david.doolin
This collection of writings provides a basic understanding of systems thinking, starting from first principles. It's referenced in a number of management and engineering books I've read, and references in blog posts are starting to appear more frequently.
One thing to understand about systems thinking is that it's really, really hard to get right in complex systems, and especially when people form an integral component of the system.
I've read this completely through at least twice, and taken notes on several chapters. Worthy reference.
I started and read half through The Fieldstone Method a number of years ago. Succinctly:
1. This is how I've always written, did not know there was a name for it.
2. This is not a good method, for me, for intermittently delivering business or technical writing on demand. There are other books for that skill.
Read this a few years ago. Some really interesting ideas, not sure how well-supported the science is.
This is one of those books where if you “get it” it's real. And if you don't, it's total BS.
Personally, I get it.
For example, I actually know someone that really does have PTSD. Goleman explains a plausible mechanism.
If you're a skeptic, you won't find anything useful in this book, so don't waste your time. If you're willing to consider personal experience as validation for his claims, read it and observe the world around you from a more emotionally significant perspective.
My personal experience? Predictability doesn't imply measureability. This makes the subject an art rather than a science. I'm just fine with that.
Read this as part of a Bradfield course. Packed with ideas, some more useful than others at any given time, but definitely worth reading.
Implemented most of the code in the book, wrapping a fair bit of with tests.
I really like the Decorator pattern in Ruby, and believe it's sadly underutilized.
Second read.
The essential conundrum is that the only person who can implement the team of teams notion effectively has to be 1. unequivocally in charge of the entire enterprise, and 2. secure enough to voluntarily cede power down the chain.
I've had this for ages, and find myself referring to it more and more often of late. It's really nice just getting the definition for a term without having to wade through 1. search results, then pointless discussion surrounded by advertising on typical web pages.
Good business principles with a dose of feel good, and a bit of “last word” justification here and there. On my reread list.
I'm probably in the audience for this book, but I'm finding it hard to rate it accurately as I'm already familiar with most of the material the author covers. However, I did find two things notable:
1. The author calls out Friedman on the “greed is good” theory of corporate operation, that is, maximizing shareholder value being the sole concern of a corporation. I have never believed this myself, and with “corporate personhood” established by the law, it's no surprise a large amount of corporate behavior is sociopathic at best. We imprison people for taking “me first” to its logical conclusion, incorporating should come with more social responsibility, not less. Friedman got a Nobel prize for this notion. The author takes Friedman to task, and in my opinion rightly so.
2. I feel the author was unduly harsh on Jack Welch. This may be because I'm currently reading Welch's “Winning,” and can see the mismatch between what Welch writes and how it's taken. For example, Welch's description of stack ranking (differentiation) does not square with what I've read about it, nor what I've experienced directly by way of family working for GE during Welch's tenure. Specifically, Welch spends a lot of words advocating for the middle 70%. That part isn't much discussed by the author, or other authors, and certainly not executed on in my experience. The irony is that Welch and the author are much more closely aligned on people development than the author writes.
Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High
Not the whole story, but an interesting and effective system for engaging when communication is difficult. May not always work for all people all the time, but definitely worth applying the principles when otherwise at an impasse.
As usual with the author, there's intellectual gold in them thar hills, but it requires traversing a fair bit of terrain characterized by invective. Some of it is surely warranted, some assuredly not, but I don't know how to tell the difference.
Not currently in the audience for this at the moment; style did not resonate with me. Material seems good, will consider rereading in the future.
Didn't finish. Along with the known problem in one of the chapters (2?), the treatment is too academic for my needs at the moment. I can see myself revisiting in the future.