What do you think?
Rate this book
Twilight Manager: Il Crepuscolo Del Management: Perché Gli Esperti Di Business Continuano A Guadagnare Milioni E A Sbagliare Tutto?
Don’t go to business school. Study philosophy.Fresh from Oxford with a degree in philosophy & no particular interest in business, Matthew Stewart might not have seemed a likely candidate to become a consultant. But soon he was telling veteran managers how to run their companies. Striking fear into the hearts of clients with his sharp analytical tools, Stewart lived in hotel rooms & got fat on expense account cuisine—until, finally, he decided to turn the consultant’s merciless, penetrating eye on the management industry itself. Alongside his devastating critique of management “philosophy” from Frederick Taylor to Tom Peters, Stewart provides a bitingly funny account of his own days in a management consulting firm. Combining hands-on experience with the theoretical underpinnings of contemporary fads in efficiency improvement, empowerment & strategy, Stewart knows his stuff, & thus he lays bare how little consultants have really done for the business of others—while making a killing for themselves.
442 pages, Paperback
First published August 10, 2009
168 people are currently reading
2427 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 136 reviews
July 12, 2020
The Ideology of Corporate Power
A sentimental aphorism has it that we’re all unique. Not so. Among the almost 8 billion people in the world, the chances that there is someone else who looks like you, talks like you, and even thinks like you if fairly high. There just aren’t that many genetic and cultural variables to ensure the reality of a conceit like uniqueness. But actually meeting a physical or psychological twin is another matter in which the 8 billion works against ever encountering him. Unless, of course, he writes a book and generates a little fame. Then, bingo, we realise our membership in a class, a culture, a generation of more or less replicable people. Someone out there shares our experience and concerns. A miracle.
So, paradoxically, when we have a near-double, we have an identity. Matthew Stewart is proof of my own replicability and confirms my own identity. We share the disappointed aspirations of young academics who find that knowing more and more about less and less is the path down an intellectual black hole. We both spied some hope that there might be a place for intellect in the practical world of business and became management consultants. This proved a way of making a living but ultimately brought us both close to moral bankruptcy. Both of us ended up returning to a sort of quasi-academic environment whence we hurl occasional broadsides at the present representatives of our past lives.
No one pays attention to these broadsides. It’s really not in anyone’s interest to do so because they are meant to undermine that central virtue of modern business life: confidence. Professional confidence (not to be confused with its moral cousin) is the only essential trait of the corporate business executive. Everything else - commercial knowledge, political skills, contacts, etc. - can be either acquired or learned with enough confidence to do so. Confidence makes one a player. Trump is the empirical proof that the world is corporate and is fuelled by confidence. Arrogance is simply unreflective confidence, the highest form of virtue. Most of the 8 billion appear to agree. The hell with them: there is an Other.
Confidence is self-generated; it can’t be instilled or taught. It is the virtue of the Americanised individualist. Confidence is the secular residue of that paramount Christian virtue of faith. You either have it or you don’t. If you’ve got it, flaunt it. And the sure way to lose whatever you might have of it is to question its presence. Ultimately this is what Stewart does in this very well written book on the conceits of not just management consulting but also of the whole ideology of corporate management, which is really a global system of quasi-religious belief and power. For me the similarity of our experiences is toe-curling and I would like to forget about most of them.
Management is a ‘thing’ of the 20th century. No one is quite sure whether it is a coercive or a facilitating thing, or what peculiar substance it might have. But is a thing whose importance increased, not incidentally, with the importance of that other 20th century ‘thing’, the corporation. As a practical matter, it is these two things in which the world has most confidence. We may complain about the corporation and its management from time to time simply because it is involved in so much of our daily lives. But we are confident that their brand names and capabilities will be there when we want them. And we are confident that they will continue to provide us the employment, the career path, and the pensionable wealth that we need to survive.
So to suggest that global confidence in corporate management is misplaced is not going to be a popular message, at least among the already confident. Corporate culture is not primarily concerned with the organisation, production and sale of goods and services, that is to say, economics. Rather this culture is driven by expectations, that is to say, finance - what an entirely imaginary future might yield. This is a world comprised entirely of expectations, unverifiable facts as assertions. Despite their ephemeral nature, expectations are what makes the corporate world tick. Confidence is the mutually agreed upon engine of the corporate economy of expectations. Think big or get lost.
Expectations, of course, are products of the imagination. They are fictions. And like all fictions, they are lies. Expectations are not perceived as lies, however, as long as they are mutually re-enforcing. My lie confirms your lie and vice-versa. At that point our joint lie becomes reality, a context in which we feel comfortable... and, of course, confident. Stewart does a rather comprehensive job of cataloguing those joint lies. Corporate managers lie about their lack of confidence. Management consultants lie about their achievements. But together these lies can generate what everyone needs - greater expectations.
Confidence is not hope. Expectations are not prudent forecasts. Hope recognises one’s incapacity, one’s limitations, one’s vulnerability. Forecasts have at least some reference to cause and effect, action and result. But confidence is directly proportionate to the level of one’s expectations, no matter how absurdly high. Expectations are the social proof of personal confidence. This is a remnant of the Calvinist certainty of faith in salvation as proof of salvation. Management consulting exists functionally to boost expectations to new levels, to spread the faith. This, not any other results or consequences, is what they get paid for. As Stewart points out “this isn’t science; it’s a party trick.” It’s also the new ministry selling salvation in this world rather than another.
The corporation is a competitive market in expectations. Everyone in the corporation is trying to outgun everyone else in the expectation of advancement as a sign of their personal confidence. The more senior they are they more they are hired for just this reason. But the CEO, the department head, the section manager, the team leader, are all vulnerable to the conflicting expectations of those who work for them. Most of these subordinates think they are better than the folk who manage them. This makes expectations a battle field. And as Stewart says therefore, “consultants are selling something other than pure analysis.” In fact they don’t sell anything rational at all.
What they are selling is most often a way out of the gridlock in expectations within a management team. Consultants are the Prussian shock troops called in to tilt that field in the favour of the senior executive who often does feel remarkably like Wellington at the Battle of Waterloo waiting for relief by Papa Blucher. The consultants’ expectations become his expectations; and the lower level griping and sniping are crushed under a mass of analytics and Aristotelian logic. Consultants prove that people don’t know what they should know, don’t know how to act when they get to know it, and resist learning how to act unless threatened. The idea is to build such a formidable fictional expectation that no one dare raise his or her head above the parapet in objection.
In short, consultants are an instrument of power, of coercion, of dominance which has little to do with whatever nominal problem they have been hired to address. Stewart puts the matter less laconically: “The chief message to be communicated [to managers during a consulting assignment], in almost all situations, was that you will be expected to work much harder than you ever have before and your chances of losing your job are infinitely greater than you have ever imagined. As savvy managers understand, consultants are the cattle prods of the modern corporation.” If you not with us, you’re against us and will be condemned to hell. Generalised chutzpah.
Consultants are fired not when an assignment is completed (most would go on forever, other things being equal), but when they have become part of the managerial problem, that is, when they become a threat to the executive who hired them. Consultants may go native as they eventually understand the business and develop a truly informed opinion; they may become a cost liability which is no longer defensible by the client-executive; or they may have simply demonstrated that their contribution to commercial success is as fictitious as their past accomplishments. Whatever the specific circumstances, the underlying reason for ‘breakup’ is the loss, for the moment of their coercive power.
The ideology of management - that there is something ‘scientific’ to the idea of management - persists, however. It is the rational excuse for calling the consultants (or their replacements) back - sooner rather than later. This is the big cultural lie that everyone has an interest in ignoring. Stewart’s summary is hard to beat:
You are not alone, Matt. If we could get all these corporate types to read more literary fiction rather than pretend to manage, everyone would be better off. Until then, we can share our heretical lack 0f confidence.
A sentimental aphorism has it that we’re all unique. Not so. Among the almost 8 billion people in the world, the chances that there is someone else who looks like you, talks like you, and even thinks like you if fairly high. There just aren’t that many genetic and cultural variables to ensure the reality of a conceit like uniqueness. But actually meeting a physical or psychological twin is another matter in which the 8 billion works against ever encountering him. Unless, of course, he writes a book and generates a little fame. Then, bingo, we realise our membership in a class, a culture, a generation of more or less replicable people. Someone out there shares our experience and concerns. A miracle.
So, paradoxically, when we have a near-double, we have an identity. Matthew Stewart is proof of my own replicability and confirms my own identity. We share the disappointed aspirations of young academics who find that knowing more and more about less and less is the path down an intellectual black hole. We both spied some hope that there might be a place for intellect in the practical world of business and became management consultants. This proved a way of making a living but ultimately brought us both close to moral bankruptcy. Both of us ended up returning to a sort of quasi-academic environment whence we hurl occasional broadsides at the present representatives of our past lives.
No one pays attention to these broadsides. It’s really not in anyone’s interest to do so because they are meant to undermine that central virtue of modern business life: confidence. Professional confidence (not to be confused with its moral cousin) is the only essential trait of the corporate business executive. Everything else - commercial knowledge, political skills, contacts, etc. - can be either acquired or learned with enough confidence to do so. Confidence makes one a player. Trump is the empirical proof that the world is corporate and is fuelled by confidence. Arrogance is simply unreflective confidence, the highest form of virtue. Most of the 8 billion appear to agree. The hell with them: there is an Other.
Confidence is self-generated; it can’t be instilled or taught. It is the virtue of the Americanised individualist. Confidence is the secular residue of that paramount Christian virtue of faith. You either have it or you don’t. If you’ve got it, flaunt it. And the sure way to lose whatever you might have of it is to question its presence. Ultimately this is what Stewart does in this very well written book on the conceits of not just management consulting but also of the whole ideology of corporate management, which is really a global system of quasi-religious belief and power. For me the similarity of our experiences is toe-curling and I would like to forget about most of them.
