The WELL: inkwell.vue.208: Art Kleiner: Who Really Matters? The Core Group Theory of Power, Privilege and Succes

#107: Farooq Khan (farooq) Fri 28 May 04 09:24

Fri, 28 May 2004 09:24:00 PDT

Your right secularism doesn't lead to nationalism however secularism hasn't provided a solution to one's identity that transcends ethnicity. In Europe the debate about identity is more profound because of European integration. And many people recognise that multiculturalism is not a good basis to bond people. In Britain the think tanks, academia, politicians and opinion makers have been grappling with these questions for sometime now without a clear intellectual solution.

Bobbit's thesis in this regard goes someway to addressing the problem of identity vis-a-vis the market state. But there is a conflict of values which is reflected in nations giving up their soverignty i.e. material interests of the individual with what is best for the community.

How would you apply your thinking of the core group in addressing this disparity between the people of power who wish to hold on to power with the ideal of breaking down borders between nations? [Read entire topic]

#106: Art Kleiner (art) Thu 27 May 04 19:26

Thu, 27 May 2004 19:26:00 PDT

Farooq, thanks. The essay makes sense, I think, in arguing that Globalization is new. The part I don't really understand is the critique of secularism. Does it really lead to nationalism or abusive capitalism? One point of Who Really Matters, I think, is that it describes how secular societies work. They work through organizations and Core Groups. If I understand you correctly, then an Islamic group is a group with just Allah and his prophet in the Core Group. All the rest is interpretation.

But I mistrust any Core Group who cannot be directly queried about their intentions.

ArtK [Read entire topic]

#105: Farooq Khan (farooq) Thu 27 May 04 10:56

Thu, 27 May 2004 10:56:00 PDT

<art> I read your interview with Philip Bobbit and found this discussion very illuminating. I have written an essay for a new magazine which I thought you might appreciate. The magazine will be coming out shortly called 'New Civilisation'which addresses some of the ideas of Bobbit and power. I would be happy to hear your thoughts about my essay;

<islam.ind.20.19> [Read entire topic]

#104: Farooq Khan (farooq) Thu 27 May 04 10:53

Thu, 27 May 2004 10:53:00 PDT

<scribbled by farooq Thu 27 May 04 10:53> [Read entire topic]

#103: Farooq Khan (farooq) Thu 27 May 04 10:52

Thu, 27 May 2004 10:52:00 PDT

<scribbled by farooq Thu 27 May 04 10:52> [Read entire topic]

#102: Woody Liswood (woody) Mon 15 Mar 04 13:00

Mon, 15 Mar 2004 13:00:00 PST

Art:

Your response is interesting. I'll have to think about it for a while.

And, I haven't taught skiing for 2 years now. LOL

We (Ellen and I) are back at out place in Colorado. I still teach and consult -- but I limit my consulting now to the ski industry.

And, I'm on a Board, now, and am heading to a meeting next week. I'm going to suggest that all the members read the book and see what comes out of that. One of the folks has published, periodically, in HBR and is just finishing writing a book of his own -- that has some similiarities to your book -- although his book is 100% opinion and experience based rather than research based. If he gets it to a web site, I'll let everyone know.

In my lexicon, culture is what I look for when I first start working with an organization. While that may be defined by the core group, I believe that it is somewhat bigger than that and takes into account the different sub-cultures that I find to exist in larger complex organizations. [Read entire topic]

#101: from LAVINIA WEISSMAN (tnf) Mon 15 Mar 04 09:22

Mon, 15 Mar 2004 09:22:00 PST

Lavinia Weissman writes:

Art,

Thank you for all your thoughtful responses.

Some brief comments:

Re:*your responses (*95 and 100) Groups that form cross organizational boundaries. In technology companies, this is common in terms of manufacturing and delivery to customers. Your remark re: Governance is right on. Faculty at Stern School at NYU *have followed this in their benchmarking analysis of virtual networks for Sun Microsystems for many years. The orignial researchers,*found Governance to*be a key factor in whether or not virtual teams could work successfully.*

What virtual teams in my opinion have not spoken to which you hint at in response (100) is the idea of "paying attention." This is why I believe as you pointed out, keeping things informal in the context of a core group can be more effective. Often corporate alliance groups of virtual teams that form across deparments (geography or partnering companies) get bogged down in a search for civility and how they talk to each other rather than serving the*mission and purpose for why the group has formed informally.

