logic, and need to being academically honest ? rather than just saying ?You must do this; Or else?.
• Ensure that students understand the Universities policies in this area - can they interpret and apply the rules in a variety of situations; acting in the spirit of the 'law' rather than 'to the letter of the law'; the former being much harder to do than the latter.
• Provide students with a sufficient understanding of APA referencing so that they they can apply it in a variety of common situations.
• Allows students to test that they understand and can apply ideas such as referencing, quoting, and paraphrasing in a way that is consistent with the
  Publication Manual of the APA.

Conceptually, I don't think there is much new in the package ? all the information can be found in and around the university. What we're seeking to do is to bring it all together (in an academically honest way), so that it is conveniently accessible to students. (Oh, in case I haven't mentioned it before, check out the great article Beat the Witch-hunt! Peter Levin's Guide to Avoiding and Rebutting Accusations of Plagiarism, for Conscientious Student

This is all well and good, and we're just finalising the last few details/words before trialling it, BUT currently it takes about 10 ? 15 hours to work through the whole package. So, I'm worried that it takes too long, and that students will 'skip to the end' and just learn the mechanics of referencing, etc, and not the under pinning logic behind it.

That some students adopt instrumental strategies is not in doubt -- but does it matter? Should they be able to just do the referencing section ? or should I be 'big brother' and compel them to work through the whole package? At the moment, I favour letting them do what they think they need (but provide some sign posts about what is 'best practice').

Time will tell how well it works.

I subscribe to the the JISC Plagiarism mailing list and a couple of interesting articles can be found there.

In the first The Journal of E-Learning has an article called Plagiarism and Poor Academic Practice ? A Threat to the Extension of e-Learning in Higher Education which provides some interesting facts on the size of the problem.

According to the article, in the UK:

... Franklyn-Stokes and Newstead (1995) and Newstead et.al. (1996) have attempted to ascertain the frequencies of a range of non-academic practices. Students were asked to report whether they had engaged in a range of behaviour at least once in the previous academic year.

And their table looked like this (allowing for translation between mediums)

Anyway it makes interesting reading. Another thing that is interesting to read is the The Plagiarism Blog. For example, one of the stories on the Blog talks about a Canadian university that has given up using take home essays as a form of assessment as an means to counter, what they see, as increased plagiarism.

I watch with curiosity what will happen.

When it comes to marking, one of the hardest parts is dealing with the problem of plagiarism.

What I try to do, is rather than deal with the intent (which is almost impossible to prove one way or the other; and, interestingly enough, is explicitly disregarded by the University's policies), is to look at the simple mechanics of "is it clear to me where this idea has come from" and "is it clear to me whose words I reading"? That is to say, is it unambiguous to me (through the normal requirements of academic writing in this department (i.e. APA) who said what? This is reflected in the policy on APA referencing¹ that is detailed the 'black book'. Thus for me, the issue isn't "has someone tried to pass off another persons words or ideas as their own", but "are the mechanics of citing other peoples ideas and words correct?" And so it is on the mechanics of referencing rather than on plagiarism itself that I usually seek to address the issue.

Now no one is going to lose all their marks for failing to indicate from which page a quotation was taken. That is trivial. At worst, I'd probably make a remark in the margin. But, for me, in the previous example, it does have to be crystal clear that it is a quote in the first place. There are no shades of grey. The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (aka the APA manual ? or APA bible) is unambiguous on this too.

Why referencing is important is a whole other discussion. As, an aside, and ignoring the obvious answer about marks, I wonder consideration you have given the following types of questions:

• Why is referencing important?
• What are the institutional reasons for requiring references?
• What are the social imperatives for referencing?
• How does referencing reflect 'our' concerns with scientific thinking?

In any case, it is important and academics (and dare I say, students²) are required by honour, and by the university's policies, to act when the problem is identified³.

Of course, for those who run afoul of such policies, it can never be a simple issue of mechanics. I doubt, when confronting the brutal facts, that my rationale means much to those affected. When faced with forgoing 10, 20, or even 30 per cent of their marks, rarely is it a matter of the student saying "Yes, I got that wrong." How many marks doesn't seem to matter; even for five or even three per cent most people, when in a situation about loosing their marks, will fight tooth and nail to keep them (or some portion of them).

