In every case I did this because I believe the world is complex, not ordered. And organizations are living networked systems, not lifeless hierarchical machines.
Many of the great old ideas are defective when applied using the faulty machine metaphor. They only work well when we replace it with metaphors of living growing systems. That’s what I prefer to do.
And so yes, many of the ideas I present are old. But they are not merely old ideas in new words. They are old ideas used in a new paradigm of complexity thinking instead of machine thinking.
I call it Management 3.0. Others call it Management 2.0, or even Management 1.1. But does the name matter when we finally understand how to put those old ideas to good use? Should we throw useful management practices away only because some people have misapplied them in command-and-control hierarchies?