The notion that the Soviet Union's inferior economic competitiveness against the US during the Cold War era was solely caused by the lack of a savvy IT industry is partially accurate, but also partially incorrect. It is true that the Soviet Union had not developed a microcomputer or PC industry to the same extent as the US, but it is incorrect to suggest that the Soviet Union lacked mainframe players. Enterprises such as NPO Scientific Center were primarily players in the mainframe computer and minicomputer market during the Soviet era. Although they worked on some microcomputer projects, such as the Elektronika BK personal computer, their main focus was on developing larger computing systems. In fact, these enterprises were connected to state funding mechanisms. The intriguing question that arises is why the Soviet Union failed to develop a PC industry similar to that of the US.
One vivid explanation for this could be found in Peter Drucker's "Concept of the Corporation," published in 1946, which is considered a seminal work in management theory and organizational studies. Drucker's analysis of General Motors (GM), the largest and most successful corporation at the time, laid the foundation for modern management practices. The book comprehensively studies GM's organizational structure, management practices, and decision-making processes, and provides valuable insights into the workings of large corporations.
Decentralization Concept
One of the key concepts introduced in the book is decentralization, which Drucker recognized as a beneficial structure for large organizations. He observed that GM implemented a decentralized structure, delegating decision-making authority to various departments and divisions. This allowed for greater flexibility, innovation, and adaptability within the organization. Another key concept is management by objectives (MBO), which involves setting clear and specific goals for employees and evaluating their performance based on the achievement of these objectives. This encourages a focus on results and aligns individual and organizational goals, improving overall performance.
Drucker also emphasized the importance of management in modern corporations, stating that the primary responsibility of management is to create and maintain a healthy and functioning organization. He identified the rise of the knowledge worker, employees whose primary contributions come from their knowledge, skills, and expertise, and argued that modern corporations must effectively manage and leverage their talents. Drucker also highlighted the importance of corporate social responsibility, arguing that businesses should consider not only their shareholders but also their employees, customers, and the wider society in which they operate.
GM’s Resistance
However, the publication of the book raised several concerns for GM executives, including fears of losing control and negative impacts on the company's public image. Drucker's suggestions for further decentralization may have been perceived as a threat to the centralized control that Alfred Sloan and other top executives had over the company. This could have raised concerns about losing authority, influence, and the ability to steer the company in their preferred direction. Additionally, the public discussion and analysis of GM's inner workings in Drucker's book could have had negative consequences for the company's reputation, particularly if the suggestions were seen as highlighting weaknesses or areas for improvement in the company's management.
Drucker's book not only suggested changes to GM's organizational structure but also implied a shift in the broader management paradigm. This might have been perceived as a direct challenge to the status quo that Sloan and other GM executives had established and maintained. Challenging the status quo could have been viewed as undermining their authority and expertise. Furthermore, Drucker's proposed decentralization could have had potential political implications within the organization, such as power redistribution, changes in reporting lines, and possible conflicts among different departments or divisions. Sloan and other executives may have been hesitant to deal with the potential internal turmoil that could have arisen from implementing Drucker's suggestions.
Decentralization vs Knowledge Worker
The suggestion of "decentralization" was not a coincidence. This concept is closely related to the idea of the "knowledge worker." As workers became more knowledgeable, traditional centralization was no longer practical. This shift did not solely originate from American or Western culture of "liberalism," but from the changing times. Drucker's concept of the "knowledge worker" refers to employees who primarily rely on their knowledge, skills, and expertise to perform their jobs effectively, rather than manual labor. This group includes professionals such as engineers, scientists, analysts, software developers, consultants, and managers who typically work in fields that require problem-solving, creativity, and innovation. Knowledge workers are essential to modern organizations, as their expertise and decision-making abilities have a direct impact on a company's success.
