Complexity, Innovation, Knowledge and Learning: A quantum interpretation of management

Don't be trapped in dogma's, even not in management dogma's

A former student of mine mailed me the link to Steve Job's Stanford Commencement Speech 2005. And since coincidence does not exist, last week I participated in the Dalai Lama's teachings in France. It is striking how much great minds meet each other in the way they think, they believe and they operate.  Job's indeed summarized his speech saying certainly not to believe in dogma's, of any kind, and I add: also not in management dogma's.  And management dogma's we have.

Jobs asked to trust that the "dots" eventually will connect down the lane. As long as we love what we do, that is what keeps going, and that is what makes one realise great things. We should keep searching until we find. Imagine for a moment that this would be the last day of your life. Is what you are doing now, really what you would like to do on the last day of your life.  If not, change it.

Things have no meaning in themselves.  There is just a sequence of events, and it is our mind that gives precisely the meaning it wants to give to those events (a very free interpretation of the Dalai Lama's ideas, I admit). If you love what you do, you will give events that positive outcome that they deserve.

Turning a dogmatic management school curriculum into a stakeholder curriculum, sustainable, social, entrepreneurial, giving students the attitude of and focus on value creation, is most probably one of the challenges that most business schools are confronted with. To give some ideas to kick it off, I'd like to refer to an article of David Cooperrider "Sustainable Innovation".

Spiritual capitalism

Spiritual capitalism might sound like yet another new age concept, but it is not. It does get increasingly attention of managers and management thinkers, since growing evidence shows that "meaning" in business clearly contributes to happiness, and happiness contributes to the famous bottom line. Ode (June 2008), published an article on "Buddha in the boardroom", and though meditation as a practice causes increasing managerial performance, it does not need to go that far from the very beginning.

I would like to paraphrase Rakesh Khurana, in his book From Higher Aims to Hired Hands. He describes how business schools first emphasized that managers should carry out their work in ways beneficial for society. Later, this was replaced by a preference for disciplinary knowledge.  Finally it was replaced by a market logic that regards business education as a marketable commodity, rather than a professional education.  And that is where we are: we pay the price for turning a genuine stakeholder focus into a jungle like shareholder approach. But we do not have a lot of theoretical evidence for doing that.

Often we refer to Adam Smith as the godfather of our present day capitalism. Lloyd Field writes in his book Business and the Buddha, that Smith presented a moral philosophy: the average man and woman, along with the society in which they lived, should be the primary beneficiaries of a wealthy nation. Where the theories are there, practice proves to be more difficult.  As Khurana suggests: most of us are in the habit of thinking in a linear fashion. And spiritual capitalism (Carleen Hawn in Ode), based on collective consciousness, is consequently not a zero sum game, but a holistic approach to business that's quickly becoming more - much more - than the sum of its parts.

According to Paul Versteeg (director Allianz Netherlands Insurance Group) they attempt to resolve their client's emotional and psychological issues about money. A good salesperson should be able to "hear" their customers' hearts, and in order to be able to do that one should be able to listen to your own heart.

Isn't that an important lack in our business school education? The contribution to the bottom line increasingly comes from happiness in the company, motivation, healthy conditions in the work environment, etc. Until today, not to mention a few exceptions like my wife Erna Oldenboom, we do not pay attention to all this in business schools.

But for those that are interested to learn more about it, I can invite you for a challenging and academically sound conference: Integrating spirituality and organizational leadership. Hope to see you there.

Complexity theory: where are we?

Last week I participated in the fourth Organization Studies Summer Workshop titled "Embracing Complexity: Advancing Ecological Understanding in Organization Studies", in Pissouri, Cyprus. If interested, I presented a paper titled: The ecology of management: Cassandra, a holistic diagnostic for sustainable performance. One of the keynote speakers was Frederick Turner, and he gave a wonderful overview of the state of the art of complexity, that I want to share with you.

Complexity gives a new view on causality.  It re-introduces freedom, since the universe is not fully deterministic. Keep in mind that unpredictable does not mean unintelligent. Since freedom regains its importance in science, choice, intention and purpose become real issues. Choice might not be so mysterious as we have made it.

