By Brian Lucas
“Good management consists in showing average people how to do the work of superior people.” -John D. Rockefeller[1]
“Employees who believe that management is concerned about them as a whole person – not just an employee – are more productive, more satisfied, more fulfilled. Satisfied employees mean satisfied customers, which leads to profitability.” -Anne M. Mulcahy[2]
“Having ONLY[3] the right people in the right place at the right time doing the right thing is fundamental to running an agile enterprise. Ubiquitous vision, knowledge and empowerment are the keys to making this happen.” –Brian Lucas[4]
In modern history, there have so far been three eras of management:
- Management 1.0 – The Process Centric Era
- Management 2.0 – The People Centric Era
- Management 3.0 – The Knowledge Centric Era
The three quotes at the beginning of this article are representative of the three eras of modern management. Each represent a leap in management thinking. Between these leaps, there was a considerable amount of incremental development. For example, specific strategic management[5] theory and planning has always had a significant effect on these management eras. Since the early days of Capitalism which drove a Product/Service Oriented Strategy, each decade since the 1960s has brought forth a new approach:
The 1960s – The Sales Oriented Strategy
The 1970s – The Marketing Oriented Strategy
The 1980s – The Active and Interactive Oriented Strategy
The 1990s – The Value Chain and Optimization of Resources Strategy
The 2000s – The Living Company Strategy
The 2010s – The Learning and Agile Strategy
Note the psychological shift[6] from being reactive and negative to proactive and positive. For those of you who lived through these decades in business, you will realize that these theories don’t quite fit into nice, neat windows as this list implies. Nothing academic ever does. Some companies are still back in the 60s and surviving somehow, others are trying to practice a Learning and Agile Strategy (as I call it) and are failing for various reasons. But rather than cover these strategies atomically, I am defining here the large sweeping eras of basic modern[7] management thought.
First, let’s take a quick peek at where we are. We are now in the Learning and Agile Strategy phase. In this era, businesses must change their structure fluidly in response to ever changing customer needs and market pressures. Jack Welch says in Straight from the Gut, “Change before you have to”. The need to precede market demands with organizational adaptability, which can anticipate those demands and meet them at the beginning of a cycle, is the difference between enterprise success or business failure.
The market turbulence of the last 5 years has clearly shown the influence of globalization and volatility. This will remain constant for the foreseeable future. Even with a rebuilding economy, the underlying fluctuations in commodities, currency rates, energy and the emergence of a vast array of new and non-traditional competitors will constantly challenge traditional business and operating models making them obsolete. This is what has driven the change to the era of agile management.
Now let’s take a step back in time for a moment and see how this all developed. Management 1.0 began in the very late 1800s and early 1900s with Frederick Winslow Taylor, the father of scientific management. Taylor was one of the intellectual leaders of the “Efficiency Movement” and his ideas were highly influential in the Progressive Era. Taylor was the first man in recorded history, who deemed work deserving of systematic observation and study. The basis of this theory is that the ideal process could be devised upfront through much thought and analysis and then people had to be taught the process and managed tightly to enforce the process. Price control was an important focus.
In his book Management 3.0, Jurgen Appelo defines this period as the era of hierarchies:
Some people call it scientific management, whereas others call it command-and-control. But the basic idea is the same: An organization is designed and managed in a top-down fashion, and power is in the hands of the few. Those at the top of the hierarchy have the highest salaries, the biggest egos, and the most expensive chairs. Those at the bottom have little money, few responsibilities, and no motivation to do a good job.
To compensate for the danger of their high positions, the top executives are allowed to play with the bonuses that, in many cases, have far more effect on personal wealth than organizational performance. As a side effect, dangerous bonus schemes also contributed to a worldwide financial implosion. Oops.
We can safely conclude that Management 1.0, even though it is still the most widespread version of management in the world, has a number of serious flaws. It is old, outdated, and in need of an upgrade.
It is difficult to argue with the fact this technique is 50 years out of date. Some CEOs are still heavily entrenched in this concept, however, as is most middle management. I call this era, the process centric one because of all the work done by the pioneers Taylor[8], Gantt[9], Fayol[10], Shewhart[11] and Walker[12]. This was a necessary era, but one that lasted too long, due to a poor understanding of early adopters and the perennial stragglers who had to be dragged kicking and screaming along.