Drucker emphasized the importance of effectively managing knowledge workers, as their job satisfaction, motivation, and productivity are crucial to achieving organizational goals. Decentralization, another concept introduced by Drucker, involves delegating decision-making authority to various divisions and departments within an organization. Decentralization can empower knowledge workers by giving them more autonomy and decision-making authority, allowing them to contribute their ideas and expertise more effectively. This can lead to increased job satisfaction, motivation, and improved organizational outcomes.
Decentralization can also encourage collaboration and knowledge sharing among knowledge workers, fostering a more collaborative work environment in which they can share their expertise and learn from one another. This can enhance innovation, problem-solving, and overall organizational performance. Furthermore, by decentralizing decision-making authority, organizations can enable their knowledge workers to make faster decisions, leading to increased agility and responsiveness to changes in the market. Decentralization also allows knowledge workers to experiment with new ideas and approaches, enhancing innovation and helping organizations stay ahead of the competition.
Schumpeter’s Theoria vs Drucker's Praxis
Where did Drucker get his ideas of knowledge workers and decentralization? One possible source is Joseph Schumpeter. Drucker was influenced by Schumpeter's concept of "creative destruction," which refers to the process by which new innovations and technologies disrupt and eventually replace old ones, leading to economic growth and development. Schumpeter believed that entrepreneurs played a critical role in driving innovation and economic progress by introducing new products, processes, and business models that challenged the status quo.
Drucker's concepts of the knowledge worker and decentralization can be seen as extensions of Schumpeter's creative destruction theory, as both focus on fostering innovation and adaptability within organizations. Knowledge workers, as described by Drucker, are crucial for driving innovation in modern organizations. Their expertise, creativity, and problem-solving abilities contribute to the development of new products, services, and processes, which aligns with Schumpeter's concept of creative destruction. By effectively managing knowledge workers, organizations can better embrace and adapt to the disruptive changes brought about by innovation.
"Since Joseph Schumpeter first pointed it out in 1939, we have known that what actually happened in the United States and in Germany in the fifty years between 1873 and World War I does not fit the Kondratieff cycle. The first Kondratieff cycle, based on the railway boom, came to an end with the crash of the Vienna Stock Exchange in 1873, a crash that brought down stock exchanges worldwide and ushered in a severe depression. ... But, for economists, entrepreneurship is a 'meta-economic' event, something that profoundly influences and indeed shapes the economy without itself being part of it. And so too, for economists, is technology. Economists do not, in other words, have any explanation as to why entrepreneurship emerged as it did in the late nineteenth century and as it seems to be doing again today, nor why it is limited to one country or to one culture. ... Joseph Schumpeter was the first major economist to go back to say. In his classic Die Theorie der Wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung (The Theory of Economic Dynamics), published in 1911, Schumpeter broke with traditional economics—far more radically than John Maynard Keynes was to do twenty years later. He postulated that dynamic disequilibrium brought on by the innovating entrepreneur, rather than equilibrium and optimization, is the 'norm' of a healthy economy and the central reality for economic theory and economic practice. " [see archive]
Decentralization can also be linked to Schumpeter's creative destruction. Decentralized organizations allow for greater flexibility, more effective decision-making, and faster responses to market changes. This structure enables companies to better adapt to the dynamic forces of creative destruction by fostering a culture of innovation and experimentation. By embracing decentralization, organizations can create a more agile and adaptive environment that can better leverage the creative destruction process to achieve long-term success.
The Connection of Kondratiev’s Long Wave, Schumpter’s Creative Destruction, together with Economic and Geopolitical Cycle
Nikolai Dmitriyevich Kondratiev's long wave theory proposes that economic cycles are driven by long waves of innovation and technological progress, which can last approximately 50-60 years. This theory contrasts with Marx's advocacy of the self-destruction of capitalism and suggests that economic growth can be sustained through innovation and technological progress over extended periods. Schumpeter furthered Kondratieff's long-wave theory into the theory of creative destruction, which proposes that innovation and technological progress can lead to the destruction of existing industries and the creation of new ones, leading to overall economic growth and development.
