This article by top strategy consultancy, BCG was rather disappointing. Perhaps it will encourage more UK government departments to spend GBP5,000 a day for the services of consultants? My observations are simple. The business administration literature contains enormous top quality analysis on ‘turnarounds’ and ‘business strategy‘. Sadly, these terms get over-used by unemployed executives, who want to sprinkle their CVs with buzz words to gain ‘hits’ on automated recruitment analytics. Like always, look to the evidence. People like John Gelmini and myself have decades of experience in delivering effective strategic change, including turnarounds. Thoughts?
Here’s a recommended read from The Atlantic. If you or somebody close to you is an addict, you’d be wise to read this vintage article. The article explores how a pseudoscientific, religious organization birthed the most trusted method of addiction treatment
As well as being a Chartered Accountant by profession, I have a Doctorate in Business Admistration, so I tend to look for the scientific evidence and then collaboration of the evidence, then I look for alternatives. In other words, I’m pretty skeptical of headlines and popular solutions. I’m just sharing my bias.
To me it’s obvious, as a trained social scientist, that ‘one-size fits all’, panacea programs has severe limitations – simply, it fails to deal with individual context.
Sadly, addiction brings enormous psychological, social and economic consequences to victims, their families and friends. Addicts are by definition extremely weak people and they’re constantly looking for an easy solution. Unfortunately, everybody is genarally desperate by the time that they turn to the ’12 Steps’.
The Atlantic article looks at the underlying scientific evidence and it raises some fundamental questions about the ’12 Steps’. Of course individuals might argue that ’12 Steps’ worked for them but their arguments are not based upon scientific analysis.