This is where I*believe the model of dialogue*that has grown out of your work with Bill Issacs at Dialogos is extremely useful both in examining a view built out of a future scenario and investigating a generative form of inquiry that requires examinations of hidden assumptions. The governance that emerges out of exploring what people do not know*on an informal basis, imho, breaks down structural barriers of thought that we learn in professional training and past success that*stops people from finding a new model of success or work practice that serves*today's needs/mission.*

Karen Stephenson's work on social network analysis, <http://www.netform.com>http://www.netform.com is another valuable tool here for valuing the informal core group as an asset. Her analysis can educate the hierachy and economic decision makers on how the informal core group in network interacts and what they do (that cannot be learned in a simple conversation of asking someone or a team, what is it you do all day and why should we pay you?). As Karen has said to me many time, core groups that are effective listen to a larger social network then most economic decision makers. Members of effective core groups are on the line every day with customers and a much larger network of influence than most economic decisions makers. Your Procter and Gamble story is in the book is a real good example of how most tightly controlled large companies that relied on a group of founders cannot stay current with the need and response for change that is a skill of agility for any global company or knowledge boutique that serves a large system of service and product.

A clear example of this is when a team gets so stuck on archiving knowledge practices from past success and does not look at the here and now of today and what it will take to deliver to the current needs of people staffing a project, outsources and customers. It always surprises me how many answers can be found from your customers and how stubborn organizations get with defending "what they know."*or "what worked in the past."***Paying attention today is not the same as paying attention to the past or rules and policies that no longer serve. Social network analysis can educate economic decisions makers on how core groups and their extended social networks are behaving as a valuable asset to the bottom line.

RE: Woody's *remark (90). The bottom line focus always seems short-term. It is rare that a business will dedicate time in the short-term to costing out what is lost by taking the bottom line view. Let me give you an example. Boston College took a short view in building a new stadium on campus a few years ago. They did not analyze the impact on the neighborhood and what they would lose for not doing something responsive in terms of a good standing with the certificaters who approve financial aid and more based on how up to date a campus is with respect to facility and services. In ignoring the neighborhood over the new stadium they ended up paying millions of dollars that could have been saved in a lawsuit they lost with the neighbors. In fact, they had to hire full time staff to oversee the management of the cost of the lawsuits and more. This also stalled the neccessary development of a new student center. This was costly since the lack of a contemporary student center cost their standing with respect to financial aid.

I know from my own experience in health care how a financial hazard uncovered in an audit when not attended to can multiply into a scary deficit. For years in many medical practices, financial systems could not talk to medical records systems and this problem mushroomed into billions of dollars of mishandled medical claims. Most core groups know what the auditor will write before the report is released. What does it take to forward a decision to act?

A core group that pays attention will learn how in the shortterm to look at the cost of change. Overseas outsourcing is definitely something that deserves this examination. How many offshore call centers for hi tech end up costing companies business and customers because of the lack of ability to respond to the customer due to issues of cultural diversity and lack of training? I am certain we could collect lots of stories about that on many companies, e.g. HP and Apple.

Core groups that pay attention not only have to do the work of analysis to stand behind their decision. It is often pretty easy to calculate the cost of doing a bad job in lost business and more if you don't invest in proactive measures of training and customer education in the short-term. Such measures may take a few weeks or months and can replace the cost of what is usually viewed as long the view. Preventitive maintenance can be a back of an envelope exercise for those who don't wait months to audit for problems post the introduction of quick and dirty change.

This kind of intangible/tangible analysis is the frontier of thought and change that Baruch Lev has done and provided as testimony to regulators and government. Art, I think your profile of Lev's work is due out in the next issue of <http://www.strategy-business.com>http://www.strategy-business.com. I strongly recommend anyone checking out Lev's web site at <http://www.stern/nyu.edu/~blev>http://www.stern/nyu.edu/~blev or reading Art's forthcoming profile. His accounting methods are state of the art for managing intangible and tangible measures for any core group striving for quality performance. I have adopted this thinking in much of my practice.

Thank you for inviting me to visit here. I have enjoyed this conversation and benefitted from the thinking offered here.

Cordially, Lavinia [Read entire topic]

#100: Art Kleiner (art) Sun 14 Mar 04 10:38

Sun, 14 Mar 2004 10:38:00 PST

Here's my replies to the last few items (#87-89) by Joe, Lavinia, and Woody Liswood (hi, Woody! Some may recognize Woody as the editor of the "Analyzing" (spreadsheets and analytical software) section of the Whole Earth Software Catalog. Currently, Woody teaches skiing and practices management, or is it teaches management and practices skiing?)