From this side, I face two difficulties. Firstly, I always assume the students have done the right thing with regard to referencing. And so, my starting position is to trust the assignment that is turned to me. However, once that trust is broken in one place in an assignment, it is broken for the whole of the assignment. I have neither the time, nor the inclination to consider and check every single word and phrase to see if it is trustworthy. There is no realistic way for me to check an assignment. Even a system, such as Turn It In, might pick up only 30 per cent of material that is copied. The only time can I be sure that it has found all the copied material is when Turn It In says that 100 per cent of an essay is the same other work.

Trust is important. I've seen almost every variation of replication of material. Whole essays taken entirely from the web or an electronic journal. A 2,000 word essay consisting of 60 other sources spliced together, not a single original word by the essays author. A badly written essay from one semester, based on a person's individual reflection, where the 'new' version has just changed the names of the people and team involved. These are the extremes ? but it happens, more often, on a smaller scale. One paragraph copied from a friend or a journal, half a dozen sentences stolen and scattered through out an assignment. And, so on. If trust is gone, what do I rely on?

The second issue is, what is fair for the class and everyone who has gone before? . I'm not sure that there are any straight forward answers here, other than to trying and be consistent.

¹ Referencing, in this context, should be taken to mean the process of indicating the source of ideas and words (or even pictures and sounds ? in fact any one else's work) in your own work such as academic essays, a computer programs, a drawings, figures, musical compositions, musical performances, and so on.

² The person who created Turn It In did so in response to his students' complaints about other students who were cheating. People who where spending a lot of time writing a good essay felt cheated, and considered that the quality of their degree was being eroded, when they saw class mates submitting 'bought' papers. (Oh, this is only a partial answer to the questions earlier on in this entry.)

³ This has big implications. For example, last year an essay was found to be largely identical to one submitted the year before. Subsequent research found that both students had copied from the same article. As a result both essays where given a zero. One of those students had already graduated ? but getting a zero for that assignment changed his grade for the course from a C to D-, which meant that he failed the course he had completed, and thus his degree was taken back. Also, there was a case a few years ago, where a lecturer at VCU found old essays on disk and decided to check them ? as a result 120, or so, students had their degree withdrawn

It's been a long weekend, and I'm only just catching up on everything. The marking of the first assignment consumed a lot of time.

As I said in class, a good essay takes a lot less time to mark (say 10-15 minutes) when compared to a poor essay (30-45 minutes). I think a lot of the difference has to do with how much easier it is to read a good essay. Well structured prose, clear logic, engaging writing - it makes it a pleasurable task rather than a chore. Generally, a good essay only needs to be read once.

On the other hand, with a poor essay, it's not unusual to go backwards and forwards; re-reading the same paragraph to make sense of it, going between pages because the logic seems contradict earlier statements. And often, the writing doesn't engage me - it doesn't make me want to know more. But of course, that sort of thing, in some ways, goes beyond the basics of does the student know "X". But, is in-line with the courses learning outcomes.

But, of course, it takes a lot of practice to write well. I do wonder if the restructuring of the degree programs here to mandate General Education courses will result in Commerce students being able to write better.

Kim Maree has kindly allowed me to circulate her essay here. Any mistakes of grammar, spelling, etcetera, are probably mine as I have transfered it from Mico$oft Word to HTML.

I like this essay, because even though she flouts some conventions, she has enough skill to make it work. Well done Kim.

Please continue on to read Kim's essay.

Team Performance Reflection

This piece of writing explores the connections between how our company began to create strategies for playing the Mikes Bikes simulation with a game called Mornington Crescent and theories relating to uncertainty and map making.

I like the game Mornington Crescent and would like to play.
Paddington. The game is initially deceptive. I believed Peter when he said that the rules were complex. Dahl confirmed this when he said "Bishop's rules". It didn't occur to me that there were no rules. The game itself isn't very clever. The clever bit is how it represents the randomness of mapping a feasible strategy. It reveals the contrived nature of reason. Being a geography student I like maps, particularly the knowledge that the only truly accurate map is one that is life size and includes me writing in here as well as someone drawing the map, which is of course an impossibility. All maps are merely representations but we usually know how to connect them to what they represent. That isn't as straightforward as it sounds. Smircich and Stubbart (1985) remind us that there is by no means agreement on what is being represented reality can be perceived as objective, subjective or enacted, so in fact what a map represents can be even more abstract than the map itself.

