[FWD: RE: 1/5/2011 Letter]

A New Ism has to celebrate the organizational expertise of such organizations.  It is about identifying great leaders, then giving them the resources and autonomy to met clearly articulated goals.  It is also about the individual excellence that a resume like yours typifies.  Most progressive economic initiatives tend to celebrate the collective over individual effort and the division of labor that complex collaboration requires.

Again, I look to the American Revolution for inspiration.  In the book "The Genius of America" the authors make the case that the success of the American Experiment, verses so many other failed efforts to improve government, was that it was lead by people who loved government.  Whereas, the people who lead almost every other revolution in the history of the world hated government and saw it as, at best, a necessary evil.  A New Ism, to be practical and successful, needs to come from a love of a well run, efficient incorporation of the diverse talents of skilled and masterful individuals.  That is the "gold standard" for economic success.  What we suggest is that by adding the layer of structural, institutional support of leaders who are the advocates and champions of their people (which I would suggest the leaders in your best organizations were) that those great leaders will be free to take their teams even further -- rather than always having to fight upper management who tend to believe that people are widgets that can be used hard, not maintained, and easily replaced when broken.

A New Ism will most likely not start with building rocket engines, as almost no new company could either.  Those companies have hundreds of years of experience.  But businesses like banking and insurance that would greatly benefit from better customer service, more community mindedness, and a more committed workforce (with the hiring of good experienced individuals in all work areas) are more practical first efforts.  Industries like software that are more highly dependent on the skills of its workers (over the machinery, multi-departmental processes, and the political connections needed in the industries you reference) could be very attractive options.  Music, Film, and Television are industries where highly politically and socially activated workers (mostly Democrats) are the "factories" -- one Matt Damon or Brad Pitt could green light a film project based on their involvement alone.  Also, promising startups, where the founders are looking at giving up control to venture capitalists in order to move their ideas forward, would be extremely open to a proposal from A New Ism venture fund, where the ideals are building an interdependent team and keeping skilled leadership in place.  Startup founders may not be open to accountable leadership, and the possibility of getting fired if they no longer are the best person for the job, however they face this with typical venture capital anyway and may find a more open democratic process more appealing than the caprice of one or two economic monarchs making the decision (for democratic processes have a higher probability of being lead by logic and truth rather than by whim, prejudice, or inflated self egos).

It is exactly masterful individuals like yourself that will be key to the success of A New Ism.  And, it is exactly this quality that is missing from Socialism and Communism.  Looking to the indigenous model, it was the Chiefs and Skilled Warriors and the Expert Women who lead the tribe -- not the brash young neophyte with little or no experience.  And yet, they did have a part to play in a Headman, Headwoman or Elder Council's strategy, but they rarely were allow to participate in the deliberations that produced that strategy.

Michael

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: 1/5/2011 Letter
From: "Frank Way" <frankpway@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, January 05, 2011 5:05 pm
To: <m@sumpeople.org>

Michael:

 

                I asked these questions, because I have worked for some world class employers, such as the Rocketdyne and Autonetics divisions of North American Aviation, the TDK systems division of TDK Japan, the Grass Valley Group division of Tektronix and Nevada Bell Telephone, division of AT&T.  I can tell you that they are continually changing and evolving in order  to stay at the head of the pack.  When working for North American Aviation, I tested the Gemini space craft engines and the Lunar Descent Module rocket engine.  While I worked for TDK, they sent me to Finland to deal with Nokia and to Cannes France to deal with a division of Rockwell.  While working for the Grass Valley Group, NASA solicited us to provide 10 million dollars worth of video switching systems for the Kennedy Space Center (which I proposed and delivered), after which we furnished large systems to Oak Ridge and Savannah river.  When I worked for Nevada Bell Telephone, we provided the communications to Area 51 for  the testing of the Blackbird.  The Grass Valley Group designed and manufactured  the world's best video switching systems and Tektronix designed and manufactured the world's best oscilloscopes.

 

                If your new ISM is going to compete with firms like the ones I worked for, you have a very rough road ahead of you.  The best way to break into this game is to invent and or design something new, which the world wants and needs.  Doing so requires attracting and hiring some very intelligent and high priced talent.  I have a BS in Physics, a BSEE and all the course credits for a PhD in Electrical Engineering.  I am also a Registered Professional Engineer.  NASA required me to submit my resume before they would negotiate with us for the systems which were provided.

 

                Frank

 

From: m@sumpeople.org [mailto:m@sumpeople.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 10:36 AM
To: Frank Way
Subject: 1/5/2011 Letter

 

Dear Frank,

Thank you for spending your time listening to us last night.  Art George is his name (or Mountain Eagle that Soars over the Valleys). 

I guess my quick answer to your question is "Better".  More efficiently, more effectively, cheaper, with less environmental impacts, and with more autonomy giving to skilled engineers and key experts who are able to coordinate their areas with all other areas of these complex enterprises successfully.

In fact, when these types of operations are best is when they express the key principles of this New Ism that we are researching and trying to articulate.  There was a recent story of a mortality rate comparison between well managed hospitals and poorly managed ones. 

http://worldmanagementsurvey.org/wp-content/images/2010/10/Management_in_Healthcare_Report_2010.pdf  

These researchers discovered key factors to good management. 

1. Skilled knowledgeable managers (this was the element of mastery in leadership we mentioned last night).
2. Broad autonomy given to these key managers (this is the element of decentralized but coordinated systems that we mentioned last night).
3. Competition (Again, decentralized, market driven systems are what are imagined within an effective New Ism).
4. Bigger is better (We did not touch on this last night, but the thought is that small enterprises are probably best as authoritarian, centralized (capitalistic) enterprises as the small business owners of these enterprises put in far more effort and energy into the enterprises than typical employees, and not only deserve the bulk of the benefits of enterprise, but also should have the decision making control to give the enterprise the best chance of survival in difficult times.  A New Ism will need to be focused on the structure of big business in my opinion and theory suggests that it will make those enterprises more nimble, more efficient, and better managed.  
5. Their final finding was that private hospitals were better managed than public.  I have several questions about this finding such as "Who paid for the study?", and "Did the private hospitals have more money to work with per patient?"  But the work of Elinor Ostrom suggests that with proper "design parameters" that the third way of "common pool resource management" offers even better outcomes that either public or private, so the fact that private is better managed than public does not mean that private is de facto the best option.

Underlying your questions is another bigger question which is "can people self manage themselves better than authoritarian management can manage them?"  This same question was at the heart of the American Revolution.  The Tories and Loyalists of the time argued that the "rabble" could never govern a nation and that the firm hand of the monarch was needed to maintain order.  We now know that the argument was false in the case of government.  In fact, no large industrialized nation can be managed as a monarchy because of the structural design limitations of authoritarian government -- just as you cannot build a skyscraper with wood frame construction.  It turns out that non-authoritarian, collaborative organizational structures are the only ones capable of the complex, epic projects that you suggest.  In fact, the space program, and large construction projects, exemplify the very principals that we are trying to identify in a New Ism.

Michael

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Your new Ism
From: "Frank Way" <frankpway@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, January 05, 2011 9:24 am
To: <m@sumpeople.org>

Michael:

 

                I enjoyed listening to you and Art last night.  By the way, what is Art's last name, and his email address?

 

                After thinking about what you are proposing, I must ask  you several questions.

 

                How would your new Ism have put the first man on the moon?

 

                How would it have designed  and produced the latest Boeing passenger Jet?

 

                How would it have designed and built one of the newest cruise ships?

 

                How would it compete with major corporations in the world markets?

 

 

                Please forward this to Art.

 

                Frank Way