Management is a ‘thing’ of the 20th century. No one is quite sure whether it is a coercive or a facilitating thing, or what peculiar substance it might have. But is a thing whose importance increased, not incidentally, with the importance of that other 20th century ‘thing’, the corporation. As a practical matter, it is these two things in which the world has most confidence. We may complain about the corporation and its management from time to time simply because it is involved in so much of our daily lives. But we are confident that their brand names and capabilities will be there when we want them. And we are confident that they will continue to provide us the employment, the career path, and the pensionable wealth that we need to survive.
So to suggest that global confidence in corporate management is misplaced is not going to be a popular message, at least among the already confident. Corporate culture is not primarily concerned with the organisation, production and sale of goods and services, that is to say, economics. Rather this culture is driven by expectations, that is to say, finance - what an entirely imaginary future might yield. This is a world comprised entirely of expectations, unverifiable facts as assertions. Despite their ephemeral nature, expectations are what makes the corporate world tick. Confidence is the mutually agreed upon engine of the corporate economy of expectations. Think big or get lost.
Expectations, of course, are products of the imagination. They are fictions. And like all fictions, they are lies. Expectations are not perceived as lies, however, as long as they are mutually re-enforcing. My lie confirms your lie and vice-versa. At that point our joint lie becomes reality, a context in which we feel comfortable... and, of course, confident. Stewart does a rather comprehensive job of cataloguing those joint lies. Corporate managers lie about their lack of confidence. Management consultants lie about their achievements. But together these lies can generate what everyone needs - greater expectations.
Confidence is not hope. Expectations are not prudent forecasts. Hope recognises one’s incapacity, one’s limitations, one’s vulnerability. Forecasts have at least some reference to cause and effect, action and result. But confidence is directly proportionate to the level of one’s expectations, no matter how absurdly high. Expectations are the social proof of personal confidence. This is a remnant of the Calvinist certainty of faith in salvation as proof of salvation. Management consulting exists functionally to boost expectations to new levels, to spread the faith. This, not any other results or consequences, is what they get paid for. As Stewart points out “this isn’t science; it’s a party trick.” It’s also the new ministry selling salvation in this world rather than another.
The corporation is a competitive market in expectations. Everyone in the corporation is trying to outgun everyone else in the expectation of advancement as a sign of their personal confidence. The more senior they are they more they are hired for just this reason. But the CEO, the department head, the section manager, the team leader, are all vulnerable to the conflicting expectations of those who work for them. Most of these subordinates think they are better than the folk who manage them. This makes expectations a battle field. And as Stewart says therefore, “consultants are selling something other than pure analysis.” In fact they don’t sell anything rational at all.
What they are selling is most often a way out of the gridlock in expectations within a management team. Consultants are the Prussian shock troops called in to tilt that field in the favour of the senior executive who often does feel remarkably like Wellington at the Battle of Waterloo waiting for relief by Papa Blucher. The consultants’ expectations become his expectations; and the lower level griping and sniping are crushed under a mass of analytics and Aristotelian logic. Consultants prove that people don’t know what they should know, don’t know how to act when they get to know it, and resist learning how to act unless threatened. The idea is to build such a formidable fictional expectation that no one dare raise his or her head above the parapet in objection.
In short, consultants are an instrument of power, of coercion, of dominance which has little to do with whatever nominal problem they have been hired to address. Stewart puts the matter less laconically: “The chief message to be communicated [to managers during a consulting assignment], in almost all situations, was that you will be expected to work much harder than you ever have before and your chances of losing your job are infinitely greater than you have ever imagined. As savvy managers understand, consultants are the cattle prods of the modern corporation.” If you not with us, you’re against us and will be condemned to hell. Generalised chutzpah.
Consultants are fired not when an assignment is completed (most would go on forever, other things being equal), but when they have become part of the managerial problem, that is, when they become a threat to the executive who hired them. Consultants may go native as they eventually understand the business and develop a truly informed opinion; they may become a cost liability which is no longer defensible by the client-executive; or they may have simply demonstrated that their contribution to commercial success is as fictitious as their past accomplishments. Whatever the specific circumstances, the underlying reason for ‘breakup’ is the loss, for the moment of their coercive power.
The ideology of management - that there is something ‘scientific’ to the idea of management - persists, however. It is the rational excuse for calling the consultants (or their replacements) back - sooner rather than later. This is the big cultural lie that everyone has an interest in ignoring. Stewart’s summary is hard to beat:
“The modern idea of management is right enough to be dangerously wrong and it has led us seriously astray. It has sent us on a mistaken quest to seek scientific answers to unscientific questions. It offers pretended technological solutions to what are, at bottom, moral and political problems. It conjures an illusion—easily exploited—about the nature and value of management expertise. It induces us to devote formative years to training in subjects that do not exist. It favors a naïve view of the sources of mismanagement, making it harder to check abuses of corporate power. Above all, it contributes to a misunderstanding about the sources of our prosperity, leading us to neglect the social, moral, and political infrastructure on which our well-being depends”
You are not alone, Matt. If we could get all these corporate types to read more literary fiction rather than pretend to manage, everyone would be better off. Until then, we can share our heretical lack 0f confidence.
October 31, 2010
A highly entertaining read where Matthew Stewart dismantles the Management Consulting industry. For you with experience in consulting, parts of this are hilarious as Stewart chronicles both the imploding of the consultancy he helped create, and the overall history of the industry.
One by one, he tears apart Fredrick Taylor (the father of "scientific management"), Elton Mayo (of the "famous" Hawthorn Effect), Management Consultants, Strategy (as a science), popular Management Gurus, and offers a harsh critique of MBA's in general. His main premises is that "Management" is not a profession on the level with Medicine or Law, however management education through business schools have attempted to professionalize it. And to that end, they have manufactured "science" (in a very non-rigorous and untestable sense), truisms, frameworks, and case studies.
Here are a few highlights. I didn't agree with all that he had to say, but I did enjoy reading it. I was laughing out loud towards the end as he details how his fellow partners are embroiled in litigation with him as he tries to sever all ties. Stewart is genuinely funny, giving characters nicknames such as "The Prince of Darkness", "The Troll," "Dr. Bob" the corporate shrink, and others.
As for management consultants, he had less-than-flattering quotes:
"[C]onsultants often serve not to provide new knowledge to their clients but merely to communicate ideas already formed. In many instances, our work amounted to harnessing work performed in one part of an organization and then packaging it all as our own work for the benefit of another part of the same organization."
I can't speak for all organizations, but I am extraordinarily fortunate to say at ThoughtWorks (my employer) this has never been my case. We are not a traditional management consulting McKinsey style strategy consulting firm, true. However, we do have consulting projects, some the strategic management consulting types. I've seen us bring our outside expertise and influence and avoid acting solely as grease in the wheels. Becoming grease may let others bill lots of money, but isn't very intellectually fulfilling.
Even better, if you have worked in a traditional pyramid style company, (of which ThoughtWorks is very, very, very, very much not) he has this gem to explain it:
"It's like being stuck in a dungeon with a bunch of rats and a giant block of cheese. All the rats keep climbing the cheese, two years at level one, two years at level two. The threes shit on the twos and the twos shit on the ones, and everyone shits all the time on the rats at the bottom. All they care about is rat-face-time. As in, please-sir-would-you-stick-your-rodent-butt-closer-to-my-face time. You keep going up until one of the other rats bites your ass off."
Up or out. Several friends of mine elsewhere have shared this is a fairly accurate description.
Strategy. He also tears apart Porter and his Five Forces [3]. Stewart claims all business strategists describe strategy in hindsight (not so useful if you want to implement "strategy" for, you know… the future). I have a little bit of a hard time accepting that all of modern strategy is hogwash, as instead I think while bounded in utility, different frameworks help one to position a problem and look for solutions in diverse ways.
Due to business schools' roots in Taylor, Mayo and others that he sequentially defuses of all credibility, the author also suggests that the fundamental underpinning of MBA's are shaky. The academic and scientific rigor is weak, and the content is easily grasped by otherwise intelligent people.
"After 100 years of fruitless attempts to produce such a discipline, it should be clear that [Business Management] does not exist. preparing managers to manage, in fact, is not different from preparing people to live in a civilized world. Managers to not need to be trained; they need to be educated. And for that purpose, although a certain amount of study of business-related subjects may prove useful, the business schools as they are presently constituted are at best superfluous."
A jaded view? Yes. But also very fun. The best parts is the parallel narrative that progresses through the book about his firm. I didn't talk about that much, because I don't want to spoil anything, but it is very fun. Especially, when their acquiring company's CEO steps down because he wishes to promote full time his beliefs in UFO's and alien-human technology transfer. Serious. [4] This guy had a crazy consulting journey, and has a great style of writing about it.
If you are interested in this book, first read his article on The Atlantic [1], which gives you a taste of the content here. Second, check out the WSJ book review [2], by Philip Broughton, author of a similar book that I recently read.
[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/a...
[2] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001...
[3] Michael Porter, of Harvard. Father of the 5 Forces, which are: (1) the bargaining power of suppliers, (2) the bargaining power of buyers, (3) the rivalry among existing firms, (4) the threat of new entrants, and (5) the threat of substitute products. Extremely influential, he also advocated all strategy aims for a single, measurable goal: excess profits. (Unsurprisingly, Stewart takes criticism of this).
[4] http://articles.sfgate.com/1999-01-09...
And, please share with me your comments.
One by one, he tears apart Fredrick Taylor (the father of "scientific management"), Elton Mayo (of the "famous" Hawthorn Effect), Management Consultants, Strategy (as a science), popular Management Gurus, and offers a harsh critique of MBA's in general. His main premises is that "Management" is not a profession on the level with Medicine or Law, however management education through business schools have attempted to professionalize it. And to that end, they have manufactured "science" (in a very non-rigorous and untestable sense), truisms, frameworks, and case studies.