Knightsbridge. How does this relate to our group? Our stab in the dark at trying to create a strategy was our initial map-making activity. Or was it? Before we could begin to talk about strategy we had to firstly meet and chat awhile, getting to know each other. It was at this point that we started to uncover and construct our group's map by uncovering what was already there, our backgrounds and personalities. Michael McCaskey says that "each of us has unique maps that have grown out of our experiences and needs" (de Witt & Myer 1998) so when we meet new people our worlds converge and we add them to our map. Some of each person's map is then incorporated into a group's mega-map, but the story doesn't end there. We need to understand that a map is a "revisable model" (1998) constantly being updated and upgraded. If a map isn't frequently reviewed, in McCaskey's words it can become "rigid and confining" akin to a prison.

North Greenwich. To the uninitiated, Mornington Crescent is what McCaskey describes as an ambiguous situation. He says that "one way of defining an ambiguous situation is to say it is one in which none of your maps works well. Events are puzzling, confusing, and don't fit with what you know" (1988). Mornington Crescent is ambiguous because it initially defies the expectation a novice has that there are a set of "rigid and confining" rules, operating like the rules of a game like chess or monopoly. Awareness of this ambiguity can trigger us into what Weick calls a "cosmology episode". He explains that "basically a cosmology episode happens when people suddenly feel that the universe is no longer a rational, orderly system." When people are faced with this kind of disorder, they try to place order upon it in an attempt to integrate it into their existing map, demonstrating what McCaskey describes when he says that "we invent theories, rituals, or superstitions to make what was uncertain and confused into something clear and stable" (de Witt & Myer, 1998). I have already said that it didn't occur to me that there were no rules in Mornington Crescent. That is, there are no overt rules. But after looking at a few related websites and dwelling on the game for far too long, covert rules have appeared. In The Ethics Of Constructive MC an experienced player states that "If you win a game that's just started getting exciting, you end it, which is no use to anyone. Do that and you'll elicit some biting comments from the other players. Do it regularly and you'll have the more active members of CAMREC (Campaign For Real Crescent) demanding you banned. And we'd rather avoid the fuss, thankyouverymuch." (Mornington Crescent Fan, 1996). If you don't play the game by these "rules", other players may be dismayed at your haste to win and judge you negatively for your impatience. What has developed in the place of overt rules is a more subtle game etiquette embodying an initiation into a form of ritualistic behaviour.

Old Street. We took our time developing our initial strategy. We knew we wanted to dominate one market, but we didn't know which one. Our Human Resources Manager helped us out. He's played the game before so has more game-related knowledge than the rest of us. He knows the potential size of all the markets as well as the technical and design specifications for each market. We looked at his information and were able to be a bit less in the dark. In stage two geography it was suggested that paper maps were more powerful than guns for bringing about colonial conquest and imperialism. Our HRM provided us with his map and we then used that map to create our own map. Has he conquered us? Will we then plan to conquer someone else?

Marble Arch. Our HRM dominated our first rollover. I've already talked about this in a weekly reflection so don't want to double up. He has the map and compass, we are crawling along behind. I don't want to wrestle the map off him, there's no point. I'm quite happy for him to guide us through the early stages of the game. It takes the pressure off me. I have a lot on my plate at present, university courses, music performances, kids, legal battles, family matters, etc. Why should I get uptight about someone who makes my life easier? His knowledge takes me off the hook in relation to needing to know every corner of the game. I'm very much a big-picture person. If he wasn't so clued up I'd be getting even less sleep. Why am I going to stress because he dominated the game and knows what he's talking about? Sometimes I think I should be stressed because a CEO is meant to be "in charge". The Black Book (2004) says the CEO will "provide oversight of functional areas, coordinating decision feedback and linking it to company performance." I have been doing this, but our HRM has been at the forefront of it. But that's ok, in this situation I see myself more as a facilitator because this game isn't my "baby", it's not my project, it doesn't have to go my way. Which gets me thinking, perhaps we shouldn't have revealed our strategy yet, perhaps we could have created a mock strategy and acted really lame in order for the other groups to think we don't know what we are doing, then when the real thing comes along totally knock their socks off. From our lecture this week I now know that this is a well known strategy, called a ploy.