Management 2.0 began in the 1980s. I like to credit Blanchard[13] for ushering in this era, but it is highly argumentative and really somewhat arbitrary whomever you pick. The following body of work helped shift the focus from process to people:
- The book the One Minute Manager in 1982 by Ken Blanchard[14]
- The Theory of Constraints in 1984 by Eliyahu Goldratt[15]
- Total Quality Control/Total Quality Management in 1985 by Edwards Deming[16] and Kaoru Ishikawa
- Six Sigma in 1986 by Motorola
- Balanced Scorecard[17] in 1990 by Robert S. Kaplan
Appelo defines this era as people centric[18] (as I do) in the following excerpt from his book:
Some people realized that Management 1.0 doesn’t work well out-of-the-box, so they created numerous add-on models and services with a semi-scientific status, like the Balanced Scorecard, Six Sigma, Theory of Constraints, and Total Quality Management. Being Add-ons to Management 1.0, these models assume that the organizations are managed from the top, and they help those at the top to better “design” their organizations. Sometimes it works; sometimes it doesn’t.
In the meantime other models and services focus on the craft and the art of management. Many books, such as the One Minute Manager, the 21 Laws of Leadership, and the Good to Great, have presented basic principles and guidelines for managers, and tell them to practice and build experience. Again, they are sometimes right, and sometimes not. And they replace each other faster than the diapers on a toddler.
Management 2.0 is just Management 1.0 with a great number of add-ons to ease the problems of an old system. But the architecture of Management 2.0 is still the same outdated hierarchy.
We agree on the title, but I don’t see these techniques as really Add-ons to Management 1.0. During this era it was recognized that processes were becoming more complex and the environment was changing. The focus of management shifted to people[19] rather than process. Treating people as idiots and drones, as in the Management 1.0 philosophy, produced mindless results. Those with initiative quit and became the competition. Quality[20] became more important replacing process as a focus.
From my perspective, Management 3.0 is the knowledge[21] centric era. It began, strange enough, with the agile software revolution symbolized by the Agile Manifesto in 2001. While it was software related, this manifesto combined with the low requirement for capitalization to start a new business made possible by the internet revolution spurred on a new era of market environment and demand as predicted by Alvin Toffler as The Third Wave.
Appelo defines this era as follows:
The last few decades saw the birth and rise of complexity theory, first applied to mathematics and biology and later to economics and sociology. It was a major breakthrough. Stephen Hawkings thought it was so important that he called the 2st century the “century of complexity.”
One important insight is that all organizations are networks. People may draw their organizations as hierarchies, but that doesn’t change that they are actually networks. Second, social complexity shows us that management is primarily about people and their relationships, not about departments and profits.
Many of us already knew that “leadership” is just a trendy name for managers doing the right thing and doing things right. But complexity thinking adds a new dimension to our existing vocabulary. It makes us realize that we should see our organizations as living systems, not as machines.
It is nice to have a new name. Names can be powerful. The “3.0” version means that management needs changing. It usually takes Microsoft three major releases of a product to get things right. I believe that management has, in the third incarnation, finally found a solid scientific foundation. The earlier add-ons are still valuable. But we have to replace assumptions of hierarchies with networks because the 2st century is the Age of Complexity.
I agree with his assessment that this is a time of complex systems. In this era, we recognize that processes, products and services are always changing because technology is always changing. People are still the most important part of the equation. But the only time people can operate at their highest efficiency is when you empower them and have the right person, in the right place, at the right time, doing the right thing and they are acting like a virtual corporation. Since the environment changes so frequently, the only way to enable this is through ubiquitous knowledge and decentralized authority.
Today we realize that business agility is based on a responsive lattice organization structure that networks itself to an ever changing business environment and market demands. People are not managed in hierarchies; they are empowered to take responsibility in self-forming teams. Products and services are not defined and built by ridged process, they are evolved.
So the question we must ask ourselves from a Management 3.0 perspective is, “does this mean that since we are now in Toffler’s third wave and the environment we live in is complex and constantly changing and that our organization structures must change with this; that we cannot successfully plan?” The answer is no! You need to use strategic planning techniques as a starting point and then make them both ubiquitous and dynamically fed and matured from ALL elements in the organization[22]. That is the golden opportunity and the nirvana for which everyone has been searching in this Management 3.0 era.