Here are a few highlights. I didn't agree with all that he had to say, but I did enjoy reading it. I was laughing out loud towards the end as he details how his fellow partners are embroiled in litigation with him as he tries to sever all ties. Stewart is genuinely funny, giving characters nicknames such as "The Prince of Darkness", "The Troll," "Dr. Bob" the corporate shrink, and others.
As for management consultants, he had less-than-flattering quotes:
"[C]onsultants often serve not to provide new knowledge to their clients but merely to communicate ideas already formed. In many instances, our work amounted to harnessing work performed in one part of an organization and then packaging it all as our own work for the benefit of another part of the same organization."
I can't speak for all organizations, but I am extraordinarily fortunate to say at ThoughtWorks (my employer) this has never been my case. We are not a traditional management consulting McKinsey style strategy consulting firm, true. However, we do have consulting projects, some the strategic management consulting types. I've seen us bring our outside expertise and influence and avoid acting solely as grease in the wheels. Becoming grease may let others bill lots of money, but isn't very intellectually fulfilling.
Even better, if you have worked in a traditional pyramid style company, (of which ThoughtWorks is very, very, very, very much not) he has this gem to explain it:
"It's like being stuck in a dungeon with a bunch of rats and a giant block of cheese. All the rats keep climbing the cheese, two years at level one, two years at level two. The threes shit on the twos and the twos shit on the ones, and everyone shits all the time on the rats at the bottom. All they care about is rat-face-time. As in, please-sir-would-you-stick-your-rodent-butt-closer-to-my-face time. You keep going up until one of the other rats bites your ass off."
Up or out. Several friends of mine elsewhere have shared this is a fairly accurate description.
Strategy. He also tears apart Porter and his Five Forces [3]. Stewart claims all business strategists describe strategy in hindsight (not so useful if you want to implement "strategy" for, you know… the future). I have a little bit of a hard time accepting that all of modern strategy is hogwash, as instead I think while bounded in utility, different frameworks help one to position a problem and look for solutions in diverse ways.
Due to business schools' roots in Taylor, Mayo and others that he sequentially defuses of all credibility, the author also suggests that the fundamental underpinning of MBA's are shaky. The academic and scientific rigor is weak, and the content is easily grasped by otherwise intelligent people.
"After 100 years of fruitless attempts to produce such a discipline, it should be clear that [Business Management] does not exist. preparing managers to manage, in fact, is not different from preparing people to live in a civilized world. Managers to not need to be trained; they need to be educated. And for that purpose, although a certain amount of study of business-related subjects may prove useful, the business schools as they are presently constituted are at best superfluous."
A jaded view? Yes. But also very fun. The best parts is the parallel narrative that progresses through the book about his firm. I didn't talk about that much, because I don't want to spoil anything, but it is very fun. Especially, when their acquiring company's CEO steps down because he wishes to promote full time his beliefs in UFO's and alien-human technology transfer. Serious. [4] This guy had a crazy consulting journey, and has a great style of writing about it.
If you are interested in this book, first read his article on The Atlantic [1], which gives you a taste of the content here. Second, check out the WSJ book review [2], by Philip Broughton, author of a similar book that I recently read.
[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/a...
[2] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001...
[3] Michael Porter, of Harvard. Father of the 5 Forces, which are: (1) the bargaining power of suppliers, (2) the bargaining power of buyers, (3) the rivalry among existing firms, (4) the threat of new entrants, and (5) the threat of substitute products. Extremely influential, he also advocated all strategy aims for a single, measurable goal: excess profits. (Unsurprisingly, Stewart takes criticism of this).
[4] http://articles.sfgate.com/1999-01-09...
And, please share with me your comments.
May 29, 2021
It's a pretty decent book if you can get past the part where he rants.
He attempts to destroy the intellectual underpinnings of the 'science' of management as taught by academics and paperback gurus. He brings in his own experience as a consultant and the implosion of the management consulting firm he helped start.
Would only recommend the following people to read this book:
1. People planning to/getting/got an MBA
2. People planning to get in the management consulting domain.
He attempts to destroy the intellectual underpinnings of the 'science' of management as taught by academics and paperback gurus. He brings in his own experience as a consultant and the implosion of the management consulting firm he helped start.
Would only recommend the following people to read this book:
1. People planning to/getting/got an MBA
2. People planning to get in the management consulting domain.
April 29, 2010
Years ago I had read Tom Peters' "In Search of Excellence". At the time, I thought it was a great book--because it has such a populist slant. Matthew Stewart has lots of things to say about Peters, his books and seminars. Mostly, Stewart claims that "In Search of Excellence" is not based on good research, but instead is based on gut instinct. Much of what Peters claimed--"good" vs. "bad" companies, has turned out to be completely wrong. Another very interesting topic is the value of an MBA degree--Stewart does not think very highly of the MBA programs, and he explains why, in considerable detail.
While I am not a manager, and I have no interest in managing, I found "The Management Myth" to be truly interesting.
While I am not a manager, and I have no interest in managing, I found "The Management Myth" to be truly interesting.
July 22, 2018
For people of a certain age (people about 10 years older than me and younger than me, born between the end of the 70s and the present) business consulting has been mystified into the ultimate prestige job. It turns out that it's a hoax. We should not feel bad about ourselves for not getting that job when we left college. We should feel relieved to have been unscathed by its Faustian logic and parasitic relationship with not only businesses but with our whole modern project of quantification and efficiency. Shepard's book belongs next to Graeber's "Bullshit Jobs" as a first person account of the moral rot at the heart of modern capitalism and a historiography of business consulting as a bullshit profession from Fredrick Taylor to Jack Welch.
November 5, 2010
A good but not a great book that is mildly entertaining because of Stewart's personal experiences in the consulting industry. This book hopefully will persuade some managers and C levels to think twice about paying for consulting "experts" when they could employ their own experts - if they don't already. It was educational and a good review of the theory of management. I do agree that any well educated person has the potential to be a good manager but his assessment of smashing MBAs and their education is not entirely on target in my opinion. It's obvious that he thinks MBAs should have gone back to school for PhDs in finance, economics, or any other field to gain expertise. It seems that he's brushing aside the MBA degree based on a distaste of them acquired while working as a consultant.
April 26, 2018
I really enjoyed this book. The author explores the history and claims of management consulting. He exposes many of the professions most well-loved stories and gurus, including Frederick Taylor, Peter Drucker, and Tom Peters. He criticizes the pseudo-science used to "prove" the worth of management theory and the lack of real research from business schools. The arguments are fairly dense, but persuasive, and alternate with his own experiences as a management consultant, which are dishy and fun to read.
He wrote an article for the Atlantic several years ago that was the basis for the book. It's a great read:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...
He wrote an article for the Atlantic several years ago that was the basis for the book. It's a great read:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...
December 31, 2015
As a management scholar who teaches this stuff I find this book to be highly refreshing. A harsh take on the management consulting industry, the philospher and ex-consultant Matthew Stewart guides us through the many myths that keep the industry going. Stewart deconstructs the modern day gurus like Michael Porter, Tom Peters and Jim Collins showing that in principle their advice is banal at best (e.g., "Gather the best team" - Jim Collins in Good To Great), nonsensical at worst (e.g., "Be a 'Level 5' leader" - Jim Collins in Good To Great) and ultimately cannot be proven either true or false (e.g., Porters ideas about strategy). An interesting read, perhaps a bit one-sided in its criticism.
August 27, 2012
I don't know who you are, but if you live in the business world, you should read this book.
I have worked with many MBAs and people who read books like In Search of Excellence, From Good to Great, Competitive Strategy . . . and take all that stuff uncritically.
And I've worked with other business people who are effective because they are, at bottom, intelligent analyzers and synthesizers of what they read and learn from others. Must of these folks are simply good people who have been well-educated or have educated themselves.
Both groups are going to learn a lot from this book. The first group, I hope, will see that the foundations of what they've been reading are weak indeed; and I think the second group will find confirmations of suspicions they've had about the ideology of business management that surrounds so much of what happens nowadays in corporations, small and large.
So this book by Matthew Stewart blows all that "management theory" stuff up. It is a sustained critique of the ideas of the business management work. Stewart starts with Taylor ("taylorization") and works his way through the likes of Mayo, Ansoff, and on to Drucker, Porter, Peters, and Collins.
Watch out when someone with training in philosophy analyzes your arguments! The critique here boils down to the observation that these guys are great at predicting the past. What it comes down to is that very few of the claims made by the managerial tradition are true hypotheses, and the gurus don't present any real evidence or control groups.
The key chapter is the one on Michael Porter and "strategy." Porter's claim about strategy is that a business can exploit various market inefficiencies. But Stewart shows quite clearly that there is simply no predictive basis offered for the claim.
Elsewhere in the book, there are gems, such as the proximity of Drucker's theory of management to socialism (181-182), the conflict between managers and owners (196, 217), business theory and the anti-intellectual tradition in American life (267) . In the long run, Stewart shows how businesses love the rhetoric of the free market but do whatever they can to create oligarchies and monopolies.
If you read this book, you will see that Romney's claims that his BCG / Bain experience is somehow predictive of his ability to get anything done with the US federal government is probably a crock.
The book ends with an elegant dismissal of the MBA curriculum, and a defense of the liberal arts and the cultivation of "ethos."
Laced through the book are brief chapters outlining Stewart's own experience at a McKinsey spinoff. It is not happy reading. Basically it illustrates an argument sounded many times throughout the book that the management consulting business is about pleasing the customer -- i.e., making CEOs and managers feel good about themselves.
I have worked with many MBAs and people who read books like In Search of Excellence, From Good to Great, Competitive Strategy . . . and take all that stuff uncritically.
