

Managerial Blunders - From The Economist - mathewgj
http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13354607

======
jeremytliles
Interesting. In my experience, company leaders typically engineer discussions
in order to validate what they already believe, and of course it can be a
career-limiter to argue too forcefully with one's superior. I think it takes
an executive with extraordinary vision to actually create a culture where
dissension is encouraged and people with differing views truly engage and are
fairly listened to.

I believe I've read somewhere that some high percentage of business leaders
are classified as optimists, which probably creates a tendency to downplay the
negatives of business situations. In an overall sense, this may be a good
thing, as it leads people to attempt things that seem crazy to others, but it
can obviously also lead to excessive risk-taking and sundry disasters.

------
biohacker42
Juror #8 couldn't be fired by the other jurors.

If that had been a business he almost certainly would have been gone.

Which is why the only way business advances is through creative destruction.

And I've always thought that creative destruction implies that _most_
enterprises go bust.

Thus having anything too big to fail should not be allowed. Failure is
essential.

------
mpk
Designating one or more devil's advocates is a good strategy. That way the
naysayer isn't perceived as a negative person.

Of course, the company culture also goes a long way in facilitating this.