Some CEOs and CIOs will simply dismiss this concept as a fad. That is a shame because in addition to hurting themselves[23]; they are hurting their employees, the company in general, the stockholders, the customers and business in general[24]. Unfortunately for them Management 3.0 is not a passing fad, but the evolution and maturing of thinking from process to people to knowledge without dropping any of the valuable lessons learned along the wayside. The progression through the Management 3.0 era will be marked by a closer and more intelligent symbiosis of person and information system with a markedly greater influx of business intelligence. That is a goal whose bar will continually move higher. To meet this challenge you must, of course, remember to keep agile!
[1] John Davison Rockefeller was born July 8, 1839 and died May 23, 1937. He was one of the great iconic American industrialists and philanthropists. In 1870, he founded the Standard Oil Company and aggressively ran it until he officially retired in 1897. Standard Oil began as an Ohio partnership formed by John D. Rockefeller amongst others. Standard Oil dominated the oil industry and was the first of the notorious U.S. business trusts. Rockefeller revolutionized the petroleum industry using business tactics, technology and pioneered the use of byproducts. As kerosene and gasoline grew in importance, Rockefeller’s wealth was astronomical, and he became the world’s richest man; the first American worth more than a billion dollars. Adjusting for inflation, he is justly considered the richest person in history. Rockefeller spent the last 40 years of his life in retirement. He also defined the structure of modern philanthropy. His fortune was mainly used to create the modern systematic approach of targeted philanthropy. He did this through the creation of foundations that had a major effect on medicine, education, and scientific research. His foundations pioneered the development of medical research, and were instrumental in the eradication of hookworm and yellow fever. He was the founder of both the University of Chicago and Rockefeller University.
[2] Anne M. Mulcahy was born October 21, 1952. She is former chairperson and CEO of Xerox Corporation. Mulcahy joined Xerox as a field sales representative in 1976. From 1992-1995, she was vice president for human resources. She served as vice president and staff officer for Customer Operations, covering South America and Central America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and China. She became chief staff officer in 1997. In 1998 she was named corporate senior vice president. Named CEO of Xerox on August 1, 2001, she became chairwoman on January 1, 2002. She was selected as “CEO of the Year” in 2008 by Chief Executive Magazine. Late in her tenure, she cut the workforce by 30% and eliminated the desktop portion of Xerox. Mulcahy claims she never intended to run Xerox. She announced her retirement as CEO on May 21, 2009.
[3] ONLY is really a key word here. It means being lean and not having middle management and senior management bloat. Far too many organizations could cut their middle management and senior management teams by as much as 90% and improve products and services as well as reducing costs drastically by empowering teams.
[4] I always let my work (such as it is) speak for itself.
[5] Strategic Management Theory – Hill
[6] Reactive from the standpoint that you were meant to sell a product after the fact of manufacturing and negative in that you sold it any way you could; generating demand often psychologically. Proactive in the sense that you are focused on finding out what the customer really needs or could use to their life advantage and positive in that you are delivering it with a solid value proposition.
[7] Strategic Management theory grew out of project management theory. Project management, in fact, has been practiced since early civilization. The building of the great pyramids, the Great Wall of China and Hadrian’s Wall in Great Britain all required the successful application of project management. Until the 1900s, civil engineering projects were generally managed by creative architects and engineers. It was in the 1950s, organizations started to systematically apply project management tools and techniques to complex engineering projects.
[8] Frederick Winslow Taylor was an American mechanical engineer known for industrial efficiency who became the father of scientific management. Taylor was one of the intellectual leaders of the “Efficiency Movement” and his ideas were highly influential in the Progressive Era. Taylor was the first man in recorded history who deemed work deserving of systematic observation and study.
[9] Henry Laurence Gantt was an American mechanical engineer and management consultant who developed the Gantt chart in the 1910s. Gantt charts were employed on major infrastructure projects including the Hoover Dam and the Interstate highway system.
[10] Henri Fayol was a French mining engineer and director of mines who developed a general theory of business administration independently of scientific management. He proposed that there were six primary functions of management:
- Forecasting
- Planning
- Organizing
- Commanding
- Coordinating
- Monitoring
[11] Walter Andrew Shewhart was an American physicist, engineer and statistician, known as the father of statistical quality control. He created the basis for the control chart and the concept of a state of statistical control by carefully designed experiments.
[12] Morgan R. Walker developed the Critical Path Method (CPM) as a project modeling technique in the late 1950s while at DuPont. It was used to contribute to the success of the Manhattan Project.
