The American military is particularly hostile to divergents in thinking hence the victory track record since 1945 for the US and allied defense establishments. Hidebound conservatism [non-political cultural alliance to "this is the way it's always been done"] crushes innovation at every turn in the DoD..
The French have a larger army and tank capability than the Wehrmacht in 1940 but stove-piped combat modalities that don't cross germinate; on paper, incredibly superior to German forces. And they simply need to fight a defense in depth to bleed the mobile advantage of the Germans. But the Germans synchronized a cross-disciplinary fighting machine (weak on logistics) harnessing a Prussian culture of disobedience to modern radio communications to "shift" priorities and combat opportunities in a very compressed time frame compared to the French response. They outmaneuvered the French militarily and philosophically with ease.
The French are defeated in six weeks. The Germans were a "divergent-friendly" force until the death of the Wehrmacht (see Robert Citino) a mere two years later in Russia in 1942.
But which management would you prefer if you were a frog? Aisopus an ancient Greek considered the response of Zeus in the frog sovereign call asking for a king. First (their asking made him furious) he send a mere pole. Then he send a snake. The Aisops question is - do you want a lazy king or a very active one.
At the time, management is good or bad according to the damage causing in the frog community. There is no mention on polymathic qualities because the role of management has nothing to do with it at the time. The minimum is to be saved. Essential for life.
Beyond Aisopus Ancient Greece had polymaths (independently of the volume of knowledge) and Socrates (and Plato himself) had an argument if they (epaiontes - who come with knowledge) are good for leading the ideal society (a tyrrany - form of dictatorship but without damage because of knowledge). Because, tyrrant (friend of Plato who did this test-run of epaiontes) preferred to cause damage even after using knowledge, the experiment failed.
It seems that the ancient world believes the emphasis on Rebels, Pirates and curious people does not preserve the minima. It is more important to remove burdens than innovate. Removing burdens is a repeatitive job and requires management highly active to removing all their forms in order not to fell on your knee. Repeatitive means they must use experience. Innovation will send you to the future but for that you need people with two characteristics. One is knowledge of the past and generalization to concepts. The second is to be reactive and responsive to any future surprise in every future step especially to unaccounted for steps.
In this case for humans is rather difficult to be both a manager and an innovator at the same time. You need Zeus himself. But he is angry when bothered with human problems.
Another case is to train Zeuses through elementary school to University and lifelong education or be one of them on a later stage. It seems not an organizational, economic, manufacturing and trading or marketing issue.
Also it is not either a psychological, sociological or organizational behavior issue. You need NOT to be an idiot (in the Greek sense of being isolated in your own problems and/or interests).
Nowadays idiot is a synomym of stupid. Yes it is. Do not overlook the importance of the overall good. It has to be where everybody (including the organization) are good at.
Greeks did without empires, Alexander and Romans did with empires. It has nothing to do with the form of the organization.
Thank you for this great insight. I always knew I was different but I didn't know what it was. I do now. Nerodivergent. It's not always fun but I wouldn't change it if I could. I love the way I can think outside the box, mostly because I didn't know there was a box.
Imagine if a company devoted ten percent of their working capital to divergent blue sky aspirations helmed by rebels in the company with distant ROI if any.
The American military is particularly hostile to divergents in thinking hence the victory track record since 1945 for the US and allied defense establishments. Hidebound conservatism [non-political cultural alliance to "this is the way it's always been done"] crushes innovation at every turn in the DoD..
The French have a larger army and tank capability than the Wehrmacht in 1940 but stove-piped combat modalities that don't cross germinate; on paper, incredibly superior to German forces. And they simply need to fight a defense in depth to bleed the mobile advantage of the Germans. But the Germans synchronized a cross-disciplinary fighting machine (weak on logistics) harnessing a Prussian culture of disobedience to modern radio communications to "shift" priorities and combat opportunities in a very compressed time frame compared to the French response. They outmaneuvered the French militarily and philosophically with ease.
The French are defeated in six weeks. The Germans were a "divergent-friendly" force until the death of the Wehrmacht (see Robert Citino) a mere two years later in Russia in 1942.
But which management would you prefer if you were a frog? Aisopus an ancient Greek considered the response of Zeus in the frog sovereign call asking for a king. First (their asking made him furious) he send a mere pole. Then he send a snake. The Aisops question is - do you want a lazy king or a very active one.
At the time, management is good or bad according to the damage causing in the frog community. There is no mention on polymathic qualities because the role of management has nothing to do with it at the time. The minimum is to be saved. Essential for life.
Beyond Aisopus Ancient Greece had polymaths (independently of the volume of knowledge) and Socrates (and Plato himself) had an argument if they (epaiontes - who come with knowledge) are good for leading the ideal society (a tyrrany - form of dictatorship but without damage because of knowledge). Because, tyrrant (friend of Plato who did this test-run of epaiontes) preferred to cause damage even after using knowledge, the experiment failed.
It seems that the ancient world believes the emphasis on Rebels, Pirates and curious people does not preserve the minima. It is more important to remove burdens than innovate. Removing burdens is a repeatitive job and requires management highly active to removing all their forms in order not to fell on your knee. Repeatitive means they must use experience. Innovation will send you to the future but for that you need people with two characteristics. One is knowledge of the past and generalization to concepts. The second is to be reactive and responsive to any future surprise in every future step especially to unaccounted for steps.
In this case for humans is rather difficult to be both a manager and an innovator at the same time. You need Zeus himself. But he is angry when bothered with human problems.
Another case is to train Zeuses through elementary school to University and lifelong education or be one of them on a later stage. It seems not an organizational, economic, manufacturing and trading or marketing issue.
Also it is not either a psychological, sociological or organizational behavior issue. You need NOT to be an idiot (in the Greek sense of being isolated in your own problems and/or interests).
Nowadays idiot is a synomym of stupid. Yes it is. Do not overlook the importance of the overall good. It has to be where everybody (including the organization) are good at.
Greeks did without empires, Alexander and Romans did with empires. It has nothing to do with the form of the organization.
Thank you for this great insight. I always knew I was different but I didn't know what it was. I do now. Nerodivergent. It's not always fun but I wouldn't change it if I could. I love the way I can think outside the box, mostly because I didn't know there was a box.
Imagine if a company devoted ten percent of their working capital to divergent blue sky aspirations helmed by rebels in the company with distant ROI if any.
SpaceX lives this everyday.