Monday, June 21, 2010

Managers should be social scientists




Browsing through the McKinsey Quarterly recently I came across this article exhorting businesses to consider the benefits of applying knowledge in the field of behavioral science to areas such as marketing, operations, and customer service. The advice can be simple, even while the research itself is rigorous and complex. For example, in the McK Q article the advice to companies seeking to manage customer interactions in ways that consider this research are the following five bullet points:

1. Get bad experiences over with early (rip-it-off like a band-aid)
2. Break up pleasure and combine pain (mix up the rewards and costs of interacting)
3. Finish the interaction strongly (leave them wanting more)
4. Give customers choice (give them control)
5. Let customers stick to their habits (don't keep changing things up)

Nothing wrong with this at all. What strikes me is that this is exactly the sort of knowledge that b-schools (and e-schools) need to be passing on to their graduates.

The recent popularity of books such as Dan Ariely's "Predictably Irrational" Malcolm Gladwell's Blink/Tipping Point/Outliers, Levitt & Dubner's Freakonomics/Super Freakonomics and numerous others, together indicate an appetite for behavioral research in its various guises. The scientific knowledge that forms the foundation for these books represents real Rosetta-stone material for unlocking how people think, decide, and act. Now those are tools that all managers should have in their tool boxes.

You can learn about teamwork anywhere. You can learn about leadership anywhere (perhaps anywhere BUT the classroom). Where better than the universities, those places that are conducting this kind of basic research, can you learn about behavioral science findings and how to apply them?

Thursday, June 10, 2010

educational entrepreneurship


A very recent story in the Times Higher Educational Supplement reports that David Willetts, the UK's new Universities minister is proposing a form of deregulation of higher education that is extremely interesting. According to the THES article, Willetts is suggesting that the processes of teaching and grading be de-coupled. This would create a system much like that in the UK high-school sector, where exams are graded by exam boards. Only, in the case of Higher Education (HE) the grading services would be provided by degree granting institutions.

This is precisely the kind of external 'disruption' that can be a powerful driver of entrepreneurial opportunity. If a change such as this were to take place, there are a number of obvious sources for enterprising individuals, companies, and universities to contribute to a more dynamic, competitive, and ultimately welfare enhancing HE sector. For example:

  • opportunities for industrious and well regarded universities to build an 'exam board' business
  • opportunities for private sector entrepreneurs to credibly enter the HE market and provide higher quality (or lower cost) services
  • opportunities for greater flexibility for consumers of HE
I would be surprised if this is the only such disruption forthcoming in the HE sector in the next five years. Watch out for enterprising educational institutions going forward. Given the need for flexibility and speed to exploit these opportunities, it would not be surprising to see some different institutional names in the frame, and not necessarily the 'ancient' universities or even the 'civic' universities.