One of the great puzzles of the corporate world is why big corporations are still being run on obsolete 20th Century management principles when there is an obvious better alternative—21st Century management—that is producing unprecedented financial returns and market capitalizations.
“Most [firms] today are run on the basis of ‘legacy’ management systems that have become obsolete,” writes Menlo College professor Annika Steiber in The Silicon Valley Model. But why?
Even though 20th Century management is a coherent and consistent way of running a company, it is an increasingly poor fit with today’s fast-moving customer-driven marketplace. It has difficulty changing direction. It lacks agility. Here are ten reasons why 20th Century management still dominates.
1. 20th Century Management Operates As An Unstoppable Flywheel
Since 1970, 20th Century management has been preoccupied with a single-minded
Following the first five of Ten Reasons Why Big Firms Stick With 20th Century Management, here are five more reasons:
1. The Transition To 21st Century Management Is Hard Work
Stopping the momentum of the giant flywheel of 20th Century management and turning it into something more agile can involve a lot of work. Everything in 21st Century management is the opposite of 20th Century management.
The goal of the firm is now to create a continuous stream of value for customers and users. Making money is the result, not the goal. This goal requires a different structure of work to enable the full talents of those doing the work, often through small self-organizing teams working in short cycles, focused tightly on delivering value for customers. Instead of a steep vertical
WASHINGTON ― A bipartisan congressional panel is recommending that the Pentagon must “identify, replace, and retire costly and ineffective legacy weapons platforms,” and prioritize artificial intelligence, supply chain resiliency and cyberwarfare in order to compete with China and Russia.
The House’s Future of Defense Task Force’s 87-page report issued Tuesday echoed the accepted wisdom that the Pentagon must expand investments in modern technologies and streamline its cumbersome acquisition to or risk losing its technological edge against competitors.
The task force is co-chaired by House Armed Services Committee members Reps. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., and Jim Banks, R-Ind., both signaled they’ll champion elements of the report in future defense authorization legislation. While lawmakers are broadly in favor, efforts to retire specific platforms ofter meet resistance on Capitol Hill.
On weapons systems, the task force offered some practical steps to its ends. Congress, it said, should commission the RAND Corporation, or similar entity,