[13] The actual roots of performance management have seen a great deal of play in management literature and practice. Management historians, like the great Alfred Chandler, suggest the origins of performance management can be seen in the emergence of the complex organization. This predominately occurred in the 19th Century in the USA. Recently this has been influenced by the pioneering work of General Electric on performance measurement in the 1950s. Practical work in this period using performance management dashboards is based on the ideas of the ‘resource based view of the firm’ first proposed by Edith Penrose.
[14] Kenneth Hartley Blanchard was born May 6, 1939. He is an American author and management expert. His book The One Minute Manager, which he co-authored with Spencer Johnson, has sold over 13 million copies. He has coauthored over 30 other best-selling books.
[15] Eliyahu Moshe Goldratt was born March 31, 1947 and died June 11, 2011. He was an Israeli physicist who became a business management guru. He originated the Optimized Production Technique, the Theory of Constraints (TOC), the Thinking Processes, Drum-Buffer-Rope, Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM) and other TOC derived tools.
[16] William Edwards Deming was born October 14, 1900 and died December 20, 1993. He was a pioneering American statistician, professor, author, lecturer and consultant. He is perhaps best known for his work in Japan. American business men and manufacturers originally derided Deming’s work while the Japanese embraced it. From 1950 onward, he taught top management how to improve design, service, product quality, testing, and sales in a global markets through various methods, including the application of statistical methods. Deming was at the forefront of Japan’s later reputation for innovative high-quality products and its economic power. He is regarded as having had more impact upon Japanese manufacturing and business than any other individual. Despite being considered something of a hero in Japan, he was only just beginning to win widespread recognition in the U.S. at the time of his death. President Reagan awarded him the National Medal of Technology in 1987. He received the Distinguished Career in Science award from the National Academy of Sciences in 1988.
[17] Organizations have used systems consisting of a mix of financial and non-financial measures to track progress for quite some time. One example of such a system was created by Art Schneiderman in 1987 at Analog Devices, a mid-sized semi-conductor company; the Analog Devices Balanced Scorecard was similar to what is now recognized as a “First Generation” Balanced Scorecard design. Subsequently Schneiderman participated in an unrelated research study in 1990 led by Dr. Robert S. Kaplan in conjunction with US management consultancy Nolan-Norton, and during this study described his work on performance measurement. Subsequently, Kaplan and David Norton included anonymous details of this use of Balanced Scorecard in their 1992 article on Balanced Scorecard. Kaplan and Norton’s article wasn’t the only paper on the topic published in early 1992, but the 1992 Kaplan and Norton paper was a popular success, and was quickly followed by a second in 1993. In 1996, they published the book The Balanced Scorecard. These articles and the first book spread knowledge of the concept of Balanced Scorecard widely, and has led to Kaplan and Norton being seen as the creators of the Balanced Scorecard concept.
[18] The giant Adam Smith, in 1776, defined four types of fixed capital. The fourth type was Human Capital. He defined Human Capital Management as “managing the acquired and useful abilities of all the inhabitants or members of the society”. So far we have concentrated on maximizing the capabilities and efficiencies and exploiting the first three while ignoring the possibilities of the fourth. The use of the term “Human Capital Management” in modern literature dates back to Jacob Mincer’s article “Investment in Human Capital and Personal Income Distribution” in 1958. A great book on the application of the idea is “Human Capital”, by Gary Becker.
[19] At the beginning of the last decade, Human Capital Management finally gained recognition with Watson Wyatt’s Human Capital Index study in 1999 which stated that, “Superior Human Capital Management is a leading – rather than a lagging – indicator of improved financial success.” A 2002 study showed that when businesses concentrated on processes and treat people as a secondary concern, their investment in process improvement has disappointing returns. We were learning that keeping the human element informed and having its input into the operational processes is vital to business process management success. Numerous subsequent studies have confirmed that human capital management investiture is a prerequisite for the successful implementation of business process management improvements.
[20] Kaoru Ishikawa was a university professor and influential quality management innovator best known for his cause and effect diagram (AKA fishbone diagram) created in the late 1950’s. These were used in the analysis of industrial processes based on the work of W. Edwards Deming. This later became the basis for concept – Total Quality Management.
[21] I could have easily called it the agile centric era, but I was asked to not use agile in this way by some individuals who were confusing the term with agile software development. Quel dommage!
[22] See my article the Imperative of having an Agile Organization Structure.
