The Charlatan by Bernardino Mei
While there are some very good contemporary thinkers using the ideas of complexity theories and networks inside business, there seems to be a trend of having these ideas being picked up by consultants and authors to be dumb down and misapplied. Here’s an example that popped on my feed recently:
First of all, the author is using the logical fallacy of False dichotomy fallacy. She falsely builds the argument that if a business leader doesn’t agree with her it’s because they’re not “emotionally and intellectually ready.” This also builds a false premise to disregard criticism through Ad Hominem.
The current use of complexity being pitched some consultants is very similar to the nonsense used with “Gamification.” Essentially these gamification consultants told managers that they needed their advice because gamification was a form a generational management. What this means is that the younger workforce coming in was substantially different than the generation managing them, and because of this the new younger employees needed to be managed differently. If management wanted to retain talent and get the best out of these younger employees, then the clueless managers needed to pay for the consultants advice. Gamification then went on using some serious logical fallacies to combine video game design theory with pop psychology to make up cookie cutter solutions that were applicable into any circumstance under the sun.
One of the premises from these gamification consultants was that the younger generations were fundamentally different because they were shaped by technology, or that the world is fundamentally different because of technology. Some of the same people that were “gamification gurus” are now jumping into the bandwagon of networks and complexity to use this same premise and replace gamification (which has fallen out of fashion) with this. Now, this is not to say that the application of complexity is generally flawed, it serves in it’s context. The same way management techniques like The Lean Startup works in its proper context or Six Sigma works in its proper context. What these consultants are doing is creating general rules that supposedly work in every situation and in some cases aren’t even needed.
Look at the post below and tell me if you are a business owner and hire someone to be creative, you’re not looking for them to find an interesting solution you couldn’t accomplish? Either it’s the Renaissance with the Medici hiring artists or the 1950’s advertisement firms: Employers have delegated creative tasks to their employees. This whole “you have to delegate control” is a ridiculous non-issue that may only exist in the most extreme cases of micromanagement which isn’t a general problem but an odd exception.
The reality is that these “network/Complexity enthusiasts” are advocating can actually be quite harmful for the company. What I mean by this is that most employees don’t understand the big picture of how the business model works and the strategies of the company. There are insights that the leaders might have that the general employee does not. There are also insights a manager might have from having either worked on different departments of the company, befriended them, or spoken with them formally or informally. There are issues raised in meetings that may or may not be known by the employee. Even if said employee was a fly on the wall in said meeting he probably lacks the financial, distribution or technological understanding to make sense of what’s going on. Maybe product development doesn’t entirely understand the product proposition to the customers and goes on building features that doesn’t make sense or the sales reps want to pack on a multitude of features that would cost too much money to develop and maintain, etc.
Another problem is you might have some idealist wanting to push in his politics through your company. You delegated the creativity side to some idiot that used your brand to make a political statement, now you isolated half of your customer base, while that employee can be fired, the damaged your brand suffers may be permanent. Your company of widgets looking to supply X need is now being boycotted and loyal and potential customers are looking elsewhere to supply their needs.
This whole “hierarchies are the old and networks are the new” is being taken to the extreme by double digit IQ morons who turn intelligent and useful concepts into mindless catchphrases they use to promote their ill-thought-out management solutions. The real issue is having good ideas being brought down to the level of their own stupidity.
But I’m not necessarily alone with this, Malcolm Gladwell has spoken against an overemphasis of networks and rightly brings up the example of the company Apple:
Another problem with the people promoting the “network/Complexity” solution is that they don’t seem to have actually studied the source material. What I mean by this is that they’re playing a telephone game and using secondary sources at best to build their knowledge. They read a summary of the science of networks/Complexity, use the references in their mind to make sense of it which most likely is giving them a false interpretation of what they read, and then they do their own dumb down summary of the work with their mistaken assumptions and use this to build useless practices while justifying said practices by referencing the network/Complexity science they misinterpreted in the first place.
One example of this is the claim that more networking is better, either the individuals on a network network more, or they expand the network by introducing more individuals. The more interconnected everything is the better everything will be… I cringe when I hear this. Since the video from Malcolm Gladwell brought up Apple, lets see what Steve Jobs has to say about this:
Networks can start seeing a point of diminishing returns in the value they provide the bigger and more interconnected the network is. One of the “great” ideas of these networking/Complexity management advocates was creating open desk offices. I remember hearing people promote this as a wonderful solution because moral will increase by employees becoming more intimate with each other and creativity would skyrocket because they would bounce between individuals. The reality is that it’s a disaster.
https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/new-harvard-study-you-open-plan-office-is-making-your-team-less-collaborative.html
One of the issues with this open desk approach is that complex task productivity drops due to distractions. If an individual is focused on said task and he gets distracted by a coworker, it might take the employee up to fifteen minutes for the mind to be able to focus again on the complex task (assuming no new distractions ensue). The literature I read about this was related to programmers, and how they’re now being given private cubicles that allows them to work uninterrupted.
Another issue with the network is that it can destroy innovation. While there are critical uses of networks, books like The Medici Effect, or Where Good Ideas Come From go over this value of networks, the opposite effect can also be true. If a team of developers knows what other team of developers are doing, they will naturally start imitating each other. Had they been kept in isolation they could have come up with some original solutions. Thus innovation is stagnated.
In summary:
- It’s foolish to let control of the company to be left to the employees without restraints and supervision (you need them to be able to make their own decisions, but these are limited to their side of operation). The average employee doesn’t understand the whole business model or industry and thus misunderstands his value to the company. Management who has a better broad understanding must keep the employee focused and away from creative quests that don’t serve the value offer of the company or jeopardizes the company in other ways.
- Hierarchy and networks aren’t a dichotomy on which you have to pick an either or, but they coexist and might be applied in a matter of degrees depending on the context and going for one at the exclusion of another is foolish. Not to mention that the “traditional” business model of hierarchy was created in a time were delegation was necessary by the mere fact that technology didn’t allow micromanagement at the level these charlatans supposedly claim existed.
- Most of the “networking” solutions being offered are counter intuitive to what network science is in reality telling us (think of Steve Jobs and the issue with too much connections in a network, or the disaster or open desk spaces). The people coming up with said practices are most likely reading secondary sources they don’t understand, they continuously break logical rules in their arguments, and most likely are double digit IQ morons with that are bringing down good ideas to the level of their own stupidity.
These management propositions are nothing more than new charlatans that could be places on the contemptuous catalogues of the useless dreamers and imposters of the world.