And I've worked with other business people who are effective because they are, at bottom, intelligent analyzers and synthesizers of what they read and learn from others. Must of these folks are simply good people who have been well-educated or have educated themselves.
Both groups are going to learn a lot from this book. The first group, I hope, will see that the foundations of what they've been reading are weak indeed; and I think the second group will find confirmations of suspicions they've had about the ideology of business management that surrounds so much of what happens nowadays in corporations, small and large.
So this book by Matthew Stewart blows all that "management theory" stuff up. It is a sustained critique of the ideas of the business management work. Stewart starts with Taylor ("taylorization") and works his way through the likes of Mayo, Ansoff, and on to Drucker, Porter, Peters, and Collins.
Watch out when someone with training in philosophy analyzes your arguments! The critique here boils down to the observation that these guys are great at predicting the past. What it comes down to is that very few of the claims made by the managerial tradition are true hypotheses, and the gurus don't present any real evidence or control groups.
The key chapter is the one on Michael Porter and "strategy." Porter's claim about strategy is that a business can exploit various market inefficiencies. But Stewart shows quite clearly that there is simply no predictive basis offered for the claim.
Elsewhere in the book, there are gems, such as the proximity of Drucker's theory of management to socialism (181-182), the conflict between managers and owners (196, 217), business theory and the anti-intellectual tradition in American life (267) . In the long run, Stewart shows how businesses love the rhetoric of the free market but do whatever they can to create oligarchies and monopolies.
If you read this book, you will see that Romney's claims that his BCG / Bain experience is somehow predictive of his ability to get anything done with the US federal government is probably a crock.
The book ends with an elegant dismissal of the MBA curriculum, and a defense of the liberal arts and the cultivation of "ethos."
Laced through the book are brief chapters outlining Stewart's own experience at a McKinsey spinoff. It is not happy reading. Basically it illustrates an argument sounded many times throughout the book that the management consulting business is about pleasing the customer -- i.e., making CEOs and managers feel good about themselves.
April 18, 2016
A central theme in this book stems from the poignant observation that it's easiest to claim false expertise-or simply to get by without expertise-in subjects where it is difficult to define exactly what comprises expertise.
Author Matthew Stewart earned a doctorate at Oxford in philosophy and then began work as a management consultant at Mckinsey-eventually quitting to work part-time and write 'irrevant' philosophical works but then reentered his consulting world fulltime as a partner at a competing firm. Here, Stewart combines these two worlds by alternating chapters between an amusing (and not entirely self-righteous or flattering) reflection on his real world consulting experience and a criticism of management as taught in business schools. The observations he details in his book are described as 'slightly shocking'. In my opinion this is not because they are merely views outside of the traditional management discourse, but because they probably are also true.
The criticism of management science a la university begins with the argument that management does not generalize and thus isn't a science. One manufacture's operations or retailer's marketing scheme can be as proprietary as the product itself. Stewart compares this with developing a field of technology studies in order to find underlying principles between technologies as disparate as LCD screens, telephones, airplanes etc. Management science is a 'nonfalsifiable tautology' argues Stewart.
The author then looks to the history and founding of the field. Bullet points on wikipedia and on powerpoints in classrooms across the world show that Frederick Taylor is the founder of management science. Despite a brief credibility loss in Harvard circles in the '50s the word Taylorism to this day still connotes rigorous statistical measurement of working operations.
But Taylor was only responsible for pushing the idea of management as a science. The author analyzes Taylor's most famous breakthrough experiment and determines it a fraud. The alleged motivation for the experiment was the need to save costs at a steel company after a dramatic rise in the price of iron, but historical records show the dramatic price change never happened. The amount of workers at the plant was 12 multi purpose hands and not the 75 specialized pig-iron handlers noted in the study. The company had 10,000 tons of product and not 80,000. (Amounts that justify adding consulting fees when writing about the success of the experiment for the company.) If one looks deeper, says Stewart, several metrics in the study were arbitrarily decided and most weren't even included, and thus this not the verifiability that comes standard in most science.
The author does credit Taylor with the invention of a high speed cutting device and some verifiable results using primitive machinery, but every study involving humans lacked verifiable data and reproducible methodology. "He provided only anecdotes, embellished with speciously priced numbers and arcane formulas of indeterminate provenance."
The author boils down management theories as nonfalsifiable propositions-maxims such as 'work smarter, not harder' or 'a stopwatch a day keeps the banker away!'. He argues that:
At this point the author credits later management theorists such as Mary Parker Follet for their work, but dismisses Taylor's generalizing claims as metonymy-a 'category mistake' as his philosophical colleagues may say.
Another 'huxster' Stewart attacks is Elton Mayo, who is known for the idea of Hawthorne Effects after consulting for Western Electric. Where Taylor saw a division between thinkers and laborers, Mayo saw a division between thinkers and feelers. The Hawthorne Effect is what has come to be known as any unintended effect (such as productivity boosts) on test subjects when they know they're being experimented upon. This effect in Mayo's experiment was interpreted by Mayo as a great example of another management theorist's "Theory Y" in action. (That a happy worker free to pursue their own bliss is a productive worker). Phrases originating from Mayo include "empowerment", "responsible freedom", "the wisdom of teams" and "the new organization".
Now, attending to employee needs and encouraging teamwork are all good things and part of an effective manager's duty, but this is hardly a 'scientific finding' or 20th century discovery asserts Stewart. And even if one ignores centuries of philosophical, religous and fictional writings and stays within the the historical management catologue, one can find similar ideas from others lecturing on the topic major universities in the 1920s and even a century earlier with British industrialist Robert Owen's utopian experiment in founding the 1000+ person privatized city of New Harmony, Indiana. (Stewart inaccurately states this was in Illinois.)
And Theory Y then is what paradoxically informs Theory X--which is that increased productivity results from applying pressure on works, since workers are irrational and cannot pursue their own self interest without external force. Stewarts argues that excluded from these theories is that a worker's reasonable pursuit for their self-interest could conflict with the interests of the organization. He furthers that both theory X and Y are based on a Theory U (utopian) foundation, which is that inherent in all conflicts are misunderstandings and that through reason all can sort itself out. But according to Stewart the problem with Theory U is that it leaves an unchecked power in the workplace (or society) and thus usually involves a use of tyranny.
In subsequent decades and to this day many organizations attempt to institute this 'new technique of management' where possible by pacifying unions or replace wages and pension plans with a slew of 'Hawthorne Effects'. But the notion this is a 'new technique' is pure gloss and certainly not science, and moreover the idea may be largely not even be practical.
Stewart's contrasting view aligns with Theory T (tragic) which states that some degree of conflict is inherent to all social organization. Stewart states the most successful real world managers are these T-Types and asserts authors of the best literature, framers of the US constitution and the ancient Greeks (sans Plato) also all view the world through a similar Theory T lense.
Also criticized is the Porter’s ideas of ‘strategy’. According to Stewart much of the strategizing literature resembles astrology. "The Five Forces" in particular, may be one way to explain what happened to a firm retroactively, gleans little information about the future.
Stewart also dedicates a couple chapters to criticisms of the management guru industry (which he defines as authors of business/management books aimed at middle managers). The only interesting thing here is the point that criticizing the gurus is in effect an industry itself, and has existed as long as the gurus themselves.
Latent within all the critiques is the idea that studying obtuse texts on organizational behavior or following the gurus is hardly a better substitute for understanding humans than say, the humanities. Management is getting things done through people. Something that requires checks on power and making sure all parties have something at stake (skin in the game). It's leaps and bounds of faith in other people. It's empathy (listening to someone say what they want, deducing what they actually want, and figuring out why they think they want it). It's humbling oneself when faced with the peculiarities of human behavior. It's cheerfulness and steadiness in conflict. The unsurprising conclusion is that what develops great manager is the cultivation of intellect and character that results from studying and experiencing plain old life itself.
Author Matthew Stewart earned a doctorate at Oxford in philosophy and then began work as a management consultant at Mckinsey-eventually quitting to work part-time and write 'irrevant' philosophical works but then reentered his consulting world fulltime as a partner at a competing firm. Here, Stewart combines these two worlds by alternating chapters between an amusing (and not entirely self-righteous or flattering) reflection on his real world consulting experience and a criticism of management as taught in business schools. The observations he details in his book are described as 'slightly shocking'. In my opinion this is not because they are merely views outside of the traditional management discourse, but because they probably are also true.
The criticism of management science a la university begins with the argument that management does not generalize and thus isn't a science. One manufacture's operations or retailer's marketing scheme can be as proprietary as the product itself. Stewart compares this with developing a field of technology studies in order to find underlying principles between technologies as disparate as LCD screens, telephones, airplanes etc. Management science is a 'nonfalsifiable tautology' argues Stewart.
The author then looks to the history and founding of the field. Bullet points on wikipedia and on powerpoints in classrooms across the world show that Frederick Taylor is the founder of management science. Despite a brief credibility loss in Harvard circles in the '50s the word Taylorism to this day still connotes rigorous statistical measurement of working operations.
But Taylor was only responsible for pushing the idea of management as a science. The author analyzes Taylor's most famous breakthrough experiment and determines it a fraud. The alleged motivation for the experiment was the need to save costs at a steel company after a dramatic rise in the price of iron, but historical records show the dramatic price change never happened. The amount of workers at the plant was 12 multi purpose hands and not the 75 specialized pig-iron handlers noted in the study. The company had 10,000 tons of product and not 80,000. (Amounts that justify adding consulting fees when writing about the success of the experiment for the company.) If one looks deeper, says Stewart, several metrics in the study were arbitrarily decided and most weren't even included, and thus this not the verifiability that comes standard in most science.
The author does credit Taylor with the invention of a high speed cutting device and some verifiable results using primitive machinery, but every study involving humans lacked verifiable data and reproducible methodology. "He provided only anecdotes, embellished with speciously priced numbers and arcane formulas of indeterminate provenance."