Feedback became the norm. Material qualities and abstract physical laws are consequences of feedback and not the other way round. Even based on positive feedback, complex systems can be very robust. Positive feedback is in no way less robust than negative feedback. Unpredictability is a matter of survival.

We have a new concept of time: time will not go away. Classical science has always made an attempt to rationalize away time. Time is irreducable and irreversible, which gives birth to emergence.

We have a new ontology of recognisable shapes. We have understanding of a new class of shapes: fractals, strange attractors, etc. (in between shapes, strange, entangled, but beautiful shapes). New shapes allow for new questions to be asked.

We have strange attractors instead of dualism. Function and purpose become central issues. The strange attractor (a fractal form) is an ideal form.  New species are strange attractors.  Are values to be considered something different than strange attractors?

Modelling, eventually, needs new tools, that go above and beyond observations, hypotheses, testing, etc. Non-linear dynamic modelling, or fractals, and the like allow to play around with the interactions and to see when and how we visualize reality.  But we still have to learn how to use these tools.

Finally, Turner asked a few questions that I am glad to repeat:

1. What is the role of emotions in the new science (are they the drivers? are they strange attractors?)
2. What is the role of aesthetics?
3. Does promising makes determinism (or is it freedom?)
4. How does intention change the brainstructure?

All these facts and questions, management research has ignored asking for years. But more and more management researchers are concerned with understanding reality.

The future of corporate responsibility

Georg Kell, from the UN Global Compact office, gave in the Global Compact newsletter his view on the future of corporate responsibility. Coming out of an executive seminar of a week about leadership and innovation, for a company that is decided to have a set of sustainable values respected, it show that this is not an easy task.

Today, Corporate Responsibility (CR) is global.  Yes, if we have our T-shirts produced in cheap labour countries, it is our responsibility why we do that, how we do that and what we do with he huge benefits we make on selling those T-shirts at Western prices. It is our responsibility to decide whether we want to focus on the shareholder value, or on a stakeholder value, and then, who are my stakeholders and how do I serve them. It is indeed a difficult balance to strike between societal expectations and market imperatives. I do not want to make a post around the Olympic Games and Tibet: it is such an open door.  If you give the Olympics to China, you have to know who you give it to and not fall out of the air years later about the values of that country. With some smile I recall how the Olympics in Moscow were boycotted in 1980, since they invaded Afghanistan.  Life has changed, or is it economy that has changed and globalisation that struck?

As Kell says, global integration has triggered convergence around values and principles. The questions are on the table today, even though they remain difficult to determine and even more difficult to choose for.  But it seems that the next generation of top managers is at least more sensitive to values.  That is the good news; or is it just my way of seeing the sunny side of the street.

The nature of enterpresis risk and reward is changing. Maybe by accident (but those that know me, are aware that chance does not exist), l'Expansion of April 2008 published a study about the French investment abroad, in fact opposing China to India: the Indian eldorado is not going to wait for the French (is the title). According to Dominique Hoeltgen (in Mumbai) the Indian market is more promising than the Chinese one. The many subtitles suggest that the Indians are going fast now, are aware of their potential and the French (Michel Lemaire, Nexans) should stop focussing on China before it is too late. But is there also a difference in values and corporate responsibility (or not). The article does not shed light on this, but it warns the French companies. Some homework needs to be done here.

And of course, non financial reporting is on the rise. But how are we able to translate values and corporate responsibility into managerial concepts and day to day action. A shareholder approach is straightforward: no room for values or responsibility. A stakeholder view is difficult to define and implement, but it is sustainable.  Beyond reporting, the issue is one of shifting attention to sustainability, for the better of both the economy and the society.

Science: the newest religion ?

Recently, the French parliament received the (annual) update of the commission on sects. An impressive original document that already dates from 20 years ago, and an equally impressive list of sects (according to them). Most of us will certainly agree that some unfortunate experiences with sects (the Manson-Tate example) that caught the media, should make us wonder.  But since we are not courageous enough to deal with the real sects, and since we think only the parliament can make the distinction between sects and non-sects, we start to make rules and lists.