Earl's Court. I played chess with a 10yr old recently. I haven't played for ages. He thrashed me in the first game. But in the second one, he made one silly move and I instantly checkmated him. He didn't ask for another game. This was within about ten moves of the game beginning when hardly any pieces had been taken off the board. I'm more strategic and competitive than I thought. Finally, after raising children and all that, I've realised that I like chess and I love winning, which brings me back to Mornington Crescent. Further to the advice cited above, the experienced player declared that "there's more to being a good Mornington Crescent player than merely winning." More than winning? He goes on to say that "Mornington Crescent, when played well, is a beautiful thing. It's stylish, it's literary, it can amuse, it can sadden, it's like a symphony, an Old Master... I'm getting carried away. But you see my point." (Mornington Crescent Fan, 1996).

The point being made is that the game is an art as well as a science- what matters is the journey, not the destination. Could this game be presenting a model for a new business paradigm? In these turbulent times could the corporate world be ready to move towards this kind of mind shift? Imagine a world (John Lennon time) where people deliberated over being in the moment rather than rushing headlong towards a bulls eye target elucidated during a frenzied goal-setting brainstorm.

Angel. Second rollover. Our HRM wasn't as dominant as last time. Thinking over the situation it occurred to me that we all have our roles, or rather the roles we think we are taking on. We wear these roles like costumes because they come from outside ourselves. Beneath that are the roles we inherently inhabit. To the naked eye, our HRM is our HRM. But beneath this clothing, when we play Mikes Bikes, he's the CEO, or (more plausibly) a co-CEO. Surprisingly, this doesn't bother me. My "dressing up" role is that of a CEO. That's what everyone sees me as -- but when we play Mikes Bikes I feel like some sort of HRM, encouraging everyone to contribute. Another way of looking at this is similar to the idea of overt and covert rules in Mornington Crescent. We have the overt 'outer' roles and undeclared, covert 'shadow' roles. The outer roles are the roles we think we're taking on but the shadow roles are the ones that matter most because that's what we're really doing.

Surrey Quays. Our team has one process-focussed meeting time each week when we talk about how we are and how we think the group is going. During these meetings I'm the CEO. I asserted my authority by letting the group know that I like to strive for good grades and that I have spent lots of time in process groups. I did a bit of impression management. Another way of looking at the reason my role is a bit different during task-time and group process-time is because, as Weick says, "there is no one best map" sensemaking lends itself to multiple, conflicting interpretations, all of which are plausible" (cited in Coutu, 2003). In management, despite what people like to think, there's no "one best way". As a CEO I have to be adaptable and aware that we are all reading from different maps that overlap in places. I could have forced our HRM into submission but that wouldn't have been the best thing for the group, in fact it probably would have been very destructive. Our HRM is likable and enthusiastic and it would have appeared unreasonable for me to hold him back. You could say this is impression management because I don't want to appear overly controlling, but equally you could say that I'm letting go of my need to control in favour of considering what is best for the group overall.

Queen's Park. Despite his dominance during our decision making meetings, our HRM is open to trying new ideas. He makes it clear if he hadn't already thought of a particular strategy, and says "we'll try it offline, roll forward, roll back, ok?" So we do. When decisions he doesn't think will work actually do, he's open about it. He likes our team winning more than the need to be right. The ability to put the best thing for the team before an individual's ego is important. Our HRM is able to modify his own map of the game to accommodate the team attaining its goals. Katzenbach and Smith show that the advantage of a high performing team over a working group is that the team is able to produce a "collective work product" (1992). What this means is that the team is greater than the sum of all its parts. The reaction of our HRM when he is shown something he didn't already know guides the way for our team to generate this collective work product.

Pudding Mill Lane. It is interesting to consider Paul Baard's comments on the scenario outlined by Wetlaufer in "The team that wasn't" (2000) at this point. Baard states that a Randy, a difficult team member, is managing to negatively influence the whole team because of "psychological fusion". Baard says that "fusion occurs when we fail to differentiate ourselves emotionally from the opinions and conduct of others". He goes on the say that when people participate in fusion, they "allow other people to make us feel either good or bad". When applying these ideas to maps, fusion is when someone disregards another person's map and imposes their own one upon the scenario. Our HRM's good natured approach and his willingness to explore and acknowledge other people's ideas mean that he hasn't "fused" with anyone in the group. His influence hasn't been destructive but constructive because his enthusiasm and knowledge have encouraged the rest of the team to "pick up their game" in order to match his ability in their decision making areas.

Mornington Crescent. This has been an exploration of the relationship between a game with no rules, our team's emerging strategies and theories regarding map making during times of uncertainty. If Peter is reading this, he's rushed straight to the destination rather than enjoying the journey and the surprise of finally arriving at Mornington Crescent.

