Dan Erwin

What the Kids Are Finding Out About Guns

As a result, partially because of years of horrible shootings in our country, much research has been completed on who governs. Who actually governs? Although there are hundreds of studies on this subject, the latest work is by Princeton and Northwestern scholars, political scientists and long-term experts on the issues. They work from a huge body of evidence—some quantitative (the statistics), some historical (to make sense out of the statistics), and some actually observational. 

The authors of the study reveal that there are “four families” of research: elected politicians, the economic elites (Wall Street and major Hedge Fund directors), interest groups (tending to be millions of ordinary people with differing interests and personal drivers), and biased interest groups with differing targets.

What makes this study highly useful is the existence of a unique data set, compiled over many years, by one of the authors: Martin Gilens. The study is especially interesting to me because it is not focused on gun research, but on a related issue: who controls public policy? 

Well, take a guess. Is it average citizens, business interest group, mass-based interest groups (like AARP) or economic elites (Koch brothers)? First of all, average citizens and their elected politicians have zero impact upon policy. Organized interest groups, a substitute for voters, also have nearly zero impact on policy. That means that organized populists groups who want government to respond primarily or exclusively to the preferences of their citizens have no effect on public policy. . .

The Lost Art of Thinking

On numerous occasions as a management consultant, I asked execs about how much time they took to think about process, innovation or strategy. Often, the response was that they didn’t have time to think. A couple said that they were paying me to do the thinking. A compliment, but very unwise. And I provided a very deliberate rationale for refusing that business opportunity.

So how did we get to the place where managers don’t realize that thinking is part of their job? In a very thoughtful and fascinating article in the MIT Sloan Management Review, Duncan Simester pointed out that the bias for doing, not thinking, is built into business. Companies succeed by creating a successful business model—and then scaling it massively. Massive scaling requires a “finely tuned system with highly standardized processes.” So, getting promoted requires “almost a singular focus on execution.

In other words, it requires action more than thinking.” So guess what? It’s inevitable that we focus on what we get rewarded for. And in business, that’s execution.

The smart thinkers I’ve met in business simply refuse to get involved in much execution which would set aside their need for thinking. In other words, to get more thinking people firms are going to have to change the work situation--for at least a select group. Admittedly selection processes have a limited record of accuracy. Still, the process for developing thinkers will have more success than what goes on today. Years ago, one of the major firms to which I consulted offered year long, internship experiences with senior officers for their fast track people. They had a significant amount of success in developing thinkers who could take on the jobs of creativity and complexity. and strategists. 3M Corporation has had great success with similar projects over the years. And of course, the better business thinkers, like 3M, have better business.

The need for thinkers in business is obvious to many executives. One of my clients, a Pillsbury EVP in research and development...

On the Super Bowl as Bread and Circus

The first time I stumbled across the phrase “bread and circus,” it was the name of an upscale Massachusetts grocery store owned by Whole Foods. But the phrase kept zinging around in my gray matter as a Latin metonymic (a figure of speech consisting of the use of the name of one thing for that of another). It’s like that reference to the “crown,” which most of us know refers to the English monarchy. Brits might say, for example, “Balmoral is owned by the crown.”

Occasionally you’ll find bread and circus used to describe the creation of public approval by distraction. You know, Trump’s Twitter zingers. He’s a master, par excellence, of one political strategy: distraction. Political scientists would know that you can offer some immediate shallow requirements as a sop to the populace and keep them from focusing on important matters. Nothing new over the centuries.

Trump is certainly not the only genius at distraction. Ronald Reagan had the Air Force’s $7,622 coffeepot and the Navy’s $435 claw hammer, as well as an ill-fated effort to save money by classifying ketchup as a school lunch vegetable. Bill Clinton had midnight basketball and a high-priced haircut from a Beverly Hills stylist aboard Air Force One.

Bread and Circus?
Now that we’ve gotten through that little game, what does “Bread and Circus” actually refer to? ...