Tom Davenport on Great Decisions at Pixar

Check out Tom's new post at HBR on Five Ways Pixar Makes Better Decisions.   As often strikes me when I learn more about a great company like Pixar, their success is grounded in knowing and consistently doing obvious but powerful things.  While some management gurus are saying we have to reinvent management for the times, what they are doing at Pixar are approaches that I have been around for a long time.

Indeed, when we interviewed Brad Bird (Academy Award winning director of Pixar blockbusters The Incredibles and Ratatouille) he emphasized that the most important lessons he learned -- like persistent attention to quality, the power of pride in doing good work, constant feedback and constructive conflict, and on and on -- came from his early interactions with the master animators ( known as Walt's Nine Old Men ) at Disney who produced classic films like Snow White, Dumbo, and so on.

Here is just a little taste from Tom's great post:

Even though directors have autonomy, they get feedback from others. "Dailies," or movies in progress, are shown for feedback to the entire animation crew. In The Economist interview, Catmull also describes a more extensive periodic peer review process:

We have a structure so they get their feedback from their peers. ... Every two or three months they present the film to the other filmmakers...and they will go through, and they will tear the film apart. Directors aren't forced to respond to the feedback, but they generally do — and the films are generally better for it.

This is a great example of striking a healthy balance between autonomy and control, which is always a balancing act.

Also, I wonder, do people agree with my argument that there really isn't difference between what great bosses did 50 or 100 years ago and what they do now? Or, as some thought leaders argue, it is time to reinvent management?  My view, perhaps too cynical, is that claims that a brand new management paradigm and practices have been invented, that I as a thought leader or guru am selling them, and if you don't use my stuff or accept my given truth, you are doomed for trouble, smacks of snake oil.  

P.S. If you want to read a great book on Pixar, I suggest The Pixar Touch, which I wrote about here. Their history will just amaze you.

Comments

[Joe Marchese]

I think any systemic review is a great opportunity to find ways to make things better. So too for management systems. In our firm, we speak of our commitment to management 'with a discipline for the science and a passion for the art'. I think the science side of management is ripe for a transformation, to take the insights we've gathered and apply them in a self-sustaining way that doesn't feel like an intervention inspired by the current fad. As to the art, I agree with Bob that good bosses 100 years ago would most likely make good bosses today. My only fear is that some might conclude there is nothing new to learn... that's scary.

Bob's warning that 'not invented here' isn't as dangerous as 'not sold here' is spot on. I believe that every fresh perspective can identify distinctions that can help us. Chasing after them blindly is a fool's mission.

[Dan Erwin]

Bob, like you, I'm cynical about reinventing management. I had the good fortune in grad school to take a few courses in American intellectual history. What I learned there applies directly to business and other fields. New ideas are never fully reinvented. They're old ideas, refined, refocused, elaborated upon or recontextualized.

About 20 years ago there was a fascinating rhetorical analysis of management ideas, called something like "Management Hype," in which the authors showed the historical background of the current guru focused material. And as I remember, the author came out of HBus School...although the new hype is coming out of Wharton.

I assume we need to recontextualize our management, but that's not reinvention.