Tearing Apart The Fast Company 1990's
February 15, 2002 6:08 PM Subscribe
Tearing Apart The Fast Company 1990's From Salon.com. A superb critique of management à la the 1990's and a really good explanation of Enron, rolled into one.
"Business as Judo, as Chess, as Bear Hunting, as Yoga, as Stock Car Racing, as Parchuting, as Boot Camp, Survival of the Fittest etc, etc. Is there any end to what we can learn from metaphors? Yawn."
That's from a comment on a Fast Company article by the same fellow that wrote the Salon article. He doesn't seem to like any popular business books at all. Or Fast Company authors. Doesn't seem to notice, however, that critiques of 1990's management philosophies are nearly (yawn) as tired as 1990's management philosophies themselves.
posted by MidasMulligan at 8:08 PM on February 15, 2002
That's from a comment on a Fast Company article by the same fellow that wrote the Salon article. He doesn't seem to like any popular business books at all. Or Fast Company authors. Doesn't seem to notice, however, that critiques of 1990's management philosophies are nearly (yawn) as tired as 1990's management philosophies themselves.
posted by MidasMulligan at 8:08 PM on February 15, 2002
In retrospect, the recklessly aggressive strategy and obsessively competitive structure were precisely the things that Enron did wrong
Oracle and Microsoft have similar internal-competition-survival of the fittest strategies, but they seem to be surviving rather well. No, what Enron did wrong was that they lied & broke the law. It wasn't aggressive strategy or competition, it was aggressive accounting. It's OK if a business's strategist is aggressive. It's not OK if the bookkeeper is.
And what the hell is this guy doing going on and on about Enron? The book (by the reviewer's own admission) doesn't even mention Enron. It does sound like the typical no-there-there business books (what can one expect from Seth Godin?), but the article doesn't even begin to address that. Critique? Heh. While I'm sure Godin's book provides plenty of fodder for a good critic, this article can basically be summed up as "There's this new book out that's filled with the usual business book platitudes, here are my opinions of how Enron represents all of business in the 90's."
Orpples. I like Orpples. Anyone else like Orpples?
posted by dchase at 8:25 PM on February 15, 2002
Oracle and Microsoft have similar internal-competition-survival of the fittest strategies, but they seem to be surviving rather well. No, what Enron did wrong was that they lied & broke the law. It wasn't aggressive strategy or competition, it was aggressive accounting. It's OK if a business's strategist is aggressive. It's not OK if the bookkeeper is.
And what the hell is this guy doing going on and on about Enron? The book (by the reviewer's own admission) doesn't even mention Enron. It does sound like the typical no-there-there business books (what can one expect from Seth Godin?), but the article doesn't even begin to address that. Critique? Heh. While I'm sure Godin's book provides plenty of fodder for a good critic, this article can basically be summed up as "There's this new book out that's filled with the usual business book platitudes, here are my opinions of how Enron represents all of business in the 90's."
Orpples. I like Orpples. Anyone else like Orpples?
posted by dchase at 8:25 PM on February 15, 2002
« Older An insider's take on the olympics | Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
also reminds me of the s-curve in the innovators' dilemma. like trying (desperately and unsuccessfully) to get on one!
posted by kliuless at 6:39 PM on February 15, 2002