What is a sect? Wikipedia clearly sees it in the realm of religion. And interestingly: "deviating from orthodox practices".  So, there are those that are mainstream and therefor correct, and those that are deviating, and therefor a sect.  The organisation for religious tolerance (whatever that might mean), cites Leo Pfeffer, saying "if you believe in it, it is a religion; if you do not care one way or another, it is a sect; but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult". Though Pfeffer seems to have great reputation, his definition seems dangerous to me (but who am I?)  And who is the organisation for religious tolerance; they might be a sect, who knows.  I do not care about them one way or another; hence they fit Pfeffer's criteria. I am sure you start to get the point.

Ode summarizes an article on the Tiranny of Science of Frank Furedi. Science seems to tell us how the world works, but to decide what those discoveries mean, we need moral and philosophical debate.  And yes, that is not Cartesian for sure. The language of right and wrong has been replaced by the phrase "the research shows".  At least: the mainstream research shows, since that is what gets published. And recall: the mainstream is correct, the deviating is a sect.

Certain parts of good old Europe, and France is definitely part of that, has for one or another reason felt that they should ban religion, and in the same line "spirituality" from life. It is encouraging to see courses like "spirituality and leadership" (Vargas-Brazil), or "spirituality and management" (IIM-Bangalore, India) on the curricula of good and accredited business schools. Is that what we call BRIC?  Probably not, praise God (I start messing up everything). In Europe, we want to claim supremacy around corporate social responsibility and/or sustainable development, or ethics, but we forget that in order to make those topics naturally acceptable, it should be part of the managerial paradigm.  If we do not accept that everything and all are intimitely connected (systemic, indeed), then all those slogans become vague.  And by the way, the spiritual dimension of things specifically deals with that profound interconnectedness of people and their environment: nothing more, nothing less. It is in fact the "what for" question.  I am sorry if this is disappointing for some of you.

It would be good if people would be able to make the distinction between spiritual development of the individual and whatever role religion is playing. In the best of its interpretation some religions have developped a ritus to support people in their spiritual development.  But in the worst of their actions, they have developed an institute that is in for power and manipulation (the nazi's that thought "Gott mit uns", or Bush who asks God to bless America, and only America; and of course, I am not going to talk about Opus Dei). But in the same organisation you find people that are seeking that profound interconnectedness (Daens, Dom Helder Camara, Mother Theresa, just to cite a few known figures).

Is science the newest religion? Is it a powerhouse with ranks, promotions, mainstream (the orthodox) and dissonants (the sects?). Is it rituals, that we agree on, and that make us part of the group? Or should science finally start investigating the exploration and discovery of that interconnectedness. For sure, some scientists are already doing that, but unfortunately they are sometimes considered by the others as a sect.  Science investigates facts, not meanings.  And indeed, mainstream science is unable to research meaning. But that does not make meaning less necessary, and it does not make researching meaning sectarian.

What makes a house a home? In order to have a house, we need walls, a roof, electricity, plumbing, furniture, heating, etc.  But all that will not help to make a house a home. Try and find out what makes a house a home, and you will discover what spirituality is all about: nothing to be afraid of. 

 

Elephant painting

Just watch this, no further comments.

The spinal cord of the company

For almost one year, I have had an awfull pain in my left arm. It started slowly February last year and culminated in the summer.  On a flight back from LA (where we visited the IONS annual conference) I was literally crying.  I went through the classical medical pathway, RX, electro research of the arm, scanner, MRI, etc. All of it.  And indeed, they could observe that the nerve of the left arm was completely inflamed.  Only solution: cortisone.  And of course it improved; and of course it came back. Next step: injection of cortisone in the spine.  And there I stopped.

Those that know me, are aware that I am an ayurvedic massage therapist (also, yes). And once more I wondered why I did not belief a bit more in it myself.  Hence I went to a chiropractor, and today I am feeling fine again: it is all over.  (Thank you Valerie)

Our spinal cord is essential for our health, both physical and psychological (and sorry for the childish link, but it is clear, isn't it?) It seems that over the years that same spinal cord captures all stress and causes a number of well known back aches. But worse, as in my case, the stress of years not only fixes itself in that spinal cord, but it goes further.

