Where There is No Master
Where There is No Doctor is said to be the best reference manual for those who need medical attention, but whose economic or geographical situation doesn't offer access to health care professionals. I think it's also part of a movement to foster agency in consumers (not to say mere patients) who currently do have access to mainstream health care, but would get better care if they participated more. It's also a popular book to buy when preparing for disasters.
I think it would be good to handle MBAs the way that book handles MDs, for many of the same reasons. I've written about anomie before on this blog. Anomie is often listed as a central challenge when earning a graduate degree, and it might occur when people attempt anything unusual. I was blindsided by this condition, and then pleasantly surprised to learn it had a name. I'm still struggling to deal with it.
It's obvious, in retrospect, that people would feel a lack of norms in such times: we're mostly used to being bossed around, acting within explicit constraints, and having workable "default settings" handed to us. Any truly pioneering work will occur under conditions where society hasn't explored the possibilities enough to establish a list of safe recipes, and people qualified to boss others around in such an arena (if any exist yet) are too busy breaking their own new ground to be anyone's boss in the style to which we are accustomed.
I wonder if this is part of the reason innovative groups seem so vulnerable to domination, from the new president of the Campus Anarchists Club who suddenly has everyone wrapped around their finger, to the tech startup that sees itself becoming more like Microsoft every day but can't help itself. Among the many varieties of work that support a person's productivity, there is some subset (including the establishment of norms) that most of us lack the skills to do ourselves. We're conditioned to expect someone resembling Andy Samberg's character from that SNL Digital Short (i.e., someone Like a Boss) to provide for those needs. When this expectation is subconscious, the desire for norms is urgent, and the work mostly mysterious, some very superficial signifiers can inspire a group to rally around incompetence or exploitation.
One interesting project to provide pioneering teams with functional norms is the work of Jim and Michele McCarthy. Their Core Protocols are constructed almost like an internet standards specification, perhaps with the notion that traditional management can be replaced in the same way that snail mail has been. If it comes down to a choice between commitment to a leader, and commitment to a shared set of rules, I'd choose the set of rules, but I hope there are more options than that. My initial impression is that, while the logic behind a given protocol often shows through, its prescriptions precede any individual diagnosis. I'm also worried that the reasoning behind the various behaviors might mostly be left a mystery until the team in question has committed to behaving.
But small, new groups aren't the half of it. Lots of individuals, whether they are striking out on their own or just trying to tack against the mainstream, are facing similar problems. I think a framework for examining the fundamentals of work and management might help a lot of people to engage in what they do a lot more actively. I think this would be particularly important in times that call for an increase in self-employment or for large organizations to change course.
I would love to see a treatment of this subject with a broader scope and a wider audience, that spans the space from working alone through participation in consensus-based or goal-driven groups on up to interfacing with large incumbent institutions. If the basic work of norm-setting, decision-making, and resource allocation were de-mystified, costume and jargon would have less power to mislead, providing less of a market for quackery. Also, recent studies of cognition have tremendous potential to collect the existing body of techniques into more condensed statements about the underlying science: theory, not anecdote; descriptive, not prescriptive. I don't necessarily think I'm the person to write such a book, but if it isn't too cute, I'd like to suggest the title: Where There is No Master.
I think it would be good to handle MBAs the way that book handles MDs, for many of the same reasons. I've written about anomie before on this blog. Anomie is often listed as a central challenge when earning a graduate degree, and it might occur when people attempt anything unusual. I was blindsided by this condition, and then pleasantly surprised to learn it had a name. I'm still struggling to deal with it.
It's obvious, in retrospect, that people would feel a lack of norms in such times: we're mostly used to being bossed around, acting within explicit constraints, and having workable "default settings" handed to us. Any truly pioneering work will occur under conditions where society hasn't explored the possibilities enough to establish a list of safe recipes, and people qualified to boss others around in such an arena (if any exist yet) are too busy breaking their own new ground to be anyone's boss in the style to which we are accustomed.
I wonder if this is part of the reason innovative groups seem so vulnerable to domination, from the new president of the Campus Anarchists Club who suddenly has everyone wrapped around their finger, to the tech startup that sees itself becoming more like Microsoft every day but can't help itself. Among the many varieties of work that support a person's productivity, there is some subset (including the establishment of norms) that most of us lack the skills to do ourselves. We're conditioned to expect someone resembling Andy Samberg's character from that SNL Digital Short (i.e., someone Like a Boss) to provide for those needs. When this expectation is subconscious, the desire for norms is urgent, and the work mostly mysterious, some very superficial signifiers can inspire a group to rally around incompetence or exploitation.
One interesting project to provide pioneering teams with functional norms is the work of Jim and Michele McCarthy. Their Core Protocols are constructed almost like an internet standards specification, perhaps with the notion that traditional management can be replaced in the same way that snail mail has been. If it comes down to a choice between commitment to a leader, and commitment to a shared set of rules, I'd choose the set of rules, but I hope there are more options than that. My initial impression is that, while the logic behind a given protocol often shows through, its prescriptions precede any individual diagnosis. I'm also worried that the reasoning behind the various behaviors might mostly be left a mystery until the team in question has committed to behaving.
But small, new groups aren't the half of it. Lots of individuals, whether they are striking out on their own or just trying to tack against the mainstream, are facing similar problems. I think a framework for examining the fundamentals of work and management might help a lot of people to engage in what they do a lot more actively. I think this would be particularly important in times that call for an increase in self-employment or for large organizations to change course.
I would love to see a treatment of this subject with a broader scope and a wider audience, that spans the space from working alone through participation in consensus-based or goal-driven groups on up to interfacing with large incumbent institutions. If the basic work of norm-setting, decision-making, and resource allocation were de-mystified, costume and jargon would have less power to mislead, providing less of a market for quackery. Also, recent studies of cognition have tremendous potential to collect the existing body of techniques into more condensed statements about the underlying science: theory, not anecdote; descriptive, not prescriptive. I don't necessarily think I'm the person to write such a book, but if it isn't too cute, I'd like to suggest the title: Where There is No Master.