References

Coutu, D. (2003). Sense and reliability. Harvard Business Review, 81(4), 84-91.

Katzenbach, J., & Smith, D. (1992). Why teams matter. McKinsey Quarterly, 3, 3-27.

Kolb, D., & Smith, P. (2004). The black book: Course outline MGMT 301: Management theory and practice. Auckland, University of Auckland Business School.

McCaskey, M. (1998). Conceptual mapping. Strategy - process, content, context: An international perspective. Wit Bob de and Meyer R. London; Boston, International Thomson Business Press.

Mornington Crescent Fan (1996). The Ethics of Constructive MC. 2004. Retrieved from www at http://madeira.physiol.ucl.ac.uk/delphi/interactive/mcg/play.html

Smircich, L., & Stubbart, C. (1985). Strategic management in an enacted world. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 724-735.

Wetlaufer, S. (2000). The team that wasn't. Harvard Business Review, November-December, 22-38.

I've been having a quick look through the essays that have been submitted for the recent assignment. So far, only one person has mentioned the content of their journals (as opposed to saying that they were doing a journal).

How strange. I wonder why people haven't drawn on that resource? In many ways the journals should have been the data and evidence for the assignment.

I've just finished reading a really good assignment that is well linked to Mornington Crescent. I've asked the author if I can circulate it. It has a few flaws, but it the best I've read so far. (And, it has a link to a good site too.)

Every Friday, when teaching MGMT 301, I check Net Mike to see if everything is ready for the roll-over later in the day. If I have time on my hands I also read the message board that is built into Net Mike.

I wonder what sense an ethnographer would make from the messages that are left there? What verbs would she or he use to describe the type of messages? What purpose would he or she ascribe to the messages?

Over the years, I've seen that there are patterns. Overwhelmingly, the messages are from the males - so far that means 96% of the messages! Rarely, do the messages rise above the level of graffiti. However, from time to time individuals and teams do something different, more meaningful (that's a value judgement on my part). However, the general pattern of content at the team, region, and world level goes as follows.

• At the team level, that is to say those messages that can only be seen by a single team, the messages to be of the type "Hi", or "Did we do well", or "Aren't we doing badly".
• At the region level, e.g. only the teams in Auckland can see the message, or only the teams in Napier can see them, the the messages seem to be loaded with bravado "Don't mess with us", is a frequent statement.
• At the world level, which everyone cans see, the messages are quite aggressive with calls for companies to get together and "take so and so down".

I wonder what drives this. Is it escalating commitment of some type? Testosterone? Or is it as simple ? as a need to leave a mark saying We were here?

For many years, my robots.txt file has barred ever robot from the site. Well that has changed now. So now I'm sitting back waiting for Google, Yahoo, and all the other engines to start coming.

I'm fascinated by who comes to the site, so the web stats package behind the site is quiet comprehensive. But, it is also interesting to see how people get here from the various search engines. Enter Zeitgeist. In case you didn't know, when you use an search engine to find a site, when you click the link to go to a site, the details of the search you used is sent to the site you're going to. Does that make sense? Maybe an example will help.

If you go to Google and search for BBIM psychodrama you end up with one link to The Reflective Practitioner. When you click the link on Google for here, the details of you search (BBIM psychodrama) come with you. Every few hours Zeitgeist checks the logs here and builds a Zeitgeist page which show the search terms people used to find the site. At the moment it is largely rubbish, as it is the result of my trying the technology out. But over time it should be pretty reliable.

All I need know is those search engines to come and index the complete site (at the moment they have only done the first 'page').

In case you're interested Google has it's own Zeitgeist page, so you can see what are the current "hot" search terms.

Lisa and I went to see Marina Warner give the first 2004 Douglas Robb lecture tonight. The topic was After The Arabian Nights: Daemons & Alters. After the lecture, I mentioned to Lisa that, for me, in delivering her lecture, Marina had achieved the holy trinity of breadth, depth, and humour. Often a lecture only delivers one or two of these¹, but tonight we got all three in spades. Of course one might expect such a performance from a world class writer and academic, such as Marina , but, in the past, I have sometimes been disappointed.