We are now in the late period of the fifth economic cycle, while the second Cold War cycle is in full swing
See "Long-Wave Economic Cycles: The Contributions of Kondratieff, Kuznets, Schumpeter, Kalecki, Goodwin, Kaldor, and Minsky," from [source].
The economic cycle is forming its shape into the dawn of the sixth wave, the MBNRIC technologies
The relationship between economic forces and geopolitical forces is complex and interdependent. The Long Cycle Theory, developed by George Modelski, proposes that the global system goes through four stages: growth, maturation, stagflation, and crisis. During the growth stage, high levels of innovation and economic growth can lead to increased geopolitical cooperation and stability. This stage corresponds to the upward phase of Kondratieff's long wave, where new technologies and industries emerge, and economic growth accelerates.
However, during the maturation and stagflation stages of the Long Cycle Theory, economic and geopolitical tensions can rise as countries compete for resources and power, potentially leading to conflict or even war. This stage corresponds to the downward phase of Kondratieff's long wave, where existing industries and technologies are mature and face diminishing returns, and the economy struggles to maintain growth.
Major geopolitical events, such as wars or revolutions, can disrupt economic cycles and lead to prolonged periods of economic contraction or recession. Thus, the interplay between economic cycles and geopolitical forces can have a significant impact on the trajectory of economic growth and development over time.
Defining the Era
The creation of Kondratiev's long wave theory is based on identifying key innovations and technologies that define each era of economic growth and development. Although this theory lacks an explicit causal mechanism explanation, it is based on trial and error to match innovations and technologies to each era and extrapolate how they could contribute to economic growth over time.
For instance, Kondratiev identified the steam engine, oil, and information technology as key innovations that defined specific eras of economic growth and development. By examining how these technologies were adopted and integrated into the economy, Kondratiev identified the key drivers of economic growth during each era.
Kondratiev's long wave theory provides a useful framework for understanding the complex interplay between innovation, technology, and economic growth over time. By identifying the key drivers of economic growth and development, we can better understand how the economy evolves and adapts to changing technological and geopolitical forces and how these forces impact the trajectory of economic growth and development.
The timing of Drucker's book "Concept of the Corporation" with the concepts of "decentralization" and "knowledge worker" coincided with the innovation of the IT industry that would later be emphasized during the PC revolution. The Soviet Union failed to develop the IT industry like the US, and thus we can say that the liberal democratic regime in the US and Western countries allowed for the possible exercise of new innovation better than the closed political and economic system of the Soviet Union.
Drucker's concepts of decentralization and the knowledge worker were essential in explaining how the new corporation would exploit the power of the IT revolution in a time of change, and how it would broaden the competitive advantage between the US and Western countries versus the Soviet Union and its Eastern European countries. This broadening of economic and military power was an inevitable consequence of the successful implementation of Drucker's concepts.
Role of Management
"Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices" is widely regarded as Peter Drucker's most influential work. It reflects his response to the changing business environment brought about by the emergence of the Information Technology (IT) revolution, the increasing prominence of knowledge workers, and the trend towards decentralization in organizations. While not a direct application of Schumpeter's creative destruction or Kondratieff's long-wave theory, these ideas likely influenced Drucker's thinking about the evolving nature of management and the challenges faced by organizations.
During the 1970s, when the book was published, the IT revolution was beginning to take shape. The introduction of mainframe computers, computer networks, and the rise of data processing and information management were transformative, and Drucker recognized their potential impact on organizations and management practices. He observed that the nature of work was shifting from manual labor to tasks that required intellectual abilities, creativity, and problem-solving skills, leading to his concept of the knowledge worker.
The trend towards decentralization in organizations also reflected the changing era, as companies sought to adapt to increasing complexity and uncertainty in the business environment. Decentralization enabled greater flexibility, innovation, and responsiveness to market changes, which were crucial for success in the face of technological advancements and global competition. Drucker's advocacy for decentralization in his work reflected his understanding of the need for organizations to be agile and adaptable to meet these challenges.
Drucker in AI-driven world?
