Management theory
Drucker, de Bono, Feynman
Drucker “WHAT’S MEASURED IMPROVES” versus perverse incentives
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#:~:text=The%20cobra%20effect%20is%20the,politics%20can%20cause%20unintended%20consequences%2C.
Hawthorne effect
Drucker
The best way to predict your future is to create it”
― Peter Drucker
“If you want something new, you have to stop doing something old”
― Peter Drucker
“The most important thing in communication is to hear what isn't being said.”
“People who don't take risks generally make about two big mistakes a year. People who do take risks generally make about two big mistakes a year.”
― Peter F. Drucker
“Results are obtained by exploiting opportunities, not by solving problems. ”
“Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window. ”
― Peter Drucker
“When a subject becomes totally obsolete we make it a required course. ”
“Like so many brilliant people, he believes that ideas move mountains. But bulldozers move mountains; ideas show where the bulldozers should go to work.”
https://allianceenterprises.wistia.com/medias/wzn2ubmld0
See also[edit]
Feynman
Another very important technical point is that the more specific a rule is, the more interesting it is. The more definite the statement, the more interesting it is to test. If someone were to propose that the planets go around the sun because all planet matter has a kind of tendency for movement, a kind of motility, let us call it an "oomph," this theory could explain a number of other phenomena as well. So this is a good theory, is it not? No. It is nowhere near as good as a proposition that the planets move around the sun under the influence of a central force which varies exactly inversely as the square of the distance from the center. The second theory is better because it is so specific
So the more specific the rule, the more powerful it is, the more liable it is to exceptions, and the more interesting and valuable it is to check. Words can be meaningless. If they are used in such a way that no sharp conclusions can be drawn, as in my example of "oomph," then the proposition they state is almost meaningless, because you can explain almost anything by the assertion that things have a tendency to motility. A great deal has been made of this by philosophers, who say that words must be defined extremely precisely. Actually, I disagree somewhat with this; I think that extreme precision of definition is often not worthwhile, and sometimes it is not possible—in fact mostly it is not possible, but I will not get into that argument here. Most of what many philosophers say about science is really on the technical aspects involved in trying to make sure the method works pretty well. Whether these technical points would be useful in a field in which observation is not the judge I have no idea. I am not going to say that everything has to be done the same way when a method of testing different from observation is used. In a different field perhaps it is not so important to be careful of the meaning of words or that the rules be specific, and so on. I do not know.”
Richard Feynman the meaning of it all
http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/pmo/eng/Feynman-Uncertainty.pdf
De Bono https://www.debono.com/
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/jun/10/edward-de-bono-obituary
Maslow
https://www.greatleadershipbydan.com/2008/06/10-greatest-management-theories-models.html