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

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.

Management research: practically irrelevant

The Economist published a challenging article about management research: "Practically irrelevant". The tile speaks for itself. It is observed that business schools (as all other academic disciplines) are evaluated on the quality of research and this according to its academic qualities.  It is published in journals that never ever a business man will read, and I would even suggest more, that also most academics don't read.  How the hell could you read all the publications appearing today? We have indeed created a self-fulfilling prophecy where the volume and the rankings are more important than the contribution. The Economist suggests that while preparing their students for the real world, they research a theoretical world: does academic research contribute anything to business ?

It is AACSB (amongst others) that have refueled the debate (that is an old one anyway). They forget for a moment that it are mainly those accrediting bodies and periodicals like the Financial Times that have an almost extravagant impact on that publications policy.

Academic tradition (as in any discipline) became publish or perish, not contribute or perish. Careers depend on it. The Economist correctly suggest that mindsets need to be undone. It is not about disciplines but about contribution to innovation. And how to rank the outsider; the outsider that is probably really extending the frontiers of knowledge.

I am not convinced that the solution suggested (more implication of business) is the right one.  Since the pharmaceutical companies are sponsoring most of pharmaceutical research it is not surprising that most research goes to diseases of the wealthy world (that can pay the drugs) and not to the most devastating diseases. The problem is career technical (how to succeed an academic career; something which could be managed differently by the business schools) and epistemological (do we really only need rational, quantitative and reductionist research).  The economist puts the finger on that sour spot: quantitative, reductionist research doesn't add a lot to the understanding of human behavior. We know it, but we continue. And at the end of the day, the researcher is inventing an interesting problem that can be researched (technically) but that has no relevance anymore.

We should not become consultants, though, since we have many of them already and they don't contribute necessarily either to progressing a deeper understanding of management. We need another epistemology, searching for non discovered roads yet.  Re-search (searching what already has been searched) can only lead to re-finding (finding what already has been found.

Maybe we should be courageous enough to start searching into a new management paradigm, as was suggested on the Global Compact summit in Geneva, July 2007 (see my earlier post), or during the IONS conference last August in Palm Springs (also see my earlier post).

I agree with the analysis of the Economist, but not with its remedy.  Let us be a bit more courageous and contribute indeed a new conceptual (conceptual indeed) understanding of management practice (and not theory). Most probably, we are not going to find that in our A journals.

Consciousness in Action

From Thursday 9 to Sunday 12 August, the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) held its 12th International Conference: Consciousness in Action, the science and practice of transformation.  If you have some interest in my work, you know how much I appreciate what IONS is working at for many years now.

With their own words: "The Institute is not a spiritual association, political-action group, or a single-cause institute. Rather, we honor open-minded approaches and multiple ways of knowing, bring discernment to our work, and support diversity of perspectives on social and scientific matters. The institute's work is dedicated to transforming contemporary worldviews on the relationship between consciousness and matter. The implications of our empirical research and community education efforts extend far beyond the laboratory and the lecture hall. Indeed, our work speaks to a shift involving humanity's deepest knowing and understanding of ourselves and our universe."

I went there with my spiritual counterpart, my wife Erna, and why not to share a nice picture.

An impressive number of very interesting speakers shared their ideas, but even more so their commitment to the work of IONS. With the risk of leaving out some crucial ones, a little list of those that at least left a strong impression with me.

Of course, the IONS founder and former Apollo Astronaut, Edgar Mitchell. The visionary who understood the importance of better understanding how consciousness works, and this already many years ago. The IONS researchers Marilyn Mandala Schlitz, Dean Radin, Tina Amorok, and Cassandra Vieten. Visionary workers and speakers, that all make an impressive contribution to the world, in making that world a more happy and worthwhile place to live in. Moreover, they are all able to share their commitment with the roughly 1000 participants present in a straight forward and involved manner.

Van Jones on green collar workers and in the inclusion of less favoured youth in the society. Lynne McTaggart about the extreme power of intention and how it influences the world. Hazel Henderson, known from her site on ethical markets, about the impact that all of us might have on how economics behave. And not to forget the life stories of Lynne Twist and Hafsat Abiola. Such nice people that might be real examples for all of us.  They do have an impact on the world, and a real positive one.

Not only was this a very motivating event, for which I would like to congratulate IONS.  Many speakers also highlighted that we really needed another economic model, another theory of the firm and another shared value set amongst managers. A subject dear to me, to which I hope I can continue contributing  and hopefully even in a more impacting way. Is it a dream to have an IONS research program around a paradigm shift in economics and management, a transformation, and is it a dream to have IONS more present and active in Europe ?  I hope not.

Free style brainwashing

A few articles in the recent issue of "Le Monde Diplomatique", discuss the role or the operation of the media in a free society. An interview with Noam Chomsky (Professor linguistics at MIT and famous contributor in the AI debate) discusses brainwashing in a free society. The acquisition of a number of newspapers (Wall Street Journal, Les Echos) by business men that are close to power, highlights the key note role that "communication" plays as an instrument of governments. The interview makes reference to one of Chomsky's books: Manufacturing Consent (authored together with Edward Herman).

Chomsky observes that despite the democratic character of societies like the US, politics do not voice the 75% majority American citizins against the Irak war. Both in the "democratic" Irak and the US the populations agree in vast majority that the region between Israel and Iran should be nuclear weapon free. But it just is not translated into politics. Chomsky questions the true character of a democratic society. And here come the medias in.  When there was no evidence at all for the presence of any nuclear weapans in the dictatorial Irak (evidence gathered by the UN), the "free and democratic" press contributed overwelmingly in the creation of a fear: a fear for a possibility for which we had no evidence at all (and that afterwards indeed seemed to be a large orchestred invention). 

Totalitarian regimes are clear: the press works within very clear and defined limits. The reader knows what he gets (often nothing). The editorial lines of "democratic" newspapers, or more so, democratic TV chains, is more fuzzy. Editorial comments will have to fit non written rules (isn't that the success of the bloggers community ?). That is difficult for the journalist, but that makes it equally difficult for the reader to interpret.

Marie Benilde (in the same issue of le Monde Diplomatique) introduces her article about the influence of the press as follows. She paraphrases Serge Dassault, owner of "Le Figaro" (well distributed, conservative French newspaper): "Why would freedom of speech belong to the journalists and not to the shareholders." And yes, I do not want to wind on for ever about Berlusconi.

Be aware of the "freedom" of information, before you go into action. But action comes, and action for the better of the world this time. I am sure.

When scientists become "crazy"

When scientists become "crazy", we might finally get to the essence of what happens.  Not surprisingly, it are quantum physicist like Einstein, Pauli and others that have invariably asked the real questions about existance beyond the measurable.  I'll devote a specific post on the most exciting conference of the Institute of Noetic Sciences a week ago in Palm Springs CA, but I just want to paraphrase Edgar Mitchell (PhD of MIT and Apollo 14 astronaut; by the way, the founder of IONS).

"... we are working at the most compelling frontier of our time and that is consciousness.  The integration of science and spirituality allows us to understand and give true meaning to our connectedness to the inner self, to each other, and to the Earth".  We might need this, in order to give some sense to ideas around sustainable development, corporate social responsibility and others.

For those that want an easy and attractive start in this journey, there is a site with so called psy games, based on the IONS research, in order to experience some of it, without too much effort. Enjoy it.

An anthropological study of Flamenco in the South of France

I came accross an interesting anthrophological study of Flamenco in the South of France.  It is made by Cedric Pipezan (as a masters thesis), and it is in French.  For those that read French and have an interest in Flamenco, interesting.