As we walked onward to the car park, I began to reflect on how difficult it is to comment on what Marina had said. The difficulty comes from her use of words. The problem isn't in her choice of words, or her vocabulary. Nor is it in the she marshals them and organises them. The difficult isn't in what she says or even how she says it. At the heart of this 'problem' is the way in which she uses words that to reveal how she is thinking about her topic.

I don't know where I read it, but I recall that one of the greatest difficulties encountered by academics doing inter-disciplinary work is coming to terms with the way people in their 'non-main' discipline think. The challenge is to understand the world in as others (in the other discipline) do. For example, most of the content of what is taught in MER isn't hard. The hard part is learning how to think like a manager, or an academic, or a strategist, and so on. For those students who are doing a double major, or a minor, or a con-joint degree, they must run into this problem all the time. Knowing what is the easy part, knowing how is difficult because managers do think about the world different from scientists, differently from artists, etc. Stanley Frielick talks about it like this:

Declarative or propositional knowledge is typically the type of knowledge dominant in university curricula?the 'what' of a subject, abstract, conceptual, and concerned with labelling, differentiating and justifying. Functioning knowledge is based on performance of understanding in professional contexts?it involves the application of declarative knowledge in enacting skills and knowing when and why to perform them. Universities may espouse the development of professional functioning knowledge, but in practice the focus is on declarative knowledge which students often perceive as irrelevant and consequently adopt a surface approach [to learning].

The differences between the way in which groups (disciplines, occupations, ?) think is manifest in the way Darl and I identify, hopefully in a light hearted manner, engineers in the class. It isn't what they say, or even their behaviour that reveals them as engineers. It is they way in which they think about things that distinguishes them (of course this isn't an exact 'science' and sometimes we do mis-identify some).

I believe that functioning knowledge is often learnt, alas at university, through a process of osmosis; by seeing how others do it, rather than being proactively taught. In fact social learning, like this, is a crucial part of human development. Last week, Judith McMorland and I ran a sociodrama seminar for post graduate students. Before the it began, we had laid the room out in the 'traditional' psychodrama² manner, and we were sitting talking. To my surprise, I realised that as we were talking we had adopted the 'psychodramatic voice'. The particular rhythm and cadence, together with the vocabulary of that has been evident (to me) in every psychodrama training session I have ever attended. We were being sociodramatists. For the seminar, we were adopt the the ways of thinking and the ways of acting that are dominant in the New Zealand psychodrama community. The tacit, functioning, knowledge was manifesting itself. No one has ever said to me, this is how a sociodramatists talks, or this is how they think, or even, this is how they see and understand the world. It is something that I have been acquiring over time (and I think it is why I struggle so much to make sense of sociodrama).

The way this plays out in class, and in assignments, is in the way students seek evermore concrete definitions of what they are required to know ? the quest of declarative knowledge, where as lecturers are really looking for functioning knowledge. No wonder the two sides sometimes fail to meet.

Earlier, I was talking with my Research Assistant about how, in MGMT 301, some people can identify the gender of applicants on anonymous CVs from the style of the writing. She is strongly of the view that this is a relative straight forward procedure, as the handwriting can show,broadly, how the writer thinks, and given that the genders think differently it isn't a large step to guess the gender. We then discussed an extension of that, whereby it isn't too hard to guess the general grade of an assignment from the nature/pattern/type of references that accompany an assignment. The references reveal, what sometime is called the quality of thinking, but really is a measure of how much the author of the assignment is thinking like an academic, or a manager, etc. i.e their functional thinking. Some of these points are evidenced here and here. This also reminds me of an article I was reading yesterday by Terry Noel in the Journal of Management Education. In his article Lessons from the learning classroom he describes a situation which parallels the problems discussed here. I

Now all of this has a direct and immediate relevance to my PhD study. My topic, in case I haven't mentioned it often enough is Strategising in professional service firms. In particular I'm using the framework/world view of strategy-as-practice to explore strategy making (aka strategising). Part of my problem in that research is how do I come to understand how strategists think about the world? What is their functioning knowledge. Again, the content of what they do, their declarative knowledge, is relatively, straight forward. But, their functioning knowledge is much more difficult to grasp. Simply watching them do their work may not reveal the logic behind it ? this is the challenge faced by ethnographers throughout academe ? and this is the challenge faced by students 'watching' their lecturers.

¹ I expect I am as guilty of doing this as anyone. But then again, taking in everything from such a lecture is hard work.

² Psychodrama - sociodrama. I wouldn't worry to much about the difference here.