The author boils down management theories as nonfalsifiable propositions-maxims such as 'work smarter, not harder' or 'a stopwatch a day keeps the banker away!'. He argues that:
Such 'principles' are unscientific not because they are false, but because they are too true. As Karl Popper points out, scientific theories are interesting because they could be wrong. They are falsifiable; and this is why science as a whole is corrigible and progresses. By always insisting that he was incontestably right, Taylor inadvertently acknowledged that his science isn't a science.
At this point the author credits later management theorists such as Mary Parker Follet for their work, but dismisses Taylor's generalizing claims as metonymy-a 'category mistake' as his philosophical colleagues may say.
Another 'huxster' Stewart attacks is Elton Mayo, who is known for the idea of Hawthorne Effects after consulting for Western Electric. Where Taylor saw a division between thinkers and laborers, Mayo saw a division between thinkers and feelers. The Hawthorne Effect is what has come to be known as any unintended effect (such as productivity boosts) on test subjects when they know they're being experimented upon. This effect in Mayo's experiment was interpreted by Mayo as a great example of another management theorist's "Theory Y" in action. (That a happy worker free to pursue their own bliss is a productive worker). Phrases originating from Mayo include "empowerment", "responsible freedom", "the wisdom of teams" and "the new organization".
Now, attending to employee needs and encouraging teamwork are all good things and part of an effective manager's duty, but this is hardly a 'scientific finding' or 20th century discovery asserts Stewart. And even if one ignores centuries of philosophical, religous and fictional writings and stays within the the historical management catologue, one can find similar ideas from others lecturing on the topic major universities in the 1920s and even a century earlier with British industrialist Robert Owen's utopian experiment in founding the 1000+ person privatized city of New Harmony, Indiana. (Stewart inaccurately states this was in Illinois.)
And Theory Y then is what paradoxically informs Theory X--which is that increased productivity results from applying pressure on works, since workers are irrational and cannot pursue their own self interest without external force. Stewarts argues that excluded from these theories is that a worker's reasonable pursuit for their self-interest could conflict with the interests of the organization. He furthers that both theory X and Y are based on a Theory U (utopian) foundation, which is that inherent in all conflicts are misunderstandings and that through reason all can sort itself out. But according to Stewart the problem with Theory U is that it leaves an unchecked power in the workplace (or society) and thus usually involves a use of tyranny.
"For the workers of the world, management humanism always sounds pleasant on first hearing; but insofar as it is a way of substituting beautiful words for substantive negotiation, it is a swindle."
In subsequent decades and to this day many organizations attempt to institute this 'new technique of management' where possible by pacifying unions or replace wages and pension plans with a slew of 'Hawthorne Effects'. But the notion this is a 'new technique' is pure gloss and certainly not science, and moreover the idea may be largely not even be practical.
Stewart's contrasting view aligns with Theory T (tragic) which states that some degree of conflict is inherent to all social organization. Stewart states the most successful real world managers are these T-Types and asserts authors of the best literature, framers of the US constitution and the ancient Greeks (sans Plato) also all view the world through a similar Theory T lense.
"Sometimes the self is at odds with the community, sometimes the community is at odds with itself, and sometimes, as Thomas Hobbes pointed out, it's a war of all against all. Individuals acting in good faith and with adequate knowledge may still have reason and desire to exploit their fellows, and they will do so unless constrained within a system wherein these tendencies are adequately checked and balanced"
Also criticized is the Porter’s ideas of ‘strategy’. According to Stewart much of the strategizing literature resembles astrology. "The Five Forces" in particular, may be one way to explain what happened to a firm retroactively, gleans little information about the future.
Stewart also dedicates a couple chapters to criticisms of the management guru industry (which he defines as authors of business/management books aimed at middle managers). The only interesting thing here is the point that criticizing the gurus is in effect an industry itself, and has existed as long as the gurus themselves.
Latent within all the critiques is the idea that studying obtuse texts on organizational behavior or following the gurus is hardly a better substitute for understanding humans than say, the humanities. Management is getting things done through people. Something that requires checks on power and making sure all parties have something at stake (skin in the game). It's leaps and bounds of faith in other people. It's empathy (listening to someone say what they want, deducing what they actually want, and figuring out why they think they want it). It's humbling oneself when faced with the peculiarities of human behavior. It's cheerfulness and steadiness in conflict. The unsurprising conclusion is that what develops great manager is the cultivation of intellect and character that results from studying and experiencing plain old life itself.
April 18, 2013
Obviously some feelings to be worked out from his corporate dealings, a deal and a book where names are not named.
It details his experiences of working in a consultancy - predominantly ex-McKinsey consultants (it seems).
Good overview of Taylorism in the 'cold' - flawed and influential. Not sure how it works as an explanation or argument toward the flawed origins of management, or specifically scientific management, management as a science.
In service based economies, it is clear that this kind of consultancy is (should) not (be) a viable component, it would seem to be merely 'polishing' the brasswork - the creation of ideas and taking them to a financial generator should be.
It details his experiences of working in a consultancy - predominantly ex-McKinsey consultants (it seems).
Good overview of Taylorism in the 'cold' - flawed and influential. Not sure how it works as an explanation or argument toward the flawed origins of management, or specifically scientific management, management as a science.
In service based economies, it is clear that this kind of consultancy is (should) not (be) a viable component, it would seem to be merely 'polishing' the brasswork - the creation of ideas and taking them to a financial generator should be.
October 22, 2020
In an imperfectly knowable world, there is a latent irrationality in ALL metrics.
For any given metric, there will always arise instances when maximising the metric is at odds with advancing the goals that the metric was designed to serve (in the first place)
Their specialty, at the end of the day, is not the management of business, but the business of management
There are no facts. There are only interpretations.
tedious work of testing hypotheses against controlled observations
For any given metric, there will always arise instances when maximising the metric is at odds with advancing the goals that the metric was designed to serve (in the first place)
Their specialty, at the end of the day, is not the management of business, but the business of management
There are no facts. There are only interpretations.
tedious work of testing hypotheses against controlled observations
July 8, 2018
This is an insightful and entertaining take-down of more than a century of management nonsense shoved down the throats of millions of unquestioning business students (which I once was) and armies of business decision makers (which I don't want to be).
February 14, 2019
Excellent book on (strategic) management, as it shows that all theories from Taylor to Mayo to Drucker to contemporary fads only serve their own biases and the wallets of (management) consultants. Truly enlightening. Referred to by Taleb in Antifragile.
April 4, 2024
Wow. This is an aggressive takedown of management as a pseudoscience, business schools as worthless, and a shaming of the management consulting industry at large.
Hard to disagree - always thought Porter, Drucker, etc. were somewhere on the scale of pointless analysts on the sidelines to outright charlatans.
Hard to disagree - always thought Porter, Drucker, etc. were somewhere on the scale of pointless analysts on the sidelines to outright charlatans.
August 21, 2021
The book has two story lines moving in parallel (interchangeably every 2nd chapter):
• a) critical view of various management theories & the discipline itself, starting from the historical roots to the recent past
• b) the author’s journey in management consultancy, portraying the business drama, triviality of management consultancy, MBA’s.
It is well written, well argumented. A mix of factual arguments and author’s story adds color to the book. The author highlights the pseudoscience of management theories, that are based on only anecdotal evidence that have fads over time. At times, the book was dry (inevitable, when writing about management), but the author’s writing style and his
One of the main ideas of the book is the analogy of cults and management theories. Author shares anecdotes from management seminars, where the audience is made up of only “mid-level managers and wannabe’s”, and the content is delivered to induce some type of motivational movement against biureocracy.
I have personally encountered management consultants, and also midlevel managers who argument their thinking by the truisms of the pseudoscientific theories. The ambition of climbing your corporate career can dampen your critical filters. As a result, there is an emotional trap to blindly accept the pseudoscience even in modern times. Being guilty myself, there was a point when I chose to overlook the nonscientific approach in J Collins book, or the modern LEAN theories.
The book showed what I felt intuitively in an eloquent form and polished my critical thinking arsenal.
It is not nihilistic, as it may seem. The author’s solution is quite upfront: a good manager is a well-educated person with rounded knowledge, who is able to proficiently synthesize, analyze data. There are multiple other ways to become one (even liberal arts, or just individual learning). Sadly, MBA’s provide with training and social circle but not education.
Notable quotes:
• “Culture” is a valuable device for inducing employees to accept the idea that they should work harder for less pay.
• Guru ideology(enemies): “• Strategic Management: “A good deal of corporate planning.. is like a ritual rain dance. It has no effect on the weather tha follows, but those who engage in it think that it does”
• Management modelling: “simply a distorted way of looking at the past. they merely mixed up data from our recent activities with our most ardent present desires”.
• a) critical view of various management theories & the discipline itself, starting from the historical roots to the recent past
• b) the author’s journey in management consultancy, portraying the business drama, triviality of management consultancy, MBA’s.
It is well written, well argumented. A mix of factual arguments and author’s story adds color to the book. The author highlights the pseudoscience of management theories, that are based on only anecdotal evidence that have fads over time. At times, the book was dry (inevitable, when writing about management), but the author’s writing style and his
One of the main ideas of the book is the analogy of cults and management theories. Author shares anecdotes from management seminars, where the audience is made up of only “mid-level managers and wannabe’s”, and the content is delivered to induce some type of motivational movement against biureocracy.
I have personally encountered management consultants, and also midlevel managers who argument their thinking by the truisms of the pseudoscientific theories. The ambition of climbing your corporate career can dampen your critical filters. As a result, there is an emotional trap to blindly accept the pseudoscience even in modern times. Being guilty myself, there was a point when I chose to overlook the nonscientific approach in J Collins book, or the modern LEAN theories.