A chiropractor only (what you call only) reprograms the brain.  They retrain it to stop sending out the wrong messages.  A body is a perfect example of a systemic (autopoetic) system.  It re-produces and self-organizes in such a way that is ideal for survival.  It warns you by pain that you should slow down, relax, etc, and the more we ignore that, the more the body is going to give stronger signals.  Then we take pain killers (Cortisone ?) but the body continues to send signals. Until it goes seriously wrong.

And now the company, you didn't doubt, did you. A company, just as much as our body, has a spinal cord.  That spinal cord captures all the stress of the body (the company): a company that equally is a perfect example of an autopoetic system.  It seeks reproduction and selforganisation with one aim: survival, the long term hence (and yes, not the highest shareholder value). The company sends out signals of pain, of warning, of suggested improvement, but if the management does not want to see them, that stress is going to fix itself in the corporate spinal cord. And at the end, the company, that has ignored for years the signals, is going to be completely "sclerolised". Drugs don't help anymore, we really need a thorough reprogramming. Stress is today a serious issue in many of our companies.  Do we recognise the emergence of the phenomenon? And do we see what role we play ourselves in this?

And a last question: What is the spinal cord of the company ?   

Leaders need Salsa

Not my words, but those of Juana Bordas (Salsa, Soul and Spirit).  She gave an interview in my favourite Ode. According to her, politicians and business people need to spice up their management styles (he, maybe somebody who understands Sarkozy?) She argues for diversity, sharing, and in general a focus on "we" and not on "I". I don't know whether she also suggests that the leaders need the fire of salsa dance (or flamenco dance, to stay within my own interest).  You know that seminars are organised, using for instance argentina tango as a metaphor for leadership?

In the same Ode, an interview of French psychiatrist Christophe Andre about happiness. By the way, meaning and happiness are not the same thing.  So where Andre gives the recipe for a happy life, it is not yet a recipe for a meaningful life.  But a meaningful life might well lead to happiness.  Choose where to start. If you want some help, you might want to have to look at Erna's blog. 

His six lessons for a happier life:

1. Accept that there will be unpleasant things in life.  All the time, every day, you'll face hindrances: You'll be too late or make a mistake or say something stupid.  It's the rent you pay to live in the house of life. It's part of life. There's no point in being disappointed when things don't go your way.

2. Open your eyes and look around. There are more opportunities for happiness than you think, certainly for a Westerner in 2008. Embrace the moments.  Try to remember them.  Enjoy them.

3. Take time out.  The ability to pause, mentally as well as in your actions, is important.  Taking breaks is a prerequisite for experiencing happiness.

4. Pay attention to your family and friends. Social ties are important for happiness. Don't let a day go by without thinking of, or seeing, someone you love.

5. Try to get in touch with nature every day.  Take a walk in the park and spend a few minutes looking at nature.

6. Express your gratitude and respect for the good things you experience.  Being thankful makes you happy and increases the chance of social connection.

And if not yet interested, happiness does contribute to the bottom line.

A better business model

First of all an ode to "Ode".  Ode is a very interesting, fresh and meaningfull magazine. According to his founder and editor, Jurriaan Kamp, a magazine for intelligent optimists.  It believes in progress, ongoing opportunities and the creativity of humankind. They claim to offer their readers the chance to link up with an international network of inspiration and cooperation, strengthening the forces devoted to respect, justice and equality.  In doing so, they hope to invite their readers to make their own contributions to a more just and sustainable world.  It exists in an English and a Dutch version. Hehe, refreshing and exciting I would say.

In the Jan/Feb issue Muhammed Yunus, 2006 Nobel Peace Prize and founder and managing director of the microfinance institution Grameen Bank, gives some insight in how we could move away from the narrow interpretation of capitalism we believe in. In this narrow interpretation, we create a one-dimensional human being to play the role of entrepreneur. We insulate him from other facets of life, such as the religious, emotional, political dimensions. He is dedicated to one mission in his business life: to maximize profits.