[24] I have always maintained that business in general is improved by healthy competition. When companies are deliberately backward or not innovative they dumb down the market. Too few companies are driven by the constant premise that being number one in sales or just better than your competition is not enough, that each enterprise should strive to be the best they possibly can be.
Keeping Agile™ with Brian Lucas 
A marvelous perspective on what is a complex issue about the evolution of management in modern enterprises. Brian I applaud you for the clarity you have brought to this subject. You are an absolute master of the expression of essential information. As a technical writer I envy your skill. J. Reeves
Thank you Jason! I actually find it a bit disturbing how some people are all-over-the-place, so to speak, on what this current era of management is all about. However, enough people are getting it that those who refuse to will not block progress.
This is a very good article about a subject that is perhaps the most important one you have addressed in your most excellent blog. The eras of management as you describe them represent leaps in advancement of the evolution of the enterprise. I agree with your characterizations 100% and the brief history you have outlined here is a primer for management thinking. I recognize the importance and even the need to define the Management 1.0 and 2.0 eras. The lessons we learned there should not be forgotten. I would greatly appreciate it, however, if you were to explore the Management 3.0 era further. This is something I think would be worthy of a series of articles. I have started to read your blog last week and I devour everything you post with relish. If you ever write a book I will be the first to purchase it! -David Lee Smith
David I intend to devote a series of articles to the subject of Management 3.0 the Era of Agile Management. Unfortunnately there are some CEOs and executives that are still practicing Management 1.0 command and control type thinking and propound even greater “CONTROL” as Management 3.0 thinking or even beyond that. That is a very negative direction.
You sir are a true thought leader! This is an amazing summary of management theory, well researched and written in a clear and readable style. You have looked back on management as a great historian would and couched the struggle as a progressive evolution with facts that command our agreement. I have been a senior manager for many years and knew much of the history you cited here. You have put it all in a new and very much more meaningful perspective for me. Please continue this effort and define now for us the attributes of a model Management 3.0 enterprise.
With the most sincere appreciation,
Joslyn
Joslyn, thank you for considering me a thought leader. I try to post original content on my blog rather than rehashing what someone else has written. History has always interested me. It can be a great and wonderous teacher for us all on how to lead a better life in the present. Your idea to define the attributes of a Management 3.0 enterprise is a good one.
This is an important statement and an indictment of business executives everywhere who are still caught up in the management 1.0 philosophy. Too many executives across the globe are blaming the economy and not themselves for poor performance. They are too short sighted to see that the entire concept of a business organization has changed as Mr. Lucas has told us. The good news is they will all eventually fail and be replaced. History will paint a very poor picture of them all.
Agreed!
This is the clearest and simplest explanation of management trends I have ever read. It is straight to the point and makes an undeniable case for the need of all of us to change our thinking. Every CEO, myself included, must address the new environment in which we find ourselves. The old structured hierarchy is not cutting it anymore, regardless of whether we are a large or small enterprise. Thank you Brian for putting forth this understanding of agile management; and the excellent content of your blog in general. More blogs should post such original content.
The best way to thank me is to become an activist and make this change happen in your own organization and be an example for others. Thanks for commenting!
This is a very interesting concept Brian. It wasn’t until I read a few of your other posts on agile organization structures and life at the c level that I really saw what you were going for here. What you suggest is a radical change in management thinking and organization structure. This even strikes at the heart of what we considered was the philosophy of an enterprise. For CEOs like me this takes a supreme amount of courage and effort to take this big a chance and make something like this happen. I have to admit though you are a very lucid thinker as well as an impressive writer. The case you are making here is a strong one. Only a fool ignores an idea just because it is new and radical, but I would like to see you address how an existing enterprise that is not agile can transform itself into an agile one. Any thoughts you have on this would be greatly appreciated.
How much garbage have we all been exposed to about management theory by every person who could type and get to the internet. Even the supposed giants, like Peter Drucker, got it wrong or incomplete at times. What a breath of fresh air is this post! I agree with Jason, David, Joslyn, Schmidt and Johnson. This is a beautifully simple treatment of what can be a very complex and tangled subject. Mr. Lucas has a remarkable facility to take something that is massively complex and made confusing by so many pundits and distill it down to its basic elements. He then brushes away the inconsequential and puts the most salient facts in an impeccable order. Finally, he paints a vivid picture with a command of language that I as a business writer envy. Even the title of this article “The Era of Agile Management Has Finally Arrived” is perfectly chosen. From one writer to another; it is a crime that you don’t post more often! So many others of greatly lesser talent do.
