The economic organ of industry has the fundamental knowledge to utilize physical science and technology for the material benefit of society, and we must now learn how to utilize social science to make our organizations truly effective. Many people agree in principle but so far demonstrate a pious hope in relation to the continuing industrial social order. Consider what may be involved when we attempt to transform this order for sustaining hope of effective industry organization into a reality.
During the past decade have come attempts to exploit society through science and technology, some successful, some not, others misrepresented and thus misunderstood on network intent to clandestinely monopolize the benefit.
The point is that the evolution of management theory in this field has been a slow and costly matter. We expect it always to be thus. No one can be impatient with the scientist because he cannot tell the industrial order what to do, how to build a simple, inexpensive and open infrastructure within which all can participate as contributors. That will take another decade and investment of billions of dollars to achieve the economic aim within the present state of the incumbent corporate political order.
Release from their guild we are certain, under the condition of equal participation freed from network controls, can deliver an unimagined resource of creative human potential available within the current system. We cannot tell management precisely how to apply within the order of things this knowledge, in simple, economic ways. We know it has taken years of exploration, costly research, and a substantial amount of creative imagination on the part of change agents, working within the order, to apply this knowledge of human management aiming to support a truly open and competitive system state.
At one extreme enterprise management can be hard or strong. Methods for directing behavior within the enterprise involve coercion, threat, usually disguised, closed supervision and tight control over individual behavior. At the other extreme management can be soft. Methods for directing behavior involve being permissive, satisfying demands and achieving harmony.
The range has not been fully explored.
There are difficulties with the hard approach of enterprise control. Guild forces breed counter forces; restriction of output, antagonism, militant organizations transform into development clan's who guard their closed, or only partially open system, developments, subordinate economic distribution and the rewards for that financial endeavor.
The approach is especially difficult during periods of industrial concentration.
There are also difficulties in the soft approach. Leading frequently to abdication of management, to harmony, but too indifferent performance where the incumbent networks take advantage of the soft approach. Positioning within a society to expect more, they give less and less.
Once participants are motivated by higher ideals, where management provides an open system aimed for the satisfaction of self fulfillment, the corporate political and industrial order can create conditions where participants are encouraged, and enabled too seek, economically competitive satisfaction. Or it can thwart competition satisfaction by failing to create those conditions.
The significant exception is where existing management systems of practice under incumbent network controls keep within themselves, not having created a social confidence in governance providing the fair break.
Management by direction and control, whether implemented with the hard, the soft, or by the firm and fair, fails under today's condition of network control. Their closed system remains a useless method for effective motivation where the guild operating in development clan remains predominant
May I ask you keep this in mind, overdrawn and pretentious though it may be, as a framework for what I have to day this morning.
I think the tech will always happen first. Our considerations on what to do with the data just simply won't be a concern till there's something out there spewing information. Then we'll have to react and figure out what to do with it all. This has pretty much been how things have worked up till now.
As we unveil EE Times’ 2015 Silicon 60 list, journalist & Silicon 60 researcher Peter Clarke hosts a conversation on startups in the electronics industry. Panelists Dan Armbrust (investment firm Silicon Catalyst), Andrew Kau (venture capital firm Walden International), and Stan Boland (successful serial entrepreneur, former CEO of Neul, Icera) join in the live debate.