The book showed what I felt intuitively in an eloquent form and polished my critical thinking arsenal.
It is not nihilistic, as it may seem. The author’s solution is quite upfront: a good manager is a well-educated person with rounded knowledge, who is able to proficiently synthesize, analyze data. There are multiple other ways to become one (even liberal arts, or just individual learning). Sadly, MBA’s provide with training and social circle but not education.
Notable quotes:
• “Culture” is a valuable device for inducing employees to accept the idea that they should work harder for less pay.
• Guru ideology(enemies): “• Strategic Management: “A good deal of corporate planning.. is like a ritual rain dance. It has no effect on the weather tha follows, but those who engage in it think that it does”
• Management modelling: “simply a distorted way of looking at the past. they merely mixed up data from our recent activities with our most ardent present desires”.
February 23, 2018
After having read the book, I ask myself which modern business philosophy has been debunked in the book. It is more or less an overall attack on (some) management theories and it is a very poor one. There is a lot of smattering, half knowledge and one-sided presentation about the facts.
The book has a storyline that is Matthew Stewards personal experience as an management/strategy consultant. This part of the book is quite interesting, it gives some insights and it sheds some light on at least a part the management/strategy consulting industry. But it has nothing to do with modern business philosophy, it has more to do with some psychopaths (about 15% of managers are psychopaths, whereas it is only 1% of the population) trying to make as much money as possible at the expense of clients, partners and other victims.
In between his own stroy he braids a story of Frederick Winslow Taylors iron pig experiment. Taylor becomes his preferred quarry later on. The next story is about Elton Mayo in conjunction with the Hawthron experiments. Then he drifts away to write about management strategy. Harry Igor Ansoff, George Steine and Michael Porter are the main actors. Inbetween there is ab bit about Peter Drucker the beginning of management schools, especially the Harvard Business School etc. It gets a bit blurred here. This is the part in which he may have tried to debunk business philosophy. And at the end I found this part very awkward to read. It is more a management bashing based on a few examples than a sound derivation of facts.
Sure, there is a lot to criticize, which is very easy in retrospect. But there are also a lot of good thoughts that he neglects. And he never has the full picture in mind, he concentrates only on part of the stroy like you would say water is bad to extinguish a fire because trying to do this when oil burns makes it even worse.
For me there was nothing to learn, only so things I got reminded.
The book has a storyline that is Matthew Stewards personal experience as an management/strategy consultant. This part of the book is quite interesting, it gives some insights and it sheds some light on at least a part the management/strategy consulting industry. But it has nothing to do with modern business philosophy, it has more to do with some psychopaths (about 15% of managers are psychopaths, whereas it is only 1% of the population) trying to make as much money as possible at the expense of clients, partners and other victims.
In between his own stroy he braids a story of Frederick Winslow Taylors iron pig experiment. Taylor becomes his preferred quarry later on. The next story is about Elton Mayo in conjunction with the Hawthron experiments. Then he drifts away to write about management strategy. Harry Igor Ansoff, George Steine and Michael Porter are the main actors. Inbetween there is ab bit about Peter Drucker the beginning of management schools, especially the Harvard Business School etc. It gets a bit blurred here. This is the part in which he may have tried to debunk business philosophy. And at the end I found this part very awkward to read. It is more a management bashing based on a few examples than a sound derivation of facts.
Sure, there is a lot to criticize, which is very easy in retrospect. But there are also a lot of good thoughts that he neglects. And he never has the full picture in mind, he concentrates only on part of the stroy like you would say water is bad to extinguish a fire because trying to do this when oil burns makes it even worse.
For me there was nothing to learn, only so things I got reminded.
July 22, 2010
Dit boek is eigenlijk een lange aanklacht tegen de illusie die wordt gecreëerd dat er zoiets bestaat als een "Management"-wetenschap waarop consultancy-bedrijven & bepaalde universiteiten zich maar al te graag op beroepen.
Alle managementmodellen en -adviezen ontbreken wetenschappelijk bewijs (en dus voorspellende waarde) en zijn ofwel een veralgemening van ervaringen in het verleden ofwel gewoon gezond boerenverstand.
Het boek leest vlot door zijn interessante afwisseling van een historisch overzicht van de consultancy-wereld met de eigen ervaringen van de auteur in de consultancy wereld. Doordat veel elementen/voorbeelden bekend voorkomen, lees je dit boek met een bevestigende glimlach! Enkel het middenstuk was soms te langdradig.
Vooral zijn analyse van Tom Peters & Co is treffend en confronterend. Want de sloganeske schrifsels van Tom Peters spraken me vroeger ook wel aan.
Aanrader voor iedereen die ondertussen ook beseft dat management vooral gezond verstand is en maangement-consultancy tot zijn ware proporties kan herleiden. En voor wie het nog niet beseft: een eye-opener.
Afsluitend, een van de vele leuke quotes in dit boek, over startende consultants: " Hoe kunnen zo velen die zo weinig weten zo veel verdienen door andere mensen, die er nota bene voor worden betaald het te weten, te vertellen hoe zij hun werk moeten doen?"
Alle managementmodellen en -adviezen ontbreken wetenschappelijk bewijs (en dus voorspellende waarde) en zijn ofwel een veralgemening van ervaringen in het verleden ofwel gewoon gezond boerenverstand.
Het boek leest vlot door zijn interessante afwisseling van een historisch overzicht van de consultancy-wereld met de eigen ervaringen van de auteur in de consultancy wereld. Doordat veel elementen/voorbeelden bekend voorkomen, lees je dit boek met een bevestigende glimlach! Enkel het middenstuk was soms te langdradig.
Vooral zijn analyse van Tom Peters & Co is treffend en confronterend. Want de sloganeske schrifsels van Tom Peters spraken me vroeger ook wel aan.
Aanrader voor iedereen die ondertussen ook beseft dat management vooral gezond verstand is en maangement-consultancy tot zijn ware proporties kan herleiden. En voor wie het nog niet beseft: een eye-opener.
Afsluitend, een van de vele leuke quotes in dit boek, over startende consultants: " Hoe kunnen zo velen die zo weinig weten zo veel verdienen door andere mensen, die er nota bene voor worden betaald het te weten, te vertellen hoe zij hun werk moeten doen?"
September 29, 2013
Stewart skewers management thought and consulting, intermixing his own career as a consultant, in a very readable book (although I had to go use dictionary.com a few times for some of his adjectives).
Who does he skewer - Taylor, famous for his stop watch, Elton Mayo, who I hadn't heard of before, Drucker (not that badly), Boston Consulting Group, Tom Peters and some others. He does a particularly good job taking apart the famous 4 square grid that gave us cash cows, dogs, stars, etc. as a mechanism for deciding where to invest resources.
In interspersing his own career as a consultant (which interesting he does anonymously by not naming names) he tears apart the consulting industry. I think he is mostly correct in saying that a primary objective is to sell the engagement and then sell more engagements.
This book reminded me of 1982 - 1984 when I was in the undergraduate business school at The University of Michigan. I knew where I was headed - the Big 8 and public accounting. A lot of people I knew wanted to consult. This struck me as ridiculous - what did a 22 year old know that would allow that to consult with big business? I had a difficult time of it when I was in my early 40s.
One thing I know for sure - I'm done reading most of the management books that come out.
Highly recommended.
Who does he skewer - Taylor, famous for his stop watch, Elton Mayo, who I hadn't heard of before, Drucker (not that badly), Boston Consulting Group, Tom Peters and some others. He does a particularly good job taking apart the famous 4 square grid that gave us cash cows, dogs, stars, etc. as a mechanism for deciding where to invest resources.
In interspersing his own career as a consultant (which interesting he does anonymously by not naming names) he tears apart the consulting industry. I think he is mostly correct in saying that a primary objective is to sell the engagement and then sell more engagements.
This book reminded me of 1982 - 1984 when I was in the undergraduate business school at The University of Michigan. I knew where I was headed - the Big 8 and public accounting. A lot of people I knew wanted to consult. This struck me as ridiculous - what did a 22 year old know that would allow that to consult with big business? I had a difficult time of it when I was in my early 40s.
One thing I know for sure - I'm done reading most of the management books that come out.
Highly recommended.
January 27, 2016
Matthew Stewart's book provides a well written critique of strategy consulting, and the superstars of strategy, like Peter Drucker and others. The author, a PhD in philosophy, who all of a sudden finds himself a strategy consultant earning a high salary for telling business people with 30 years of experience how to run their businesses has plenty of insights to share with the reader. The book alternates between the recounting the author's own somewhat absurd experiences from consulting, and a general critique of "management" as an academic subject, as well as the popularized versions of it available at airport bookstores. Both of the trails work well independently, and they also support each other. The book points to weaknesses in popular management research, such as only looking at successful companies and trying to infer what causes their success, without having a control group. This book is very enlightening, and should be read by anybody who works with consultants, or read management literature. Personally I found "The Halo principle," by Phil Rosenzweig, which is similarly critical of many management books slightly more insightful on the theory part, but Stewart's personal story is a nice addition in this book.
May 29, 2015
Interleaving chapters about the history of business education and the "discipline" of business strategy with the author's own story of his time as a management consultant, this was an entertaining read that calls into question whole genres of popular business books. Built on the shaky foundations* of Frederick Taylor and expanded on by a series of professors and self-styled 'gurus' that are more interested in selectively choosing case studies that fit into their favorite frameworks than applying the scientific method, Stewart makes it clear that if you're expecting to strategize your way to business success, you might have better luck reading tea leaves. Having read a number of the books that Stewart skewers, I'm in thorough agreement with him about the efficacy of such theories.
This book was informative and a bit eye-opening. And Stewart's personal story was worth reading as well.
* No, I'm not saying this from a Software Development perspective--in which even if not false, Taylorism doesn't apply--but Taylorism really is built on fabricated results, rampant self-promotion, and poorly-designed experiments.