With Respect,
E.C. Cummings
My goodness my head won’t fit into my car for the drive home today! Seriously, I appreciate the complement very much. To be compared with Drucker, a titan in the prognostication industry, is a fabulous Christmas present, but one I demur. I find the plethora of pundits, each spouting with evangelical fervor their own silver bullet, deplorable. Equally lacking are those who dumb a subject down to the point of idiocy and twist realty to fit their convenient explanations or platitudes. Einstein said, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” I do have a very clear vision of America (and the world) shifting to a smaller, more agile business enterprise base that operates in conjunction as virtual corporations to render services and produce products. With the exception of the financial industry, most of the larger concerns will be gone in the next two decades; a major shift will be seen in the next 5 years.
Great post, very informative!!! This is a bold and compelling statement on the history and current state of business management. I wonder why the other experts of the management sector have not put forth more on this subject. As others have said here you ARE a thought leader. I wish you would post more; I enjoy your blog immensely.
This was an impressive summary of the subject Brian. There was quite a bit of hype here that you cut through. My wish is that you would explore Management 3.0 further. What are the lessons for 1.0 and 2.0 that you think should be carried forward into 3.0. And as others said here what are the characteristics of a 3.0 enterprise. Your perspective is valuable to me as an executive. Thank You! -George
This is a nicely expressed article on management theory. I must say, this definition of the eras of management makes quite a bit of sense my American friend. Rather a bit too much sense for managers who have survived off of the work of others for years, even decades. I have known far more of these dubious executives that take credit for other’s productivity and always push the blame down on others when things go wrong. If this enlightened approach is being applied across the pond please let us know where. I always wanted to “visit” the states.
Yes the need for the era of agile management has finally arrived as Mr. Lucas has said. My question is how do we get all the idiot managers, owners and CEOs to recognize it? In my experience you can’t be agile in a company where people don’t understand it or are actively against it. Some will pay lip service to it as a project manager I worked for did. And then do everything they can to undermine it and everyone that supported it. Again just like she did. If you can’t be agile on a project because of highly controlling and politically manipulative people like that project manager I had to work for, you can’t be agile in your organization. It almost seems to me Brian that the companies that can best move to this management philosophy are the ones that are doing agile development successfully. What do you think?
I must weight in here with the others who suggested that the characteristics of an agile company be defined and examples of actual agile businesses be named. This is a great article and it helped me wrap my head around the issue of modern management, but I would really like to know how to take this to the next step. I am passing this on to others in my company. Thanks for the post!!!!
A coworker sent me this and I think its a very clear statement of the big picture which helps a lot. The devil is always in the details though and making this happen at a midsized to a large company will be very difficult because of the entrenched hierarchic mentality. I imagine that smaller organizations find it a lot easier to function like a Management 3.0 organization. – Harriet
This made the rounds so I just had to comment. I like reading articles that are clear and easy to read as this one is. Unfortunately too many often lack any content of real value. They are basically opinion and fluff. This was packed with fact and made a solid argument for the definition of the three eras of management that Brian defines. I have two questions Brian. The first is when do you think the current era management 3 will end? The second is what will the fourth era be? Thanks in advance!
The thoughts here are very well expressed! I believe this model is similar to the family run business model that has been used successfully in my country for many years. The commitment and involvement is absolute, the incentive is large, the communication frequent and complete and the size is always less than an equivalent business using a traditional corporate model. Do you concur Brian?
Finally! Someone capable of cutting through all the hype and fads that has plagued us for years. Every management technique from the command and control freaks who think more oversight is the answer to productivity to the One Minute Manager manipulation of employee emotions and manager knows best approach has been touted as the ultimate answer. Sickening really how many fall into the hype trap spread by these conmen selling their books and seminars which the phrase if you are not doing this you are so out of date. This article puts all these into perspective and the past where they all belong and focuses on as the author puts it – getting the right people, in the right place, at the right time, doing the right thing. And ONLY the right people! Most of the executive and middle management is blown away like the chaff that they are!
This was an eye opener for me. I never thought of management having eras before. This was an easy read for me which I am grateful for and was packed with great information and solid research. I wish the rest of the blogs I read were this good. I will say that you don’t post anywhere near enough as most blogs I follow though. You should post a couple of times a week at least. Looking at the span of material you cover you have more than enough to draw from. Cheers Frank!
