Algorithms, not tips.
“Effective executives do first things first and they do one thing at a time.”
– Peter Drucker
That’s an algorithm, not a tip. A tip would tell you to spend the first hour of your morning on your biggest project, before you turn on e-mail, check voicemail, or read the news. And that would be a good tip, because many top performers carve out regular blocks of time during which the hurly-burly of the day can’t invade their attention.
But an algorithm goes deeper: it expresses generalized principles that work across scales. It’s better than a tip, because it’s the source material from which tips are fashioned and the background against which they play out.
A manager who took Drucker’s observation to heart — and note that it is an observation based on field research, not abstract advice — could apply it first to herself, then all the way down her hierarchy. What if her entire division took first things first, and did it steadily? What if every person in her division was freed up (from pointless meetings, pointless schedules, pointless interruptions) so that they could do one thing at a time and do it well? What do you think would happen?
When I asked in the prior post for “real advice” that people would give to their companies if they needn’t fear reprisals, one commenter said that “it’s hard to see how advice which is general enough to be applicable to anyone is likely to be more than mere platitudes.” And true enough, we do get a lot of platitudes for management, the worst of which (”Give it 110 percent!”) do more harm than good.
But the best principles of management, the durable algorithms, can guide our thinking across eras, industries, roles, technologies. Peter Drucker published those words about putting first things first in 1967, and they haven’t gotten any less relevant.
The more I look, the more I find algorithms that drive success in business, or that cause failure by their lack. It’s what I’ve been trying to get at in the “Basic Basics” posts, and looking back at other things I’ve written here, or even comments I’ve left elsewhere, there’s no lack of other examples:
- A post on Robert Lang’s use of mathematical expressions in origami led to a comment-thread discussion on “design patterns.”
- This blog’s many posts about Toyota (for example this one) try to examine its relentless use of simple concepts to build great success.
- A short item addresses Southwest’s simple-as-pie strategy for staying profitable.
- A recent post by Scott Berkun led me to suggest this management algorithm: “Have some guts, and show it.”
Some of the comments on the “Real Advice” thread suggest more algorithms. Here are just a few:
- “Learn to trust the professionals you have hired and listen to those who disagree with you.”
- “Listen to your customers.”
- “Don’t explain away or accept mediocrity.”
“Yeah, yeah,” I can hear someone saying, “Everybody knows that stuff already.” But I don’t think everyone does. And even if they do, anyone who’s spent more than ten minutes in business can tell you that these principles are violated constantly.
This happens because people are human and management is a human discipline, not one of the exact sciences. Peter Drucker had the good sense to emphasize that, over and over. Still, he and other great thinkers in business have managed to abstract deep principles that abide over time.
Tell me, what are YOUR fundamental algorithms for business?
~
Algorithmically generated images by pyrator.
Category: Management, The working lifeIf you liked this post, please consider subscribing to the RSS feed so you can receive future articles delivered to your feed reader.
7 Comments so far
Leave A Comment
A fundamental algorithm I use regularly (or — let’s be honest — *try* to use) is the notion of looking for the root cause of a problem.
Too much email? Why? Where is the email coming from? Are there any patterns? Am I doing anything to elicit or generate more incoming email?
Is my sales pipeline barren? Why? What have I been doing (or not doing?) to lead to this situation? Why haven’t I been doing (or not doing) this?
It’s too easy to look for proximate causes, without looking for the root causes that really undermine our success.
I like Dan’s root cause algorithm. It’s uncommon to see managers say “stop. before we fix this we need to understand it.” It’s basic advice but there’s such a rush to do things fast and respond quickly, but if you’re not looking for causes the “solution” may be worse than the problem.
Tim – even a blind squirrel finds an occasional nugget or three. Now, if you think about it, is a leg-pull, pun, algorithm and whoknowswhat wrapped into a phrase :) ! Good point – keep beavering and collecting. Look for fundamental algorithms – is that one itself ?
Let me offer up four that have worked for me:
1. Sowell’s Theorem: if you do this what happens ? And then what and then what and then what thru at least five levels. In other words what are the consequences not what is the intent ?
2. Look for the basic components/pieces and frame them into a structured relationship. (this has worked so far for me on macroecon, SCM, IT Architectures, etc.)
3. How will the structure move in time ? What are it’s dynamics ?
4. Where are the perceived self-interests of the other party ? Do they even know and are they right ? If not what do they grasp ?
5. Assign no more than five major objectives to each business unit and measure those and hold people accountable.
a) the five can be broken down into more detailed sub-goals/objectives
b) they should be broken down hierarchically down and across the organization but that gives you a nested, integrated and self-reinforcing set of operating controls
Thanks for these comments, gentlemen. I like the common thread about getting under the surface & revealing the “subterranean” forces at work.
“What’s ACTUALLY going on?” — if you apply it bluntly, even when it goes against your own assumptions & vested interests — is a great algorithm that transcends settings and timeframes.
I worked for an association that worked with companies to implement quality improvement initiatives based on Deming’s work in the early nineties. It really opened my eyes to the process of discovering and measuring issues.
In my immediate office, we at least have been able to improve our environment a little by discovering and dealing with issues that create what we call, “Spin Cycles” – people running around like maniacs because they’re dealing with only a small piece of the problem, not the whole beast!
[...] Algorithms, not tips. [...]
[...] And, once more with feeling, from the late Peter Drucker: [...]