When Drucker wrote his book, he was responding to a transitional period in which the emergence of knowledge workers and the information technology revolution called for new approaches to management. Drucker's introduction of the manager's role was indeed a novel concept designed to address the needs of that era. Drucker emphasized that managers are responsible for setting objectives, organizing resources, motivating and communicating with employees, and measuring performance. In the context of the AI-driven world, these core principles remain relevant. However, the rapidly changing landscape requires managers to adapt and evolve their roles, incorporating new skills and methodologies.
For instance, in the AI-driven era, managers must be adept at understanding the implications of AI technologies for their organizations. This includes identifying opportunities to leverage AI to enhance decision-making, streamline processes, and improve customer experiences. Furthermore, managers must ensure that their teams can effectively collaborate with AI systems, fostering a synergistic relationship between humans and machines.
Another critical aspect for managers in the AI-driven world is fostering a culture of continuous learning and adaptability. As AI technologies advance and reshape industries, organizations must stay ahead of the curve to remain competitive. Managers must encourage their teams to embrace change and develop new skills, ensuring that the organization remains agile and innovative.
The Emerging of “Adaptive Team Strategist” with Flat & Lean Hierarchy
In the AI-driven world, organizations have adopted the mission-driven pentomic organization format working in modern office environment, and the traditional "manager" role has evolved into a more dynamic and adaptive "team leader" or "Adaptive Team Strategist" role. This shift acknowledges the need for a more agile, collaborative, and innovative approach in the AI-driven world. In the spirit of Drucker's emphasis on management roles, an Adaptive Team Strategist should focus on the following key responsibilities:
Developing and implementing strategic plans: An Adaptive Team Strategist should work closely with the team to develop, refine, and execute strategic plans that align with the organization's overall mission and goals. This involves regularly reviewing progress, making necessary adjustments, and ensuring that the team is effectively adapting to changing conditions.
Fostering a culture of adaptability and innovation: The Adaptive Team Strategist should create an environment where team members feel empowered to think creatively, take risks, and embrace change. This involves encouraging open communication, providing constructive feedback, and celebrating successes and learning opportunities.
Leveraging technology and data-driven insights: The Adaptive Team Strategist should be proficient in using AI and other advanced technologies to make informed decisions and improve the team's performance. They should stay informed about technological advancements, train team members on using these tools effectively, and incorporate data-driven insights into the decision-making process.
Building and maintaining a high-performing team: The Adaptive Team Strategist should focus on recruiting, developing, and retaining top talent. This involves identifying skill gaps, providing training and development opportunities, and offering support and mentorship to help team members reach their full potential.
Promoting collaboration and effective communication: The Adaptive Team Strategist should foster a collaborative environment by encouraging open dialogue, promoting cross-functional partnerships, and ensuring that team members have the necessary tools and resources to work effectively together.
Balancing autonomy and alignment: The Adaptive Team Strategist should strike a balance between giving team members the autonomy to make decisions and take action, while ensuring that these actions align with the organization's mission and strategic objectives. This involves setting clear expectations, providing regular feedback, and holding team members accountable for their performance.
Continuously improving processes and systems: The Adaptive Team Strategist should constantly evaluate the team's processes and systems, identifying areas for improvement and implementing changes that enhance efficiency, effectiveness, and adaptability.
By focusing on these key responsibilities, the Adaptive Team Strategist can successfully navigate the complex, rapidly-changing landscape of the AI-driven world, ensuring the team's success in achieving its mission and goals.
Grooming an Adaptive Team Strategist is possible, and it's preferable to relying on luck when recruiting. The process involves identifying individuals with the potential to excel in this role and providing them with the necessary training, resources, and mentorship to develop the required skills and qualities. Here are some steps to groom an Adaptive Team Strategist:
Identify high-potential candidates: Look for individuals within the organization or external talent who show a strong aptitude for strategic thinking, adaptability, and leadership. These individuals may already have some experience in managing teams or projects, or they may possess other qualities that indicate their potential for success in this role.