We've started the first of the summits. In these, the various functional specialists get together, hopefully, to share knowledge about their roles (rather than to share competitive information). I suspect, well know, that I didn't explain the point of them well today. But nevertheless, there is a strange paradox that occurs when we hold summits. It takes a while before people begin to appreciate the usefulness of the summits; but it is necessary to do the CEOs and CFOs first¹. Consequently, some of the benefits of the summit are lost.

It's probably worth me commenting of the efficacy of the summits. Firstly, I don't believe that these sessions disadvantage any team. i.e. If they were going to win, they will win. What they do is to build capacity in all of the companies. e.g. Last semester only a few teams were insolvent at the end of the simulation, whereas, without the summits, as many as one third of the teams may become insolvent.

¹ I'll leave it to the reader to decide why this is the case.

I found today's class very revealing. I was a little surprised to find out how difficult students are finding it to select a particular topic for their upcoming assignment this week. I spent some time after the formal part of the class, going around the four or five teams that stayed in the class room, talking about the assignment. There seems to be a lot of concern about choosing the right topic and about find theory to go with it. Some students are also daunted by the length of the assignment (2,500 words).

So here are my "consolidated" comments from those discussions today. My standard disclaimer at this point is that I hope this isn't used a formula for writing the assignment ? it is really only to some approaches; I recall one stage I student, having been told by the tutor that the short (1000 word) assignment needed about five paragraphs, getting very upset because she could only work out what four of the paragraphs were about. Anyway, thinking about the length of the assignment ? 2,500 words may seem like a lot of words, and it may be tempting to try and address several issues rather than just one (as a way to 'pad' the assignment). But my recommendation is that one issue is all that is needed.
Allowing one or two pages for a rich description of the situation (500 words), and some reflection on it (500 words) that is 1,000 words. We're half way there. Bring some theory to bear on the situation ? we'll that has to be 250 ? 500 words to show you know what you're talking about that all totals 1,250 ? 1,500 words. Now, the introduction is likely to be a page long (250 words), and the conclusion is probably going to be two pages (500 words). That's another 750 words. Giving a grand total of 2,000 ? 2,250 words. This is close enough, especially when the reference list is added in. Of course, I'm not sure I would structure it exactly that way, we all have our own style; I'd probably interleave the theory and the reflection ? but I would probably write them separately first.

The next issue is references. Again, I reluctant to give a specific number, but 12 isn't unreasonable at stage III, but it is possible to do an excellent job with a third of that number. (It's also possible to do a bad job with 12.) Think about why you are using references ? what is the point? They aren't there to please the reader. I've more to say about the references, and theory, later.

Choosing the topic doesn't have to be hard. I think one of the easiest ways is to look back at your journals and see what seems important to you. I'll use one of Amit's journals as an example. In that entry he mentions the issue of power¹. It would be fairly straight forward, I imagine, for Amit to write a longer more reflective description around that. Using his Organisation Behaviour textbook, he could readily identify two or three key authors (if he doesn't remember them from OB), and their main works. He could read those, and immediately have refreshed his existing knowledge about power. Add in a couple of other things that impact on power (maybe leadership ? again taken from OB), and he is done. The trick, if there is one, is to build on what you know rather than learning something completely new² (unless, of course you are really interested in the specific issue).

Alternative, Amit could look at the issue of incrementalist approaches to strategy in his group. Drawing on the readings he is doing in another class, most of his theoretical background is complete ? it's just a matter of making sense of his experiences, thus far, in those terms. i.e. Why does he value one over the other.

Of course, if something of particular interest to you, say mental maps, then do that. Both readings are good starting points and other can be found; I was pleased to hear two students talking about this, and one guided the other to a specific book that introduces the the topic.

¹ As I write this, I'm wondering how many essays on power we might now get.

² There is some research that shows that learning something completely new for an assignment results in sub-optimal results.

Took a few hours off from writing new application for ethics approval to see Ben Affleck and Uma Thurman in Paycheck. I quite enjoyed it; but it certainly is in the ironing movie genre. Since we had free tickets, I wasn't too disappointed by it.

Lisa thought the plot was weak, and I tend to agree with her. Not only that but the action sequences were 'over-engineered'. I feel that Jonny Woo's style is showing its age.