Despite the fact that I am not in the IT business I enjoyed this post very much. Please keep them coming! I read all your post as soon as they come out. -Barry
Brian I finally read your blog for the first time and I am very, very impressed though not surprised. You are one of the smartest people that I know. I don’t know exactly how I will apply what I learned in this article, but I feel much better informed for having read it. Seeing all the comments you have received on your Keeping Agile blog makes me happy as I am sure it does you. I just wanted you to know that I have read it and will continue to do so. All the best! -G
If the era of managment 3.0 has arrived, Mr. lucas is ushering it in with a bang! Get post man and happy new year!
This is the most interesting post on the subject of modern management philosophy – period. It is a profound yet simple explanation on the evolution of management in the last 100 years. I wish I had this resource available to me back in my college MBA days. If I may Brian, I would like to make what I believe your underlying point is more bluntly:
Executive management has failed miserably over the last 22 years to meet the needs of a high technology world economy and marketplace. Companies have grown overburdened in costly management layers that have practiced office politics and self-protectionism at the expense of the workforce generating inertia, dysfunction and disaffection.
Do you concur? This is a message that I have been bringing to my company as part of our Lean initiative. Your blog in general has helped fuel and focus my argument.
Thanks,
Peter
Thank you Peter! I concur with you, but I would put is slightly milder. Management 1.0 scientific process centric and Management 2.0 people centric were strategies of their time. They added to the knowledge base of their eras and the sophistication of our techniques. They are not suited however, for the time synchronous demands that Toffler writes about in Revolutionary Wealth. The companies and managers that cling to those philosophies are killing both their own and their employee’s futures. A large part of the difficulty arises in the heavy proportion of management cost versus employee workforce. In that aspect Lean philosophies make sense, even though I am not a big proponent of Lean.
The historical perspective in very illuminating and the concept of agile management is interesting. Do you intend to write more on this? I will definitely read it.
As owner of new business this is important to me. Nothing can remain same as it was before. To be successful in business everything must change. I understand it is important to embrace new ways without throwing out what was useful before. I read intent in this writing. Brian makes history of management clear and easy to understand. It is pleasure that I read more of his writing on this. I send this to all my employees to read. Viktor
I have just read this article that was sent to me by our business owner. It is very well written and logical. We are a new business starting out and are open to trying new business techniques. I would like to ask the author if there are additional sources of information that he uses on this subject.
I agree is good article.
This is very interesting. Can you provide examples of businesses that are following this Management 3 strategy today and how long it took them to achieve this? Have you written a book on this yet? If so I would like to purchase it.
Thank you for posting this. I have several questions. First how does one estimate workforce requirements in the Management 3.0 model? Second how do you make funding decisions and make income projections? Third is there ever a situation where different teams are competing on the same initiative?
Is the book you refered to here the best one on the subject?
I have also read this post and found it to be very worthwhile. My question is that I would think it was easier to make this happen in a new small business as opposed to a large established one. Do you agree Brian?
Who owns the business plan and who makes updates to it if the workers are supposed to have input into it? How often is it updated?
Do you support group meetings and verbal communication as I have heard that Google uses? How is communication conducted in a Management 3.0 business?
I enjoyed this so much I just had to weight in here. There is far more information packed into this single article than many books I have read by so called experts on the subject of management. When’s the book coming out?
Blogs don’t get any better than this! Brian has one again proved he is an incredible writer with a tremendous amount of knowledge and a remarkable ability to find the truth in a complicated subject. Calling our current era of management “Agile” and “knowledge centric” brings the focus in on what separates the winning companies of today and our future from the dying dinosaurs of the command and control zealots. Brian sums it all up when he says that CEOs who remain buried in the command and control concept and dismiss the era of agile management will hurt themselves, their employees, their company, the stockholders, their customers and business overall.
Brian since the New Year has just started what are your predictions for 2013? I am anxious to read them as I am sure others of your prominent readership are. What will agile be like this year?
