[3] The Fox knows many things
Why are there brands at all?
Why are there brands at all? This ia a subset of the question 'Why is there anything at all?' Taking my cue from the prevailing scientific myth (SN Salthe 2002) I think it is because the consumer universe uses brand configurations to dissipate energy gradients. I shall expand on this for however long it takes.
Expanding our capacity to Understand
In keeping with the way Constraints theorists think the GOAL of this blog is to urge, implore and even beg every person in every organisation to continuously expand his/her (hes, as Goldratt would have it) capacity to understand strategically, now and in future. By this imploration hangs a tale: I have come to realise that many people in most organisations paint themselves out of the strategic picture and then for all the wrong reasons. They think, and this is a dangerous fallacy, that strategic thinking and specialists who are outsiders, best do the planning. They confuse the rules for playing with the rules for winning. The rules for playing are written by regulators, legislators and to some extent academics and are therefore understood by consultants. The rules for winning are written by the players on the field, not the spectators in the stands. The distinction is an important one and a major thread that will run throughout this contribution. The primary rules for playing the board and ball games we know so well very seldom change. In an important kind of way the establish by demarcation the unique identity of the game. The visible and familiar differences between rugby and cricket are entrenched in the rules base. The secondary rules for winning, rather than being fixed are constantly becoming better at facilitating a victory. In later chapters we will see the special contribution the words being and becoming makes to our understanding of complex adaptive systems. The lasting impression one often has after in-depth discussions with those unsung heroes of the business world, the front-line staff, is their tacit understanding of the rules for winning.
The belief that large organisations are controlled and directed by a relatively small board of directors may turn out to be a myth and an increasingly dangerous one at that. At a certain level organisations like these can at best be described as complex self-organising systems on a adaptive walk through a dynamically changing fitness landscape large parts of which is just not habitable. The boundaries of the habitable zone – to paraphrase Gonzalez et al – are set by two requirements: the availability of human and other material to identify and occupy (create) a habitable niche, and adequate protection against competitive threats. One of the necessary if not sufficient prerequisites for this is wholeness; the organisation should think and expand its capacity to act as a whole. That is neither bought nor taught.
James Gleick in his well-known book Chaos called it the butterfly effect. Technically it is referred to as sensitive dependence on initial conditions, and in practical terms it simply means that small things can make a huge difference. Gregory Bateson, long before all the others, called it the difference that makes a difference. It can come from anywhere in the organisation and more often than not comes from a source from which it is least expected. In many organisations the bifurcation points that could change the course of company history pass like ships in the night. There is no guarantee that things (events, decisions or opportunities) that are important look important. They are therefore missed. It implies though that the signs, signals and symptoms were there, if someone cared to notice. It means that someone raised a hand to ask for an opportunity to speak, but it was never granted. Someone said something important but no one really listened.
Inside the Mind of a Fox[1] you will find the wily mind of a strategist. While the Hedgehog knows one thing, the fox knows many things. Great companies know how to balance both these attrators. This metaphor is deliberately chosen to acknowledge yet another fine and hugely popular contribution by Clem Sunter, this time with co-author Chantell Ilbury. They wrote: ‘ …modern-day business is positively Newtonian in its outlook and trials behind science in its rate of development. Business still takes a deterministic view of the world.[2]’ Despite the obvious steps in the right direction and its popularity the whole distance is not covered. It will take many books, and then some, to accomplish the task. This blog aims in the same direction recognizing though that the foxes mind is somewhat like an onion. Peeling the first few layers is relatively easy, the closer you get to the heart of the matter the tougher it gets to keep going.
[1] Chantell Ilbury and Clem Sunter The Mind of a Fox, Cape Town: Human Rousseau 2001
[2] ibid p 43
Why are there brands at all? This ia a subset of the question 'Why is there anything at all?' Taking my cue from the prevailing scientific myth (SN Salthe 2002) I think it is because the consumer universe uses brand configurations to dissipate energy gradients. I shall expand on this for however long it takes.
Expanding our capacity to Understand
In keeping with the way Constraints theorists think the GOAL of this blog is to urge, implore and even beg every person in every organisation to continuously expand his/her (hes, as Goldratt would have it) capacity to understand strategically, now and in future. By this imploration hangs a tale: I have come to realise that many people in most organisations paint themselves out of the strategic picture and then for all the wrong reasons. They think, and this is a dangerous fallacy, that strategic thinking and specialists who are outsiders, best do the planning. They confuse the rules for playing with the rules for winning. The rules for playing are written by regulators, legislators and to some extent academics and are therefore understood by consultants. The rules for winning are written by the players on the field, not the spectators in the stands. The distinction is an important one and a major thread that will run throughout this contribution. The primary rules for playing the board and ball games we know so well very seldom change. In an important kind of way the establish by demarcation the unique identity of the game. The visible and familiar differences between rugby and cricket are entrenched in the rules base. The secondary rules for winning, rather than being fixed are constantly becoming better at facilitating a victory. In later chapters we will see the special contribution the words being and becoming makes to our understanding of complex adaptive systems. The lasting impression one often has after in-depth discussions with those unsung heroes of the business world, the front-line staff, is their tacit understanding of the rules for winning.
The belief that large organisations are controlled and directed by a relatively small board of directors may turn out to be a myth and an increasingly dangerous one at that. At a certain level organisations like these can at best be described as complex self-organising systems on a adaptive walk through a dynamically changing fitness landscape large parts of which is just not habitable. The boundaries of the habitable zone – to paraphrase Gonzalez et al – are set by two requirements: the availability of human and other material to identify and occupy (create) a habitable niche, and adequate protection against competitive threats. One of the necessary if not sufficient prerequisites for this is wholeness; the organisation should think and expand its capacity to act as a whole. That is neither bought nor taught.
James Gleick in his well-known book Chaos called it the butterfly effect. Technically it is referred to as sensitive dependence on initial conditions, and in practical terms it simply means that small things can make a huge difference. Gregory Bateson, long before all the others, called it the difference that makes a difference. It can come from anywhere in the organisation and more often than not comes from a source from which it is least expected. In many organisations the bifurcation points that could change the course of company history pass like ships in the night. There is no guarantee that things (events, decisions or opportunities) that are important look important. They are therefore missed. It implies though that the signs, signals and symptoms were there, if someone cared to notice. It means that someone raised a hand to ask for an opportunity to speak, but it was never granted. Someone said something important but no one really listened.
Inside the Mind of a Fox[1] you will find the wily mind of a strategist. While the Hedgehog knows one thing, the fox knows many things. Great companies know how to balance both these attrators. This metaphor is deliberately chosen to acknowledge yet another fine and hugely popular contribution by Clem Sunter, this time with co-author Chantell Ilbury. They wrote: ‘ …modern-day business is positively Newtonian in its outlook and trials behind science in its rate of development. Business still takes a deterministic view of the world.[2]’ Despite the obvious steps in the right direction and its popularity the whole distance is not covered. It will take many books, and then some, to accomplish the task. This blog aims in the same direction recognizing though that the foxes mind is somewhat like an onion. Peeling the first few layers is relatively easy, the closer you get to the heart of the matter the tougher it gets to keep going.
[1] Chantell Ilbury and Clem Sunter The Mind of a Fox, Cape Town: Human Rousseau 2001
[2] ibid p 43
posted by Webmaster at 1:17 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home