Interestingly enought though, it did raise a topic I've mentioned here before of structuralism vs. existentialism. Maybe not in those words, and I'm sure a philospher would debate my use of the terms and their applicability to Paycheck. But, it did look at how much we can shape the future, if the future is know to us. For example, supose a firm has detailed information about its sole competitor, what are the outcomes? And if they know that the other knows, what then? I suspect that game theorists would have a ball (and would consider the films 'logic' to be rather weak too).

I haven't seen The butterfly effect yet, but I image that, like Paycheck it cause me wonder about points of leverage and how little needs to change in order to have a large effect. (The old, if a butterfly flaps its wings in a rain forest it can cause a hurricane on the other side of the world, line.)

Last night, Lisa and I went to see Abigail's Party at the Maidment Studio. As the program says:

North London, 1997 - the year of the Queen's Silver Jubilee. The Sex Pistols are gearing up to blow Donna Summer and Jose Feliciano out of the charts forever. The neighbours have been invited around for a few drinks, maybe a bit of dancing, and if you're lucy, light snobbery, relentless bullying and social humiliation.

Yes, it's a get the guest play. I do enjoy those. Perhaps my chums at ATCP will have some thoughts on that.

We really enjoyed the play. It was very well done.

Two of the players stand out for a special mention. Bernadette Brewer played Beverly. She was wonderfully over the top, and her dress was a feat of engineering. Also, Linda Johns was marvellous as Sue, the divorced neighbour. Her timing and demeanour were perfect.

Whilst we were at the theatre, I bumped into Tony. He was in the first cohort of the BBIM at Tamaki. I was surprised that I remembered his name as it has been over four years since I taught him. He must have completed his degree and be in the first graduating year of the BBIM. That is a great achievement. Well done, Tony. I'll be looking forwar to seeing him cross the stage at the graduation ceremony in May.

Anyway, he seems to be working for Tech Site Services , so I guess the IM part of his degree is paying off.

I've spent a happy few hours merging two weblogs together. At first I thought it would be as easy as changing a few SQL tables.

Alas, that is only half the job. There are also the categories that also need to be redone. Not a straight forward job. Perhaps I should have done some research first - but much of the fun is in finding out.

Anyway, it's done now, and everything seems to be working okay. If there are any problems particularly with entries from before 2004, please let me know.

From: dan margan
Sent: Thu 3/25/2004 22:40
To: p.smith@auckland.ac.nz
Subject: MGMT 301 Assignment 1

Hi Peter, I'm just writing to try and clarify a point about the first assignment due next Friday. We have been asked to make academic links between our groups' behaviour and the literature (scholarly, not textbooks). Does this mean all references must come from journals such as the course readings and other related ones and no text book references at all. Also, does scholarly refer to peer reviewed articles only. If you could clarify these for me I would be very thankful.

Thanks heaps.
Dan

From: "Smith, Peter"
To: "dan margan"
Subject: RE: MGMT301 Assignment 1
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 08:51:04 +1200

Hi Dan,

Thanks for you email and your question it contains. I imagine others have the same question.

I don't remember if it was the first lecture, or the second one, but I do recall taking about depth of understanding and the need to read deeply. I'm always nervous of using examples; too often, in the past, I've given an example only to find that 40% of the class take up that issue, regardless of how fitting the example is to their situation.

With that 'disclaimer', let's look at an example:
The explanation of group think in the stage I text book let's one know that the phenomena exists, but doesn't allow you to 'do' much with it - the text book isn't very helpful in a practical sense. The stage II text book (Organisational Behaviour), goes further and describes it better, but it is still somewhat superficial. So if you think your group, for example, is exhibiting 'group think' then perhaps it would be good to read Janis's original work to get the 'full story' (and maybe read a few articles that draw on Janis). Then, having that deeper understanding, you can more effectively explorer the extent to which your team is exhibiting Group Think.

Does that logic make sense?

It takes a judgement call as to what is scholarly - and part of any degree is reaching an understanding as to why something is scholarly. In general, peer reviewed articles are more scholarly than books. For the purposes, of this assignment you should consider textbooks as being books that have a primary role for teaching (as opposed to other books whose primary role is to report research, as opposed some books that provide a summary of the 'state of the art' (an example of this would be the Handbook of Organization Studies)). Text books are often a good place to start; they should point you to more scholarly works.

I hope all of this helps.

Regards
Peter

A rushed Bibliography (You'd better double check these)

Janis, I. L., (1972). Victims of Groupthink: Psychol