Management of the Absurd (book by Farson)

Management of the Absurd

Richard Farson

Management of the Absurd

 I read this book for the first time in the late 1990s. When reading it again, I was struck by how much of this book stuck with me, in some cases almost word for word. The book is about paradoxes in management, and one paradox is that the book is so concisely and clearly written that this summary won’t be as good as the book.

 

To be clear about the title – the absurd things that we manage are us humans. We are complex and paradoxical. We do not respond to events rationally or reliably. It is absurd to think that management is simple. What we must consider doing is approaching leadership with a sense of humor and seriousness, and be ourselves. One of the repeated themes in the book is the idea that employees can see through managers who are following a “process” or using a “technique”. Employees can accept mistakes by a leader acting authentically and reject the actions of a manager following a “script”. Here are the “laws” observed by the author with elaborations of a few laws.

 The opposite of a profound truth is also true*

• Nothing is as invisible as the obvious

Predicting the future is always hard, but it depends on understanding what is going on right now. Much of what is going on right now is invisible to us until it is brought to our attention. Then it is obvious. When we discover our predictions are wrong, we look back and the flaw in our prediction is obvious.

• The more important a relationship, the less skill matters

In our most important interactions, skill does matter. Who we “are” matters so much more than skill, and that can’t be taught. Maybe skills matter with large groups of people, but probably not.

• Once you find a management technique that works, give it up
• Effective managers are not in control

Too much energy goes into trying to control people, and it is not possible. The more somebody tries to exert control, the more others will move away from them.

• Most problems that people have are not problems

People have many predicaments and these are not solvable, so people must learn to cope with them. Predicaments often arise from the undesired side effects of something desirable. So while we want more of the effect, we worry about getting more of the side effect too. A change in perspective may allow the predicament to be resolved, but this is not simple.

• Technology creates the opposite of its intended purpose
• We think we invent technology, but technology also invents us
• The more we communicate, the less we communicate

More organizations over-communicate than under-communicate. Too many memos, meetings, and newsletters overload and maybe bore us. When organizations have communication problems, this may be hiding issues with power differences. Consequences for candid speech can be harsh in steep hierarchies. Extensive information may remove the power advantages of insiders.

• In communication, form is more important than content

The form of communication contains a meta-message. These meta-messages can completely overrule the apparent content. The book cites the example of a red-faced executive shouting at his employees, “Who is angry? I’m not angry!!!” Meta-messages may be embedded in the setting, style, body language, and vocal tone.

• Listening is more difficult that talking
• Praising people does not motivate them
• Every act is a political act
• The best resource for the solution of any problem is the person or group that presents the problem

Alcoholics Anonymous has the best track record in helping alcoholics because its members completely understand and relate to the problem. Alcoholics come to trust their companions, and this is the key to this kind of problem solving. You must trust the people with the problem to devise a good solution and this is hard for organizations dedicated to control.

• Organizations that need help most will benefit from it least
• Individuals are almost indestructible, but organizations are very fragile

People survive horrific events and go on to lead fulfilling lives. Organizations can be disrupted by modest shocks. Maybe less effort should go into supporting individuals and more into supporting groups.

• The better things are, the worse they feel
• We think we want creativity or change, but we really don’t

Change is hard and we’d like to control it. Creativity creates change, and maybe not change we can control, so we reject it, However, we know that we should want it. Real creativity, the kind that is responsible for breakthrough changes in society, always violates the rules. We use logic to justify rejecting change/creativity.

• We want for ourselves not what we are missing, but more of what we already have
• Big changes are easier to make than small ones
• We learn not from our failures but from our successes – and the failures of others

If we were better at learning from out failures, we would not repeat so many. However, we rarely repeat our colleagues mistakes.

• Everything we try works, and nothing works
• Planning is an ineffective way to bring about change

Change is caused by rebels – highly motivated rebels, and planners are rarely real rebels. Planning in the sense of developing an understanding of the current state and a desired state can create an anticipatory mindset and prime people to make decisions favoring the desired state. But that is not the usual idea of a plan.

• Organizations change most by surviving calamities
• People we think need changing are pretty good the way they are

Most people are competent and want to do their best. They are especially effective when they work in an environment where they are accepted as they are and valued for being themselves. This is very much the center on current thinking about inclusion.

• Every great strength is a great weakness
• Morale in unrelated to productivity
• There are no leaders, there is only leadership

The meaning here is that people across the ranks exert leadership; position does not create leadership. In most real groups, leadership shifts regularly from person to person. In this light, leadership is a function of the group as much as any member of it. A group can reject the leadership of an individual and accept that of another. Expressed another way – every group determines its own leadership dynamically.

• The more experienced the managers, the more they trust simple intuition
• Leaders cannot be trained, but they can be educated

A persistent theme of this book is that leadership is not really a set of skills but an attitude. Consequently, there are no skills to be trained on. However, leadership can clearly be learned through experience and an open mind. One of the most important things for a potential leader to learn is who they are and become confident in being that person. This is not praise for arrogant certainty, but recognition that people follow people.

• In management, to be a professional one must be an amateur

Continuing the thought from above, the word amateur is derived from the word ‘love’. An amateur does something out of their own passion. In the case of leadership, it is love for people that is required. A detached professional will have plenty of technique, but the passionate amateur will out-lead them every time.

• Lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for
• My advice is don’t take my advice

 Comment and interpretation

• Managing our own work lives is not easy. The more people that we engage with, both higher and lower in the ranks, the harder it gets. But the book suggests that our priorities should be to be ourselves and show ourselves to our colleagues. Think about predicaments and problems then act. Don’t depend on techniques unless they represent your perspective.
• I suspect that the content of this book will appeal to some people, but be rejected by others. I find it very appealing and consistent with my own experiences. I like the perverse simplicity of the rules.

*text in italics is directly quoted from the book