Joe and Lavinia, I don't have anything to add to y our #87-88. Lavinia, your points in #88 all seem right on to me.

Here's my stab at your questions in #89:

1. What happens when core groups actually recognize themselves and in that context how do they formally claim their pattern, view and then proactively author their dialogue and activity?

It's tricky. Because they can't really proclaim themselves part of the "Core Group." They haven't put themselves there --others have put them there by making decisions on their perceived behalf.

One thinks of the many TV characters who proclaim themselves part of the Core Group but actually aren*t: the commanding officer on Sergeant Bilko, Colonel Klink in Hogan*s Heroes, Douglas Brackman on L.A. Law, Frank Burns on M*A*S*H (I*m dating myself, aren*t I?)* it*s practically an iconic plotline, the authority that carries no legitimacy (Macbeth) or lost legitimacy (King Lear) or eroding legitimacy. Why is this legitimacy-authority battle such an archetype? Perhaps because it*s endemic to real life, and so painful and subtle in reality that people want to see it portrayed in comedy (or drama) to come to terms with it.

I think it*s better for a Core Group to keep it informal, but to begin taking the kind of steps that would demonstrate their commitment to the long-term future and success of the enterprise * and to get to know each other and to learn more about how each other acts and thinks. As they start paying attention to different things, and better things, people throughout the organization will get the message.

2. Can Core Groups deliberately come together and form across organizational boundaries? (Is that what your question means, Lavinia?)

Again, it*s tricky. If they*re forming across organizational boundaries, then are they coming together on behalf of the organization? Or if not, what? Who*s making decisions on their behalf? What fish are they frying? What future are they looking at?

I think there are many such groups, but they*re not quite the same type of entity. They*re more like governance vehicles operating in society at large.

As for question #3, what is the cost of core group arrogance, I think you answer it very effectively.

I think it*s important, however, to give the Core Group the benefit of the doubt until proven corrupt and venal.

Finally, Lavinia, your start-up medical example is the only plausible answer I see to Woody*s #90: *As long as the short-term financial requirements hold sway, there*s no real hope to take a longer-term view of things.*

Woody, I think it*s true: The pressure of the financial markets (and the bond markets) is undeniable.

But it is NOT a one-size-fits-all situation. There are public companies that take a long-term view. They do it the old-fashioned way: by stating their short- and long-term objectives, by paying dividends or otherwise showing that they have shareholders on the mind, by cultivating relationships with key shareholders and establishing collective views of what would constitute success, and by being willing to say, *If you don*t agree with this, put your money elsewhere.* Admittedly, it helps to be a company like Ford, with family money on management*s side. But there are lots of other companies which do some version of this. They all have one thing in common in my view: They*re competent. They produce reliable returns. They*re stable enough to produce good results, and flexible enough to meet changing customer needs. In the absence of competence, companies are thrown back on the vagaries of the market and CEOs can get fired.

But in my view, the idea that *public companies are hobbled* is a fiction that Core Groups use to coast and make easy choices. It*s easy to turn in a good quarterly report * compared to creating a successful company.

I*m not diminishing the pressure from investors. I think the pressure is very real. I*m just saying that the real currency is not return on investment. It*s trust. ROI is one way to build trust, but there are lots of other ways.

I also disagree that *The greed (or whatever one calls it) that many folks see in executive salaries is just a by product of the drive for profit.* I think the *drive for profit* is a byproduct of the implicit aggregate greed of the organization on behalf of the Core Group. If the purpose of the company is to boost the Core Group members* salaries (and give others hope of getting theirs boosted when they get in), then the organization will naturally look to quick-returns, because that*s the quickest and seemingly easiest way to accomplish this.

Even mature organizations fall prey to this. And it*s hard not to. As someone trying to raise three children in a New York suburb right now, I sometimes wonder if it*s possible to do it well without a $300K+ annual salary. Is that greed? Or is that more like being caught in a structure which encourages greed?

