Managing Leadership^®

Yesterday we looked at a perhaps unexpected source of what some of its own members claim is not merely empty – but even harmful – management theory. But that is hardly the most active producer of such problematic thinking. The consulting industry is a far more prolific generator of some of the more inane ideas that have swept the field in recent decades.

And actually, there are two elements to the inanity. One is that utterly fatuous ideas are promoted with the greatest gravity by firms and people of the most prized reputations; and the other is that reasonably good ideas attract massive numbers of consultants desperate to join in on a hit parade, with an unfortunate effect on the reputation of the new model.

Let’s just look at some of the fads – you can decide for yourself which are of merit and which not:

• Business process reengineering
• Just-in-time logistics
• Total Quality Management
• Six Sigma
• Balanced scorecard
• Empowerment
• Knowledge management
• Management by objectives
• Management by walking around
• Activity-based costing
• Benchmarking
• The learning organization

There are obviously many others – if I missed one that has caught your eye for some reason, let us know what it is.

The interesting thing about movements like these is their faddish quality. You would think that a field as burdened with real work of often grave consequences would approach developments in how do or improve business operations with appropriate deliberation and seriousness. But that doesn’t seem to be what happens.

Some of these ideas catch fire. They capture public imagination and their authors become stars overnight. When this occurs, sensing profit, other consultants claim expertise in the area. There are certainly vastly more potential clients desperate to be seen by directors and shareholders as applying cutting-edge thinking than can be handled by the originators of that thinking, so the new entrants easily attract business.

Unfortunately, however sharp and experienced they may otherwise be, many of them are necessarily not as well-versed with the new concepts and the best circumstances and means of their application as the authors. Others, frankly, simply don’t grasp the concepts fully, or even at all, and just adopt the jargon. Some of these distort or redefine the fad to fit their standard method of work.

The result is that a lot of these management models lose definition, or their poor presentation and application undermine what may actually be a deserving idea. Consequently, interest wanes. And what could have been a decent contribution leaves a vacuum, soon to be filled by another due for the same fate. In other words, for whatever reason, it has become a fad, and has set the stage for the next.

But some really are effective ideas. Or, they may contain useful elements, or simply point to promising avenues of investigation.

What happens to those?

—

Today’s tip: Speaking of business trends, here’s one that routinely survives the fad wars: networking. Although it, like everything, is influenced by them. Please see this WSJ column by Joann Lublin on how to stand out in troubled times.

—

Want to read articles from the Encyclopedia Britannica for free? Take a moment to scroll down the sidebar on the main site a bit: right below my current readings you will see a dynamically renewing box pointing to articles on capitalism from the Britannica. These are typically available only by paid subscription, but if you click through to an article from here, you will be able to read it for free. Try it!

And speaking of subscriptions, ours here are always free! Why not subscribe by email or RSS reader now?

Technorati Tags: management, consulting, industry, consultant, process reengineering, Just-in-time, Total Quality Management, Six Sigma, Balanced scorecard, Activity-based costing, Benchmarking, learning, organization, work, business, consultant, expertise, director, shareholder, networking, WSJ, Joann Lublin