This book was informative and a bit eye-opening. And Stewart's personal story was worth reading as well.
* No, I'm not saying this from a Software Development perspective--in which even if not false, Taylorism doesn't apply--but Taylorism really is built on fabricated results, rampant self-promotion, and poorly-designed experiments.
July 17, 2014
Interesting read that left me with important questions unanswered.
The book is basically divided in two parts - 1) author's personal story in the consulting world (Mitchell Madison Group); 2) history of management & consulting as academic disciplines.
The first theme is intriguing analysis of -- office intrigues and management that ran-away. Second, often at lengths discusses epistemic flaws of management as a scientific discipline, rather than a profession. This is "myth" Stewart sets to debunk.
Interestingly, discussing some of the projects he worked on, author does see the value management consultants create. Unfortunately, the book only skims other interesting questions such as -- where and how consultants do create value -- even if it has nothing to do with specialist knowledge, and rather being able to pick and package already existing in-house knowledge or shout out loud what the management already knows.
The book is basically divided in two parts - 1) author's personal story in the consulting world (Mitchell Madison Group); 2) history of management & consulting as academic disciplines.
The first theme is intriguing analysis of -- office intrigues and management that ran-away. Second, often at lengths discusses epistemic flaws of management as a scientific discipline, rather than a profession. This is "myth" Stewart sets to debunk.
Interestingly, discussing some of the projects he worked on, author does see the value management consultants create. Unfortunately, the book only skims other interesting questions such as -- where and how consultants do create value -- even if it has nothing to do with specialist knowledge, and rather being able to pick and package already existing in-house knowledge or shout out loud what the management already knows.
April 13, 2013
Made some good points about consulting and how they just use generalizations because they aren't the experts in the businesses they consult. But that could be explained in a 30 page book. Not surprising that as a former consultant he was able to stretch it to 300 with filler.
September 14, 2018
Exceptionally interesting reading for everyone studying management and organizational behavior.
Read
February 13, 2021"Imagine a world without business schools"
Chapter 28
Chapter 28
June 1, 2021
Matthew Stewart is a cynic; this is the impression you get from reading The Management Myth. Although, since he is a philosopher by training, he might prefer to be designated a 'sceptic' instead. The book offers both an intellectual history of management thought and a history of his personal experience as a management consultant. And, in fairness to Stewart, from both sides of this twin history, you also get the impression that those who engage with management, whether in theory or practice, could do with being a little more sceptical, or perhaps choose not to be.
When it comes to 'management thinking', Stewart's target isn't primarily the pop management gurus whose books you find being sold in city train stations and airport lounges. It's the academic discipline of management, including everyone from Harvard Business School on downwards. Stewart makes the case that many of the thinkers who were crucial to the development of management as a discipline, such as Frederick Winslow Taylor and Elton Mayo, were frauds who incorrectly generalised the results of very specific cases or just simply fabricated their results.
Moreover, it is not just methodological errors that are the issue; it's that the fundamental presuppositions of management thinking, from its inception to present, are wrong. These include the idea that workers behave, and can be directed to behave, in a predictable way so that management can constitute a science based on a general, abstract laws. There is also the utopian social idea that, with the right management techniques, conflict between workers and management can be resolved. For Stewart, and for most people, this is obviously untrue. Some degree of conflict of interests is unavoidable. And what the 'right' management solution is is so context dependent, and technical expertise is so quickly out of date, that it is better to have a broad ethical education, such as one that could be gained from studying the humanities, than that which is currently offered at business schools. This would also have some quantitative elements and basic business strategy mixed in to remedy some of the defects that hold present humanities graduates back in the labour market.
Running parallel to this is a personal account of Stewart's experience as a consultant, plus some (fairly cynical) analysis of the consulting industry as a whole. Consultants, according to Stewart, tend to offer little in the way of genuine expertise and instead effectively scare clients into hiring them, forming a kind of parasitic relationship with their 'host'. Even worse, consultants can act as a legitimators of autocratic management practices. After all, as Stewart points out, implicit in the business of management consulting is the idea that the managers of a company, rather than, say, ordinary workers or customer sentiment, are the most crucial factor in the success or failure of said company. This can then be used to legitimate an unduly expansive view of management power.
Stewart has turned what could have been a dry book (neither management thought nor consulting are inherently thrilling subjects) into something that is entertaining. This is done through his wry sense of humour and amusing descriptions of both his former colleagues and the various management thinkers covered. For example, there's Roland, a jocular, hunting-obsessed Frenchmen with a "face like a pink bowling ball and a belly to match" and who would spend his free time "heading out early in the morning to endanger another animal species". A particularly fascinating segment details the emergence of a new kind of business guru, starting with the perennially angry Tom Peters in the 1980s, oriented towards a mass audience. These new gurus function more as radical eschatological preachers than social scientists. They rage against the bureaucracy of corporate life and offer a heaven-like vision of an egalitarian workplace, in which individual autonomy is no longer stifled by hierarchy. In fact, you could almost say these American icons represent ersatz versions of Karl Marx.
Roland's characterisation is actually one of the more sympathetic in the book. It turns out that the firm Stewart agreed to join, splintering off from A.T. Kearney, would be headed by a set of particularly sociopathic individuals keen on unsustainable expansion and awarding themselves huge amounts of compensations without the knowledge of more junior partners. Stewart makes it obvious that the motivation behind writing the book is personal as well as intellectual. The book acts a vehicle for catharsis, representing a repudiation of his former profession, its intellectual foundations and his former colleagues.
Much of this repudiation seems fair. But I can't help but have slight suspicion that this is a picture that is incomplete. Are consultants really just con artists reeling in unsuspecting clients or, alternatively, mere courtiers serving only the managerial component the firm? Stewart himself claims that the consulting business in Spain he set up for his firm made valuable contributions to its clients. Well, what were they doing differently? He makes detailed and, in my view, sensible recommendations as to what a better management education would look like, but there is relatively little on what a better consulting industry would be like. Is the assumption that a better education would automatically translate into a better industry? What would happen when these well-meaning graduates encounter the reality of where power lies in the modern firm? Nevertheless, this was one of the most interesting and entertaining books I have read in a while.
When it comes to 'management thinking', Stewart's target isn't primarily the pop management gurus whose books you find being sold in city train stations and airport lounges. It's the academic discipline of management, including everyone from Harvard Business School on downwards. Stewart makes the case that many of the thinkers who were crucial to the development of management as a discipline, such as Frederick Winslow Taylor and Elton Mayo, were frauds who incorrectly generalised the results of very specific cases or just simply fabricated their results.
Moreover, it is not just methodological errors that are the issue; it's that the fundamental presuppositions of management thinking, from its inception to present, are wrong. These include the idea that workers behave, and can be directed to behave, in a predictable way so that management can constitute a science based on a general, abstract laws. There is also the utopian social idea that, with the right management techniques, conflict between workers and management can be resolved. For Stewart, and for most people, this is obviously untrue. Some degree of conflict of interests is unavoidable. And what the 'right' management solution is is so context dependent, and technical expertise is so quickly out of date, that it is better to have a broad ethical education, such as one that could be gained from studying the humanities, than that which is currently offered at business schools. This would also have some quantitative elements and basic business strategy mixed in to remedy some of the defects that hold present humanities graduates back in the labour market.
Running parallel to this is a personal account of Stewart's experience as a consultant, plus some (fairly cynical) analysis of the consulting industry as a whole. Consultants, according to Stewart, tend to offer little in the way of genuine expertise and instead effectively scare clients into hiring them, forming a kind of parasitic relationship with their 'host'. Even worse, consultants can act as a legitimators of autocratic management practices. After all, as Stewart points out, implicit in the business of management consulting is the idea that the managers of a company, rather than, say, ordinary workers or customer sentiment, are the most crucial factor in the success or failure of said company. This can then be used to legitimate an unduly expansive view of management power.
Stewart has turned what could have been a dry book (neither management thought nor consulting are inherently thrilling subjects) into something that is entertaining. This is done through his wry sense of humour and amusing descriptions of both his former colleagues and the various management thinkers covered. For example, there's Roland, a jocular, hunting-obsessed Frenchmen with a "face like a pink bowling ball and a belly to match" and who would spend his free time "heading out early in the morning to endanger another animal species". A particularly fascinating segment details the emergence of a new kind of business guru, starting with the perennially angry Tom Peters in the 1980s, oriented towards a mass audience. These new gurus function more as radical eschatological preachers than social scientists. They rage against the bureaucracy of corporate life and offer a heaven-like vision of an egalitarian workplace, in which individual autonomy is no longer stifled by hierarchy. In fact, you could almost say these American icons represent ersatz versions of Karl Marx.
Roland's characterisation is actually one of the more sympathetic in the book. It turns out that the firm Stewart agreed to join, splintering off from A.T. Kearney, would be headed by a set of particularly sociopathic individuals keen on unsustainable expansion and awarding themselves huge amounts of compensations without the knowledge of more junior partners. Stewart makes it obvious that the motivation behind writing the book is personal as well as intellectual. The book acts a vehicle for catharsis, representing a repudiation of his former profession, its intellectual foundations and his former colleagues.
Much of this repudiation seems fair. But I can't help but have slight suspicion that this is a picture that is incomplete. Are consultants really just con artists reeling in unsuspecting clients or, alternatively, mere courtiers serving only the managerial component the firm? Stewart himself claims that the consulting business in Spain he set up for his firm made valuable contributions to its clients. Well, what were they doing differently? He makes detailed and, in my view, sensible recommendations as to what a better management education would look like, but there is relatively little on what a better consulting industry would be like. Is the assumption that a better education would automatically translate into a better industry? What would happen when these well-meaning graduates encounter the reality of where power lies in the modern firm? Nevertheless, this was one of the most interesting and entertaining books I have read in a while.