So we*re back to the work-family balance. I agree, there*s lots of reason to be skeptical of organizations maturing. But there*s also some evidence that they thrive as they mature. I guess the question is: What do we do while we*re waiting? And do we care enough to try to help the process along a bit, in our limited and imperfect ways? [Read entire topic]

#99: Art Kleiner (art) Sun 14 Mar 04 10:06

Sun, 14 Mar 2004 10:06:00 PST

Re #82: Paul asks for my chronology of life events. Here it is, "just the highlights":

1954-1971 * Grew up, mostly, in suburban New York/lower Hudson Valley. Knew I was going to write for a living starting around 2nd grade, maybe earlier. There was never any question but that I would pursue an:

1971-1975 * Undergraduate degree in English and mass media * in my case, at State U of New York at Albany. Learned enough about filmmaking to realize I would never be willing to keep track of that many other people. (Heh.) Started a small-press magazine which we distributed throughout the Hudson Valley. Knew I couldn*t stomach graduate school in English (already the clouds of deconstructionism were looming), so I became:

1976-1977 * footloose, worked as a clerk in San Francisco and a night-shift typesetter in New York. Got deeper into the small-press literary magazine scene. Tried writing fiction, dissatisfied myself, went to:

1977-1979 * graduate school in Journalism at UC Berkeley. Was unique in also taking courses in graphic design, hoping to create a magazine. Began covering computer-telecommunications, learned about the *Friday project* (teenagers at the Lawrence Hall of Science), started interviewing them, began to hear about the tremendous number of interesting stories emerging in the nascent computer industry. Published a prospectus for a new magazine, which included a history of magazines on a timeline, sent it to Stewart Brand, which led to:

1980-1984 * Working on the Whole Earth Catalog, Whole Earth Software Catalog, and CoEvolution Quarterly. Tremendous opportunity and education, and worked with people whose words, thoughts and care I still carry with me (including some who are deceased). Though I had little computer background and great mistrust for the topic, I got caught up in the wave, and ended up probably one of the leading experts on personal computer telecommunications. It helped that I*d been an early user of the EIES network at New Jersey Institute of Technology, and a CompuServe host of the Whole Earth Forum. Felt like I*d never really make it as a writer if I stayed there, though, so I left on January 1985*.

1985-1988 * in a series of steps which seemed unplanned at the time: Covering Silicon Valley and computers for the San Francisco Bay Guardian, teaching at New York University*s Interactive Telecommunications Program, writing a failed book about computers, freelancing for the New York Times Magazine (twice printed, twice killed), and trying to break into magazine writing. Met my wife, Faith Florer, at a small press magazine meeting in New York. Started moving away from computer writing into advertising and marketing writing and then into feature and business writing, with a detour in 1988 into fashion writing. Never quite managed to find A-list opportunities, and I grew more and more financially desperate, even trying to freelance as a data base programmer for a while (what a joke) until*

1989-1995 * Harriet Rubin introduced me to Peter Senge, who was writing a book that became The Fifth Discipline. At the same time, I became intrigued by the stories I was hearing of hippies and heretics influencing large corporations. Proposed The Age of Heretics to Doubleday; proposal accepted, the advance was spent almost immediately. The book would take six more years to finish. Began writing about corporate environmentalism for Garbage Magazine. Ghostwrote for a variety of people (learned scenario planning by helping Peter Schwartz write Art of the Long View). Spent part of 1990 in England, and 1991-1995 in Oxford, Ohio, where Faith was pursuing a PhD in experimental/cognitive psychology. Worked during much of this time as editorial director for the Fifth Discipline Fieldbook, and at the MIT Center for Organizational Learning (site of the anecdote about my palms sweating.) Began teaching the scenario planning course, *The Future of the Infrastructure,* that continues to this day, with all our scenarios tracked over time on our website. Things shifted when I*

1996-1999 * Moved to New York, where I currently live. With Age of Heretics published and praised (I became a GBN network member after that) but not financially successful, I entered a whirlwind of activity: Developing the learning history approach with George Roth and Nina Kruschwitz, putting together two more fieldbooks,and doing a lot more ghostwriting. Our first daughter was born in July 1998. Gained a very little money in the bubble, put much of it into home improvement before the downturn and then sold the house, so came out ahead. I*m getting tired of the transitions, so I*ll just mention*

2000-now * Two more daughters (born election night 2000 and September 2002), a regular column in strategy+business, an ongoing role in the Dialogos consulting firm (Cambridge MA), the Who Really Matters project (which occupied much of 2000-2003), and the book*s aftermath (which occupies much of now). Looking around right now for the Next Big Thing to do. So, I gather, is the rest of the world. [Read entire topic]

#98: Art Kleiner (art) Sun 14 Mar 04 10:00

Sun, 14 Mar 2004 10:00:00 PST

Re #81: Ceder writes, **the book has me realizing how unaware I*ve been, a natural enabler really.*

The book itself started with the realization that a lot of people I knew were enablers. Ceder, I appreciate the compliment tremendously * to have written a book that has gone through a third reading* [Read entire topic]