I’m wondering whether Management 2.0 is not Management 0.0 (or 101).Références :
In the early 90s most people believed mass production was dead (cf. The Machine that Changed the World). Lean Manufacturing was the future. Since then companies (cf. GM and Ford) have backslid. Example: the way they manage their subcontractors.
March and Simon wrote that traditional management theories believed that organisations were machines (not human). The trouble with this approach is that it leads to bureaucratic organisations that are rigid. They are unable to resist Schumpeter’s “creative destruction” (i.e. innovation).
Managers 2.0 must learn to be what Philip Kotter has called “leaders”. I.e. they must learn to lead change. This implies that they must learn to use people as clever human beings. Above all they must learn to manage groups. No longer consider companies as sets of disconnected individuals. Groups and societies have implicit rules (ethnologists’ “culture”). Their members, more or less consciously, follow these rules. Acting on them instantly transforms the organisation (Jay Forrester’s “leverage change”). What scientists call “complexity” is all about these properties of groups or “social networks”. Web 2.0 has started to use them.
- Destruction créatrice : Amazon et Destruction Créatrice.
- Lean manufacturing : GM et Lean manufacturing
- Philip Kotter : Mesurer la capacité au changement d’une entreprise
- Complexité : Théorie de la complexité
- Sur les règles et le changement : Définition universitaire de changement
- L'organisation machine vient de : MARCH, James G., SIMON, Herbert A., Organizations, Blackwell Publishers, 2ème edition, 1993.