He invites us to be brave, recognizing that this is because of the failure to capture the essence of a human being in our theory. Most people take pleasure in helping others.  Our eyes are blind by the theories taught in our schools. Social business entrepreneurs: entrepreneurs in the non-for-loss business; they do make profits, but they all do it for a societal purpose. A social business entrepreneur is in for adding real value to markets, countries and people.

He suggests interestingly to start producing what he calls social MBAs. Social Business Entrepreneurs need to develop their own norms, standards, measurements, evaluation criteria and terminology.  This can only be achieved by creating a separate stock market for social business entrepreneurs.  Interesting and challenging.

Work should be like a game; just like learning

As coincidence doesn't exist (recall, a quantum reality), Le Monde of this Saturday February 2 writes about Google: "At Google, work becomes like a game". The article reiterates the observations I made in my previous post: healthy food, massages, a fifth free experimentation day, etc.

In l'Express of last week (24-29 January) Bill Gates wishes president Sarkozy that he would understand the importance of education and would invest more (all) in it. But what kind of education? Does France need more ENAs (Ecole National d'Administration) or more enterpreneurship?

And at the same time I get an evaluation of one of my courses, in which I try to give my students another paradigm, based on a quantum interpretation of business and complexity theory.  Not something what somebody would call "sectarian", but in France, some do. According to some French (apparantly) Nobel prizes are given to sects. I have to admit that most of the evaluations were rather good, but that one did trigger me.

In Canopee, a French magazine on nature, discovery and ecology, I read an interview with Vandana Shiva who says that "ecology is profoundly linked to spirituality".  Without the spiritual dimension, according to her, one becomes an ecological technocrat, untouchable by the pain that mismanagement causes. Good news, I am not alone.

I do not only wish Sarkozy to invest seriously in education, I wish him to invest in learning, from the very begining (primary school) onwards.  Learning should be fun and have a larger purpose than only making carreer (and money). And in order to support him, I wish him parents that would not be traumatised about sects.  What Al Qaida is for the US, sects seem to be for France. Not everybody who doesn't agree with the US foreign policy is a potential Al Qaida member; it is not a choice of being with or against "us". Equally, not everybody who is searching for meaningfulness in life and work is a member of a sect.

Science and the taboo of Psi

Dean Radin gave beginning January a lecture on Science and the taboo of Psi for Google. Interesting stuff, as you can imagine.  But equally interesting are some observations of Dean about Google. Google is rated as one of the best places to work.  They have free (gourmet) food available, 24/7, lots of snack bars (with healthy food) scattered around the campus, free massage at work during the work day, a meditation room, etc. Amazing is it? Or isn't it. Should we just start opening our eyes for things that we know already for a while in science and just start applying them in our business environment ?

Knowledge Management needs a different philosophical perspective

I have started again with my most favorite course (Knowledge management and management learning: the biology of business) that I am doing together with my wife Erna. For the students, the first few powerpoints are available on the readings page. At the same time I have taken over from a colleague the fundamental in Management in Complexity, a course that I have been doing for a number of years but stopped a few years ago.  In fact, my book "Organisational learning and knowledge technologies in a dynamic environment"  (1998) was the first version of my course book. It has evolved ever since.

I understood better that knowledge is less of a technological matter (though that was already argued in that book).  It is more about the purpose of business, the network of cooperating people (that are willing to share and co-create) and above all of a different philosophical perspective.

I can suggest a very interesting article in that respect of Ed Weymes (Waikato Management School): A challenge to traditional management theory.  According to him, the historic and possibly arcane purpose of business, to maximize shareholder wealth, is no longer a relevant proposition.  It is according to him timely to reflect on the purpose of business as adding value to society and rejecting the focus on accumulation of personal wealth.

Knowledge-creating enterprises (according to Ed) are founded on the development of sustainable relationships within the organisation and with stakeholders and thus require a different philosophical perspective.

Slow Management

Does management need to be at any price "fast": a constant stream of decisions that merely suffice to get us by until the next crisis. I use the words of Derek Cheshire, in his article "Slow Innovation". For those interested in his challenging ideas, they can consult his blog (that I also put in the list of interesting blogs in my readings page). I would like to elaborate on some of his ideas.