As president of a company of over 1000 employees, I have been looking for way to improve our agility in these challenging times. In the technology sector, sometimes we win and beat out competition to market and actually generate customer demand and sometimes we call it wrong and loose not only time, but money as well. I have been searching for ways to change our organization and make it more responsive and proactive not only in our existing market space, but emerging ones as well. I am definitely glad I ran across your blog. This is best basic expression of management philosophy I have ever read! This is the second time I have read this post and wanted to finally comment. It first caught my eye, and then I read some of your other posts about Agile and Mission Impossible, Micromanaging, Life in the C Lane, Agile Organization Structures and Agile and Common Sense. This is truly some of the best writing I have ever read. Through a variety of topics you have a consistent and logical message expressed in a masterful way. I am sorry to say I have not found any additional works of yours on the internet. I would buy any book you wrote or attend any seminar you gave. I notice that you don’t post often and that is disappointing. You have so much more to contribute than many who flood the Internet with lesser posts. Thank you for this post and the other fine work that you have done in your blog!
With Deepest Appreciation and Admiration,
Craig Walton
It would be meaningful to see a plot of the profitability and longevity of agile managed companies verses all others.
This is a solid post with excellent research and information. The subject of agile management, however, needs to be expanded into a series of posts there are so many aspects to this that we all need to explore!
The agile management philosophy that Brian Lucas has identified here should be added to the criteria in determining the best places to work. So much of the analysis that they do to determine that is superficial. This is a deeply meaningful aspect that addresses an organization’s survival.
Oh yea, is it ever time for out with the old and in with the new! You have a rad blog that totally rocks! Love the mix of heady business science, down to earth stuff and humor. No wonder since your bio reads like a novel jacket. Post more often we need our daily cool blog fix!!!
Very interesting perspective on the history and future of management theory. I have to agree completely. This was good stuff, but too short. I would love to see this extended into a full fledged whitepaper. It could even be a book. There are some good ones already written, but they are dry and don’t have this concept.
Brian I really appreciate this post. It answered many of my questions. What I need most is more on the Management 3.0 concept. I also have what might be a stupid question. Why are they calling it 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0? What does the .0 stand for? Thanks in advance, I hope you answer.
There is no specific reason for the numerology used. It is a precedent started by a management group that shall remain nameless. My personal opinion is that it was a bad idea. -Brian
Brian thank you for this post! It answers some of my questions, but not all though. I am an HR Manager and part of a team researching new management philosophies for a major organization realignment. In your blog it seems to me, you talk about three books that cover this area The Guide to Radical Management, Management 3.0 and Revolutionary Wealth. Which do you recommend reading? Also are you available for a question by email?
Brian in this article, which is fantastic, you mention that the era of 1 was scientific, 2 was about people and 3 is agile. It is implied that there are some good things to come out of these earlier eras. How do you take the good things from these eras and bring them forth into Management 3.0? Thanks Tom
This article is so deep it deserves a book. Brian I know you have a book in you! Don’t let us down!
To the author I express my admiration and ask this question, what industries and companies are Management 3.0 today or will be shortly. It would seem to me that if we are to be a Management 3.0 company that we would need the companionship of other Management 3.0 organizations. Do you agree?
Brian this was a very impressive article on the concept of management from a high level view and long term perspective. I remember watching your webinar on agile back in 2011. This is consistent with things you said back then if not further developed in some areas. I am disappointed in that I have not found another of your webinars which I thought you were promising to do. The Q&A session afterwards was highly useful.
I agree with the others, this is a very informative article, but two short. From my point of view Brian though it makes sense, it raises so many questions that now need to be answered. I hope you do a more complete treatment of Management 3.0 in the near future.
Forwarded this by a friend (thanks Denny) and this is definitely something that interests me. Interesting perspective Brian, but I really want to read the sequels you promised. These concepts look attractive, but how can we implement them. Great post though by any standard!
This is a very, very powerful statement on management. Having just left the large corporate world to start my own consulting business, I am almost overwhelmed by the speed at which I and my new enterprise need to think and operate at. This post puts everything into a new light for me. I am not sorry I left what was job security for this opportunity, but it has been a challenge. Understanding the dynamics that you have defined here Brian is a great help. I thank you most sincerely.
I enjoy reading your blog Brian. Your blog does seem to be from an American centric point of view. Do your ideas apply universally?
What I love about your blog Brian is that it is all substance and no fluff. I wish others followed that philosophy.
Your blog isn’t pretty or flashy, but it sure gets the job done Brian. I guess when you can write as well as you can you don’t need the bells and whistles.
Well will wonders never cease! A guy who actually knows what he is talking about. Unbelievable!