This is gold. An interesting and unconventional perspective on the common tropes and processes that occupy management science and drive tech. strategy at corporations. The misconception about planning ahead is in line with Talebs notion of becoming anti-fragile rather than becoming robust, ie getting stronger with change (change not being directly predictable).
“Within a big pharma we’re giving a twelve hour review process in which if no one objects, you’re authorized to do it…” sounds a lot like Command by Negation which is something the Navy has been doing for multiple decades. It goes hand-in-hand with the Marines preferred Mission Command.
@@ashbirk4681 I think he correctly has animosity with psychology but then this gets applied too broadly such that he can’t accept Tversky, Klein, Kahneman. Similarly, he busts on Boyd saying “we’ve moved beyond Boyd.” He is also an apologist for Taylor because Drucker busted on him for having once properly understood the dehumanizing nature of Taylor. But Cynefin, Sense-Making, Estuaries are all good things which should not be cast off because of this angst with Kahneman. Seems he has warmed to Dekker, which is good too.
This is gold. An interesting and unconventional perspective on the common tropes and processes that occupy management science and drive tech. strategy at corporations.
The misconception about planning ahead is in line with Talebs notion of becoming anti-fragile rather than becoming robust, ie getting stronger with change (change not being directly predictable).
“Within a big pharma we’re giving a twelve hour review process in which if no one objects, you’re authorized to do it…” sounds a lot like Command by Negation which is something the Navy has been doing for multiple decades. It goes hand-in-hand with the Marines preferred Mission Command.
Why the bust on Kahneman?
Right? He’s not even an economist (behavioral economist but he’s trained as a cognitive psychologist), kind of discredits the speaker
@@ashbirk4681 I think he correctly has animosity with psychology but then this gets applied too broadly such that he can’t accept Tversky, Klein, Kahneman. Similarly, he busts on Boyd saying “we’ve moved beyond Boyd.” He is also an apologist for Taylor because Drucker busted on him for having once properly understood the dehumanizing nature of Taylor. But Cynefin, Sense-Making, Estuaries are all good things which should not be cast off because of this angst with Kahneman. Seems he has warmed to Dekker, which is good too.