Provide targeted training: Offer training programs focused on developing the skills and knowledge required for the Adaptive Team Strategist role. This may include courses on strategic planning, change management, AI and data-driven decision-making, communication, and collaboration.
Assign challenging projects: Give potential Adaptive Team Strategists the opportunity to lead or participate in challenging projects that require them to develop and apply their strategic thinking, adaptability, and leadership skills. This hands-on experience is invaluable in helping them grow and refine their abilities.
Offer mentorship and guidance: Pair potential Adaptive Team Strategists with experienced mentors who can provide guidance, support, and constructive feedback throughout the grooming process. These mentors can share their insights and experiences, helping the individuals learn from real-world examples and challenges.
Encourage continuous learning and development: Adaptive Team Strategists need to stay up-to-date with the latest trends and advancements in AI, technology, and business strategy. Encourage a culture of continuous learning and development by providing access to resources, workshops, and conferences that can help them stay informed and sharpen their skills.
Monitor progress and provide feedback: Regularly assess the progress of potential Adaptive Team Strategists, offering feedback and guidance to help them improve. This may involve setting performance goals, conducting performance reviews, and discussing areas of strength and opportunities for growth.
Create a supportive environment: Foster a culture of collaboration, innovation, and adaptability within the organization. This supportive environment can help potential Adaptive Team Strategists feel empowered to take risks, experiment with new ideas, and grow in their roles.
By following these steps, you can groom individuals to become successful Adaptive Team Strategists, ensuring that your organization has a strong pipeline of talent ready to tackle the challenges of an AI-driven world.
AI-Driven Agile Organizational Structure with Adaptive Team Strategist as the flesh and bone of the organization, please see Graphviz Dot code at GitHub
In an AI-driven, agile organizational structure, the hierarchy may be relatively flat, emphasizing collaboration, adaptability, and cross-functional expertise. A possible hierarchical structure for this type of organization could be as follows:
Apprentice: This level represents entry-level employees who are in the early stages of their careers or are new to the organization. They focus on learning the ropes and developing their skills.
Fellow-Craft: These employees have gained some experience and expertise in their field. They may be responsible for specific tasks or projects and can mentor and guide apprentices.
Adaptive Team Strategist: These individuals are experienced and possess a deep understanding of the organization's mission and strategic goals. They are responsible for facilitating cross-functional teams, ensuring alignment with organizational objectives, and fostering innovation and adaptability.
Senior Adaptive Team Strategist: They have a strong track record of success in guiding teams and projects within the organization. These individuals may oversee multiple Adaptive Team Strategists and provide strategic direction across different teams or projects.
Apex Leadership: This level consists of the organization's top executives, such as the CEO, CTO, or other C-suite members. They are responsible for setting the overall strategic direction, allocating resources, and ensuring the organization stays agile and adaptable in a rapidly changing environment.
This flat hierarchy allows for more flexibility and quicker decision-making, reducing bureaucracy and fostering a collaborative, innovative environment. However, it is essential to strike a balance between decentralization and maintaining a cohesive organizational direction to ensure success in an AI-driven world.
Conclusion
the Adaptive Team Strategist is indeed a crucial component in an AI-driven, agile organizational model. As organizations become more reliant on AI and data-driven decision-making, the need for individuals who can effectively adapt and respond to rapid changes in the business environment becomes increasingly important.
The Adaptive Team Strategist serves as the bridge between the organization's overall strategy and the agile teams working on specific projects or initiatives. They possess a unique combination of skills, including strategic thinking, adaptability, effective communication, emotional intelligence, and an understanding of AI and data-driven decision-making. This enables them to lead and navigate teams through complex and dynamic situations while ensuring alignment with the organization's broader goals.
In essence, the Adaptive Team Strategist acts as the main engine driving the organization forward in an increasingly complex and rapidly changing world. They play a critical role in fostering a culture of adaptability, innovation, and collaboration, ensuring the organization's continued success in the face of new challenges and opportunities.