He uses slow innovation as opposed to fast innovation, and he refers to the fast food industry.  What is the difference between fast food and slow food? In the managerial world, there is a huge pressure to deliver "results" fast, and therefor we need to take decisions fast. But with fast food we know what we loose: the pleasure of sharing our food and a nice moment together. We no longer enjoy food and we do not give it the time necessary for its nutritional role that is primarily contributing to our health. The quality of fast food is highly questionable; there is a clear addictive effect (it asks for more); that "always more" works highly toxifying. We indeed seem to go from crisis to crisis, and they only become more severe.  I am afraid the fast food metaphor is a correct one for fast management.

The word "value" dropped already.  Cheshire refers to value when he defines innovation: a blend of creativity and knowledge (or know how; probably the enacted cognition concept of Varela would do very well here).  As a business concept, innovation is sought to create value.  I would say, management and business is about creating value and that is not something that goes fast.

When value creation would become again the main purpose of business, business will have to slow down.  And what we have most probably seen while business has been speeding up over the last decade, was the end of value creation. Management no longer cared for value creation.  Instead we created money and we managed numbers.

Today we arrive in a split.  We know it goes too fast; we know we are exploding the use of our natural resources and we are polluting our planet in an unacceptable way. We know we have to change: we all start talking about sustainable development, corporate social responsibility, even ethics.  But we do not have the concept, the paradigm that gives that manager that is willing, the tools to manage slower. That is the real challenge for business today and of course it is the same challenge for Business Schools today.  Can we make a shift to a slow food society and can we become aware again that we are here to create value, value for all, and not money for few.

To use a last time Cheshire's words: "In the world of slow, there will be less waste as there's time to be more resourceful and to use materials already available."

Our progress in applying the Global Compact principles in the School

As you know, adhesion to the Global Compact program of the UN requires an annual report on the progress that the School (the company) makes concerning the application of the Global Compact principles.  Our 2006-2007 report is ready in French and can be consulted.

The Mediterranean Union

Thursday I had the honour to have Prof Bishara Khader as a guest in my Euro-Mediterranean Management course. He gave a wonferfully clear and insightful presentation on the Mediterranean Union, Sarkozy's latest idea for the Mediterranean region.  For those that read French, and in parcular at least for all my students, mandatory literature.

Innovation: thanks, you are "done"

Busy few weeks, so I am not able to write an "intelligent" post. Our MBA program started in Marseille; our MBA program in Shangai starts tomorrow; I had my scientific council; the Euromediterranean Management Approach course started again (and can soon be followed via the Wikis of the students, accessible via the discussion page of my blog). But I want to share with you a story that I recently heared and that is typical for innovation.

A person is asked for an interim job in a company, in order to innovate a complete division (that is in trouble for years). A creative an undertaking person as he is, he succeeds (to the surprise of some and to the joy of many) in a year's time to get the division out of the red figures.  People are motivated again (we sometimes forget it, but that is of course the clue for all change and improvement, not the numbers), the results are coming, and the entire company appreciates his efforts.  A member of the board even suggests that it would be a good idea if he would join that board.  And indeed, why not.  Invited by his boss a few weeks later, he even gets a haircut before, buys a new suit, since he thinks they might want to talk about another (board) position.

The immediate boss congratulates the guy and then says: good job, "you are done now". The guy, who sees many more possibilities for further improvement and innovation answers: of course not, we could go much further.  But his boss repeats that "he is done".  The guy did not understand and asks what he precisely means.  Simple, that you are finished with your assignment. The guy recalls that he has a contract for one more year and to his astonishment the boss responds: we will pay you for that additional year, don't worry, but you are done now. Thanks.

You will not belief this, but the same person gets another assignment, elsewhere, and he gets exactly the same experience. He is just a creative and innovative entrepreneur, nothing else.

