A Debate Between Business Luminaries

I’ve continued playing with ChatGPT-4 and Multi-persona prompting (MPP). Here’s a sample debate between Bill Deming, Peter Drucker, Russell Ackoff, Eli Goldratt and Chris Argyris.

Topic: “Is management relevant in business any more?”

Bill Deming: Management as traditionally understood – you know, the top-down, command-and-control approach – seems quite incompatible with today’s business environment. But what do we mean exactly by “management”? And why is this question relevant today?

Peter Drucker: Well, Bill, if we think about management as planning, organising, directing, and controlling – it’s clear that some of these functions may seem outdated. But hasn’t the nature of work and business changed so much that we’re compelled to ask if the old ways are relevant? Do we still need to “manage” people, or can we trust them to self-organise?

Russell Ackoff: Building on Peter’s point, management’s essence was always about “doing things right” while leadership was about “doing the right things”. But, let’s not divert to the topic of leadership. Let’s consider the German military doctrine of ‘Auftragstaktik’. It emphasises decentralised decision-making and initiative at the lower ranks. Isn’t that a form of self-organisation?

Eli Goldratt: That’s an interesting point, Russell. Indeed, Auftragstaktik embodies trust in the people at the front lines. It reminds me of the constraints in a business system. Traditional management often focuses on local optimisations, which is deleterious for the system as a whole. In Theory of Constraints, it’s about aligning every part to the goal of the organisation. But, does this mean we can entirely let go of management?

Chris Argyris: Eli, the issue is often about the single-loop learning versus double-loop learning. Traditional management often gets caught in the former, continually tweaking processes – what Bill calls ‘tinkering’ – without questioning underlying assumptions. With the rise of concepts like self-organisation and Auftragstaktik, do you think PONC (Price of Non-Conformance) changes in context?

Bill Deming: Chris, great question. If employees are empowered and trust in self-organisation is embraced, then PONC might actually decrease. When individuals at every level can inspect, correct and adapt without waiting for higher approval, we reduce inefficiencies and mistakes, no?

Peter Drucker: Exactly, Bill. As I’ve often said, the best way to predict the future is to create it. If we empower employees to create and shape the future, then surely the traditional model of management becomes a barrier?

Russell Ackoff: Indeed, Peter. But let’s not forget about the human side. When we talk about self-organisation, are we also implying a certain level of maturity and responsibility in our teams?

Eli Goldratt: Absolutely, Russell. In any system, constraints will exist. The question is, can teams identify and address these constraints themselves? Or do they still need some form of direction?

Chris Argyris: It boils down to trust, doesn’t it? Do we trust our teams to be mature, to take responsibility, and to navigate challenges?

Jointly-written Public Statement

“In today’s dynamic and interconnected business world, the traditional model of management has indeed become irrelevant. The future lies in empowering teams, fostering trust, and encouraging self-organisation. While some support may still be needed to guide and align, the top-down, command-and-control model is outdated. We believe in the potential of individuals and teams to rise to challenges, harnessing concepts like Auftragstaktik and recognising the value in reducing the Price of Non-Conformance through trust and empowerment. We must move forward, redefining the way we understand and practise management in this new era.”

—Think Different

Making Lives More Wonderful

A Debate Between Business Luminaries