December 17, 2012
It's fascinating the disconnect in ratings between the book and audiobook versions. I listened to the audiobook, and unless the book itself was written differently or had a better editor, I don't understand the chasm.
I don't believe I have ever rated a book so low. But the reality is this book is an exercise in self-aggrandizement.
The author explores the idea of a "management myth" through his own N of 1 experience as a management consultant. Doing so he manages to come across as both pompous and disconnected of his own role in perpetuating the flaws of the current business philosophy. For example when he talks about the money he made in management consulting it is articulated as money he "earned" while the companies he worked for are described as a combination of swindling their clients and providing little value for the rewards they reap.
By placing his own experience as parallel to the history of management and management philosophy he inadvertently (or intentionally) places himself on par with the giants of the field. For example while Porter gets about a chapter- his experience with a consultant firm that is long ago defunct comprises about half the book. Not exactly what I had in mind for a book on "Management Myth" especially one with a bias towards philosophy.
The author also takes advantage of a straw man in Tom Peters. Tom Peters who is at least a decade past the point of relevance in the business workplace accounts for a large portion of the final third of this book, but the question is why? I've deduced that its because Tom Peters is an easy straw man, he has sold a lot of books and his methods were flawed, he serves as an easy example of what is wrong with "management" even if his impact is minimal.
I'm highly disappointed that the two books I have come across to discuss the origins of modern business philosophy (this and Lords of Strategy) focus blindly on the contributions of management consultants. This overplays consultants value in the modern business workplace. Strategists impact only a fraction of the total business / management ecosystem. An exploration into the philosophy of business law is just as likely to yield wisdom about the flaws and conflicts of modern management as any exploration into the role of management consulting.
Mr. Stewart does some great work with here his debunking of Taylors and Hawthorne's research experiments are noteworthy. However these only serve as footnotes and digression in a too long tome of his personal experience.
Ultimately the authors decision to explore management from his own lowly vantage point was an original sin from which this book found no redemption.
I don't believe I have ever rated a book so low. But the reality is this book is an exercise in self-aggrandizement.
The author explores the idea of a "management myth" through his own N of 1 experience as a management consultant. Doing so he manages to come across as both pompous and disconnected of his own role in perpetuating the flaws of the current business philosophy. For example when he talks about the money he made in management consulting it is articulated as money he "earned" while the companies he worked for are described as a combination of swindling their clients and providing little value for the rewards they reap.
By placing his own experience as parallel to the history of management and management philosophy he inadvertently (or intentionally) places himself on par with the giants of the field. For example while Porter gets about a chapter- his experience with a consultant firm that is long ago defunct comprises about half the book. Not exactly what I had in mind for a book on "Management Myth" especially one with a bias towards philosophy.
The author also takes advantage of a straw man in Tom Peters. Tom Peters who is at least a decade past the point of relevance in the business workplace accounts for a large portion of the final third of this book, but the question is why? I've deduced that its because Tom Peters is an easy straw man, he has sold a lot of books and his methods were flawed, he serves as an easy example of what is wrong with "management" even if his impact is minimal.
I'm highly disappointed that the two books I have come across to discuss the origins of modern business philosophy (this and Lords of Strategy) focus blindly on the contributions of management consultants. This overplays consultants value in the modern business workplace. Strategists impact only a fraction of the total business / management ecosystem. An exploration into the philosophy of business law is just as likely to yield wisdom about the flaws and conflicts of modern management as any exploration into the role of management consulting.
Mr. Stewart does some great work with here his debunking of Taylors and Hawthorne's research experiments are noteworthy. However these only serve as footnotes and digression in a too long tome of his personal experience.
Ultimately the authors decision to explore management from his own lowly vantage point was an original sin from which this book found no redemption.
June 15, 2019
This book also comes with the subtitle, "Why the Experts Keep Getting It Wrong." The author, Matthew Stewart, claims a philosophical background and uses it effectively to destroy the scientific pretensions of management gurus from Frederick W. Taylor to Tom Peters. He shows the reader the lack of any solid research behind the pronouncements of the early management experts of the twentieth century, such as Taylor and Mayo, who respectively stand for scientific management and human relations. This debunkment is not really new, but he shows that these ideas seem to have survived remarkably well among management consultants of the present.
His main argument against Taylorism targets its attempt to find pseudotechnical solutions to moral and political problems. Elton Mayo is attacked for having drawn his conclusions without actual reference to the facts to be found at the Hawthorne Works. Stewart is also critical of the management education that Mayo helped to found.
Stewart goes on to unravel the foundations of the strategic managment litterature and in particular tear at the presumptious excellence of the theories expounded by Tom Peters. At times Stewart appears at least sympathetic to the apparent good will of the management gurus, but the more recent ones cannot show any, but rudimentary scientific evidende and serves mostly as the foundation of the flourshing field of consulting.
Stewarts enlivens his screed with his tale of hilarious experiences as a managment consultant himself. This story frames the book, and makes it more personal and enjoyable.
He ends his book with a call for political awareness in business management and the reform of the MBA degree at American universities.
His main argument against Taylorism targets its attempt to find pseudotechnical solutions to moral and political problems. Elton Mayo is attacked for having drawn his conclusions without actual reference to the facts to be found at the Hawthorne Works. Stewart is also critical of the management education that Mayo helped to found.
Stewart goes on to unravel the foundations of the strategic managment litterature and in particular tear at the presumptious excellence of the theories expounded by Tom Peters. At times Stewart appears at least sympathetic to the apparent good will of the management gurus, but the more recent ones cannot show any, but rudimentary scientific evidende and serves mostly as the foundation of the flourshing field of consulting.
Stewarts enlivens his screed with his tale of hilarious experiences as a managment consultant himself. This story frames the book, and makes it more personal and enjoyable.
He ends his book with a call for political awareness in business management and the reform of the MBA degree at American universities.
August 12, 2018
I'm a big fan of Matthew Stewart. His writing is always a pleasure and his research is always meticulous and excellently presented. This book offers us both his personal history with consulting, which is highly entertaining while providing insider insight into the industry, and a generalist overview of the "study" of management and a crash course in the history of business education in the U.S.
He does a phenomenal job of breaking up the longer, more technical informational and historical chapters with his lighter, often hilarious journey through the world of management consulting.
He leaves no one unscathed--the consulting industry, the MBA industrial diploma mill complex, and perhaps even market capitalism itself.
I am so glad I read this book because I had been considering the possibility of getting an MBA and this definitely gave me pause. The study of "business" may not be as scientific as we imagine. Although he does say that professional or executive MBA programs may actually be a better alternative to the traditional program.
He also, unlike most ivory tower academics--which he is most definitely not, offers suggestions and solutions for change: what "management" education should actually be. And while I disagree with part of his assertion--that a liberal arts education is the silver bullet--I think other parts of his recommendations worth taking a look at and, of course, his reasoning is solid throughout.
This book is perhaps the first thing all MBA students--and liberal arts students--should read before pursuing any kind of education or before thinking about their education as it may relate to their imagined future career.
This book is definitely, definitely worth everyone's time.
He does a phenomenal job of breaking up the longer, more technical informational and historical chapters with his lighter, often hilarious journey through the world of management consulting.
He leaves no one unscathed--the consulting industry, the MBA industrial diploma mill complex, and perhaps even market capitalism itself.
I am so glad I read this book because I had been considering the possibility of getting an MBA and this definitely gave me pause. The study of "business" may not be as scientific as we imagine. Although he does say that professional or executive MBA programs may actually be a better alternative to the traditional program.
He also, unlike most ivory tower academics--which he is most definitely not, offers suggestions and solutions for change: what "management" education should actually be. And while I disagree with part of his assertion--that a liberal arts education is the silver bullet--I think other parts of his recommendations worth taking a look at and, of course, his reasoning is solid throughout.
This book is perhaps the first thing all MBA students--and liberal arts students--should read before pursuing any kind of education or before thinking about their education as it may relate to their imagined future career.
This book is definitely, definitely worth everyone's time.
April 27, 2010
The Management Myth has been on my list since I read the rave WSJ and New Yorker reviews this past fall. It’s a brilliant history of management thought dating back to Taylor and scientific management. It is also a highly critical take-down of the management consulting industry that relies on hilarious anecdotes from the author’s career in management consulting.
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001...
My favorite quote: “What makes for a good manager? If we put all of their heads together, the great management thinkers at the end of the day give us the same, simple, and true answer. A good manager is someone with a facility for analysis and an even greater talent for synthesis; someone who has an eye both for the details and for the one big thing that really matters; someone who is able to reflect on the facts in a disinterested way, who is always dissatisfied with pat answers and the conventional wisdom, and who therefore takes a certain pleasure in knowledge itself; someone with a wide knowledge of the world and an even better knowledge of the way people work; someone who knows how to treat people with respect; someone with honest, integrity, trustworthiness, and the other things that make up character; someone in short, who understands oneself and the world around us well enough to know how to make it better. By this definition of course, a good manager is nothing more or less than a good and well-educated person.”
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001...
My favorite quote: “What makes for a good manager? If we put all of their heads together, the great management thinkers at the end of the day give us the same, simple, and true answer. A good manager is someone with a facility for analysis and an even greater talent for synthesis; someone who has an eye both for the details and for the one big thing that really matters; someone who is able to reflect on the facts in a disinterested way, who is always dissatisfied with pat answers and the conventional wisdom, and who therefore takes a certain pleasure in knowledge itself; someone with a wide knowledge of the world and an even better knowledge of the way people work; someone who knows how to treat people with respect; someone with honest, integrity, trustworthiness, and the other things that make up character; someone in short, who understands oneself and the world around us well enough to know how to make it better. By this definition of course, a good manager is nothing more or less than a good and well-educated person.”
Displaying 1 - 30 of 136 reviews