Rapid Idea Improvement

Introducing 2 possible approaches to answering this question ....

They cannot confirm your plans (only falsify them) They take away the attention from other ways to improve, other than measuring things (arguments) Both problems are soluble Notice KPIs only when they contradict a plan Spend more time on critical arguments rather than measurements only

We act upon our ideas - our behavior is a consequence of our ideas (goals, plans) Ideas can be explicit, inexplicit and subconscious Ideas evolve via conjecture and criticism Now, when we want to make people do things, we try to replace existing ideas with new ones

Departments like Finance, Sales, … are constructs (to label and structure where people are) What really exists are problems: conflict of ideas For example: Finance wants customer payment periods shortened for working capital reduction, sales want to give longer payment terms. 2 ideas are conflicting here. You can never say that Finance deals with this, because sales is going to counter argue. The...

People are the collection of ideas plus a universal capacity to change or improve them When we hire people, we hire both aspects.

Many companies launch One Way of Working programs Why Oversee complexity - you don’t see it in small companies Monitor and control deviations Flaws Methodology is never the key driver of impact People act in vitally unique ways every day when solving problems Take the autonomous thinking out of people’s job Problem solving is impeded or delayed

We want to change in companies: from any current state to any new state (goals/ objectives). We need 2 things for that: a prediction (of the goal we want to reach) and an explanation for how to actually reach it (current state, actions, decisions, milestones, issues, ...) We focus on predictions too much : the goals in and of themselves / plus the KPIs to show how far we are away from the goals, t...

Moralising Start from a situation that they consider a moral problem Something immoral, unfair But then … Reverting to blaming the people, generalizing from a specific event to general characteristics of the person in question or groups of people Excluding the possibility that people can learn from mistakes Appealing to condemnation of those people Signaling that you are not one of those people, t...

Sharing the recording of my appearance on the Economics for Business podcast where I talked about the experience of Flow and how to create open organisations that allow for more Flow experiences

Change is unpredictable What you think the change will be What I think the change will be What the change really is going to be Change can be overstated Because it is unpredictable, we tend to overstate it Cynical approach is taking over People change all the time however. Change is content related People’s acceptance of change is linked to the way they perform their new work It is not linked to o...

Short announcement of the name change

You have failed versus you are fallible You have failed = subjective judgment, because the standard against which you have failed can be anything to anybody The same objective series of events can still be labeled as failures or success depending on the subjective standard you want to measure them against You are fallible: objective, there is objective truth and you can be objectively wrong about...

Authority can never be a "logically correct" justification for taking a particular decision. Instead what we do (individually when contemplating a decision, or together) do is compare the content of candidate decisions, criticise that content (incl. consequences) and take the decision that survives criticisms best.

An organisation structure is any theory about: How to divide work in entities and departments How to organise those entities "internally" How to organise the connection between those entities However, it is a theory that is completely distinct from that other important question: "How to capture value in the market, consistently ?"

What I learnt from the theory of knowledge that I didn’t learn from reading 100+ management books

The question for all CEO's: "How am I making it easy to correct errors in my organisation?" People are solving problems. They do that with idea’s. Some ideas are suggested, but many need to be developed. All initial ideas contain errors. Now there is a simple 2 way outcome: 1) either people correct their errors or 2) people don’t An organisation should be judged in how easy it is for people to cor...

About personality tests such as MBTI, Insights Discovery, DISC, ...

Dutch version of episode 107

There are dramatic and less dramatic arguments of anti vaxxers. The dramatic ones are the ones dealing with the 5G chip implanted in the vaccine or the conspiracy theories of virologists and politicians to make the people obey and stay home … But some arguments are less dramatic than those (but still false though). An example of this kinds of arguments: The vaccines are not tested for the long ter...

What “hard” coaches really do, has nothing to do with coaching: You scare your athletes (which is not giving any advice) You can already cover yourself in the case of bad performance (which also has nothing to do with coaching)

How will I meet this expectations ? Why in that way and not another ? (to be asked continuously)

About interpretations of QM and why those "can" allow us to understand QM.

"Why did that happen?" is a common question. You can, rationally, answer this question in 3 (very) different ways: 1) Giving evidence for the phenomenon happening 2) Giving "a" cause for the phenomenon 3) Explaining why your cause is a better explanations than some other cause (comparing explanations and retaining the one that survives the comparison, so the one that explains "best")

A short treatment about what is wrong, pessismistic and dangerous about this statement ;-)

Discussion about why personality tests "must be" wrong and why that is actually a good thing (that they are wrong) I am referencing 2 specific tests (there are many more)  MBTI test: 16 types of behaviours Insights discovery test: 4 colors and 8 types of behaviours My arguments for saying that they are wrong are based on Karl Popper's epistemology (critical rationalism)