On the other hand, I did for the most part like his book, co-written with Larry Bossidy, “Execution.” Putting all this together with your review of “Leaders at all Levels” and your comment above about sensing a change in the wind in this regard, it’s clear I need to read this new book. So, on the list it goes.

It’s difficult to get people all worked up about grounding their succession planning in the training and development of entry-level managers, but maybe this, as you say, is an indicator of movement in that direction.

As for using the military as a guide for business, the example you give is right in the ballpark of the sort of way I agree that it can be usefully done. My main concern is using military captains – especially premodern “warrior-kings” – as models for CEOs. The military organization, though, is worth study by civilian management. And I’m with you all the way on this one: no one does “succession planning” from the ground up like the military!

I guess the main point of this rather long response is that I’m encouraged to hear your sense of promise about this development as promoted by Charan – I look forward to reading the book – and thanks!

That would be wonderful for companies and developing leaders alike. But if we start now, we’re looking at a generation before the model really takes hold.

On a slightly different note, you’ve written about how corporations seem intent on taking the wrong things from the military. The idea of learning on the job, developing those under you, and taking occasional educational assignments would be a good thing to take.

“Those pesky people” – yes, that seems to be a real problem for many of these types, and one they work hard to resolve, either by simply not factoring them in to their calculations, and then retaliating against them for upsetting their planning, or by offering putatively hard-nosed “this is business” style explanations for their thoughtlessly disruptive – even reprehensible – management initiatives, often followed by punitive reassignments of those who “don’t get it” or layoffs.

This sometimes (far too often) describes those who have fully bought in to the hype about themselves promulgated by many of these institutions. Most, though, decent enough sorts, are able ultimately to see that their solutions are insufficient to the full range of factors playing on them – those pesky people – and have to spend some time unlearning and then relearning how to be a manager. At this point, it is unfortunately not at the bargains in time and cost that you could have offered had you gotten ahold of these people first. This reeducation also comes at a cost to their careers, and even to the organization.

Your apprentice model, enlivening Joe’s formula, is such a great approach. But what high-speed academic at which top-drawer school could make a glamorous career promoting it? It seems we’re left with appealing to managers’ common sense, and trying to help them ground their decisions in real work and real results. It’s a tough struggle against those who have captured an elitist cache while offering what we all want: shortcuts to success.

Thanks for your kind comments about the review!

I love your lead: ” Mainstream notions about management and management training tend to be disingenuously affirmed by torrents of circular logic and self-referential affirmations.”

Years ago, when I was actually hiring management trainees, I thought that the degree was vocational. You learned a bit about accounting and a bit about marketing and a bit about strategy, but nothing that we couldn’t teach you in a tenth of the time for a nano-fraction of the cost.

In the intervening decades, the MBA degree has become a) a ticket to be punched and b) a degree that teaches you how to analyze organizations but not how to manage them. It certainly doesn’t teach you how to deal with all those pesky people who will show up at work every day.