Despite the fact that many companies ask for innovation managers and creative intrapreneurs, many companies are just not ready for it. And once the success is coming, the company moves back to "business as usual": we manage the figures. As long as we define innovation as a procedure to create innovative products or services, and intratrepreneurs as risk loving creators that have limited managerial skills, innovation will remain a very theoretical concept.  We will decrease the CO2 emission of our cars with 1% per year, at a high R&D cost, but we will never find a solution for sustainable transportation systems.

Innovation is a state of mind, a learning process, that is a never ending story of creation and interaction. For those interested, I have edited a book around this view on innovation, together with a number of my PhD students that I have had.

Is peer review to decline?

Glenn Ellison (MIT and NBER) published a paper in 2007, titled "Is peer review to decline?". The author suggests three possible reasons for his observation that economists of high ranked economic department seem to avoid publishing in top economic journals. A positive interpretation could be that more talent (of less reknown institutes?) pushes out the publication ratio of the top institutes. Another suggestion is that journals need too much time for reviewing and therefor they become less interesting to publish in.  Allow me to observe that it are often the same top economists that are the reviewers for these top journals, hence they would cause themselves the problem they would suffer from. I think therefor this second cause is not necessarily a realistic one.  Having said this, it does suggest that there is an inner crowd, where the "peers" review the "peers". The third suggested reason is that the overall quality of the journals would decline.  In my opinion, this does suggest that only top economists of top economic institutes would be able to publish quality, which for me is such an elitist assumption that it can not seriously be true. Within the choice Ellison gives us, I go for the first one (the optimistic one; there is hop, Johanna, ...)

It would not be me if I would not have another suggestion to do.  And what if the only message that Ellison's calculations give us is that where publishing (the numbers) has been the issue for years, maybe eventually the innovative quality of the research would start to matter.  Isn't it true that mainstream economics is hardly innovative, or even relevant according to some (see my earlier posts)? And as long as a limited group of likeminded review the same group of likeminded, innovation in subjects, research methodologies, etc, is far from being granted. Maybe we just witness a slow shift of research that becomes more and more interested in searching and no longer in re-searching (searching what already has been searching, and then finding what already has been found; no surprise). Economics and management science along, could certainly use a bit of new blood, new ideas, new research approaches that are already common place in many of our neighboring sciences, but didn't reach yet the Newtonian economists.

I have learned a new word: evolutionary economists. I hope it will produce some real evolutionary economics. 

Euromed's progress concerning Global Compact

It should have been done earlier, but I have put our UN Global Compact Communication on Progress, concerning the academic year 2005-2006 on line. I hope it can inspire you.

An Islamic MBA

FT.COM mentioned, almost a year ago, the possibility of the creation of an Islamic MBA. I am not sure it ever happened, I am not sure it will ever happen, but I am sure there is a lot to be said about it. MBA education in particular is highly mainstream, with in almost all MBAs around the world a huge common part (that goes far beyond the fundamentals).  There are some options in MBAs, there are some specialised MBAs, but they all perfectly fit the Anglo Saxon mainstream managerial thinking.

Years ago, we tried to do different while creating the Euro-Arab Management School in Granada, Spain.  A project of the Arab League, the European Union and the Spanish Government.  It proved extremely difficult to create an MBA that would at the same time address a large community (hence being mainly virtual) and being culturally relevant for Europe and the Arab world. The school was mentioned in the Barcelona declaration as an example of Euro-Arab cooperation.  In the meantime, it was closed last year. Not since there would not be any interest, but most probably since we are not yet able to define an MBA that is culturally relevant for non mainstream thinkers.

Maybe we should not have an Islamic MBA, a Hindu MBA, etc, but we certainly would need MBA programs that make sense for non Anglo Saxon countries and cultures. And by preference, that do not exclusively address the "happy few". 

As it is in heaven

I recently saw the movie "As it is in heaven".  Maybe I am a bit late, but nevertheless, I want to share with you that I haven't seen such a "nice", "real" movie for ages. There are many interpretations possible of this film, but mine is the power that comes out, if somebody really goes for realising his dream.  Of course there is no doubt a lot about the Swedish society, but I honoustly ignore that. People are real, most probably in a low budget movie, but I would say a high message movie.  If you go for realising your dream, the energy that comes out of that is able to move people, ideas and to really make a difference.