Delve podcast: Striking a New Balance in Management and Society, with Henry Mintzberg and Saku Mantere

(Read Transcript)

Delve podcast, August 30, 2022: Striking a New Balance in Management and Society, with Henry Mintzberg and Saku Mantere
Robyn Fadden – host: Welcome to the fourth season of the Delve podcast, produced by Delve, the McGill University Desautels Faculty of Management’s thought leadership platform. For our first episode of the season, we’re pleased to feature Desautels professor and preeminent management scholar Henry Mintzberg in conversation with Desautels professor and Delve Editor-in-Chief Saku Mantere. Expect to hear a wide-ranging, critical conversation about management, leadership and organizations today, from business to governments to higher education. How has management thinking and research changed in the past 50 years and where might it be headed in the near future?
Saku Mantere: My name is Saku Mantere and I am a professor here at the Desautels Faculty of Management. I was brought up on Henry Mintzberg’s work on strategy and organizations. When I was studying to be a scholar, I was struck by his idea of how strategies were really things that people did together in organizations, that strategies could emerge from collective learning and a lot of the formal models and consultants lines that we saw about strategy were really just the surface of a phenomena that was much, much deeper. I’ve had the possibility of becoming friends with Henry and colleagues here at the faculty, and I’ve had the privilege of following his work opening up towards broader societal questions, the types of questions that are really timely and pressing, such as climate change, such as education, the political divide that we’re seeing. And the really neat thing that I find about that is that a lot of this is about collective strategy, it is about how strategy emerges not only within organizations but between organizations of very different kinds – NGOs, firms, policy organizations, governments – all these have to come together if we think about these grand challenges of society. I had the great pleasure of having a conversation with Henry where we cover a wide variety of issues, and I’m really happy to be able to present it to you as a special publication of Delve. I hope you enjoy it.
Saku Mantere: Henry, thanks for joining us.
Henry Mintzberg: It’s a pleasure, Saku.
Saku Mantere: I’d like to begin with your PhD. So you did a PhD at MIT if I’m not mistaken. And you had a pretty big insight about leaders. What did leaders actually do? Can you tell us a little about how that unfolded?
Henry Mintzberg: Not so much leaders, but managers. At least, that was the term I used.
Saku Mantere: The nature of managerial work, right?
Henry Mintzberg: That was my first book. And it was a success right from the beginning. The head of NASA, James Webb wanted to be studied and he approached some professors at MIT. They approached me because I was the only one who had a remote interest in management. Everybody else, was interested in marketing, finance, operations, whatever. I said, Yeah, that’s crazy idea, study one guy for a PhD at MIT. But anyway, I groped around for a thesis and came back months later and said, You know what, I’ll do that. But Webb was no longer available. So I observed five chief executives – one running a big school system, one running a major hospital, and the other three in business. And I sat there and wrote down things that were patently obvious that nobody ever wrote down before, which were things like, they get interrupted a lot. And they like to get interrupted, they want to get interrupted. It’s action oriented. Fayol wrote in 1916, that managers plan, organize, coordinate, command, and control – which are five words for control. And I didn’t see that – I saw them spending half their time with people outside their organizations. They weren’t controlling them. But half their time was with customers, or government officials, or union people, or whatever. It was a very hectic job, not a job where you can plan. They spoke and listened, especially a lot more than they wrote and read. So it was a very different job. So I just wrote it down. And it was a big success, because finally somebody had said, what’s going on for real?
Saku Mantere: What’s going on for real. I think that’s a pretty good encapsulation about what your work has been like, right? Because it’s the same thing you wrote about emergent strategy. It’s not about what executives plan and the strategy statements that that are being published. There used to be sort of memos and things that were put into safes and now they’re PowerPoint slides or whatever, executive speeches, but strategies about what actually happens?
Henry Mintzberg: Yeah, you know, most strategic planning is just plain silly. And it’s a waste of everybody’s time, they pretend they’re making strategy out of the blue, the immaculate conception. That’s not how strategies are made –strategies are learned. You try things, you do different things, you hit something, you discover something you didn’t expect. You know, IKEA went into unassembled furniture because a worker tried to put a table in his car that didn’t fit. So he took the legs off. And then came the strategic moment, which was a simple little switch. If we have to take the legs off – meaning the customers have changed the furniture business – that’s where strategies come from. So all this hype about strategic planning so much is just plain silly, an absolute monumental waste of time.
Saku Mantere: So it’s trial and error learning, it’s serendipitous learning.
Henry Mintzberg: It’s trial and error learning. It’s observing, it’s seeing things and noticing things. It’s doing in place, or ahead of thinking you do – in order to think you don’t just think in order to do. And this idea of disconnect, that just sitting in an office and invent these grand strategies is, is just not reality most of the time and even if does come out of such a meeting is because the people in that meeting have been had their feet on the ground. And I’ve been watching what’s going on.
Saku Mantere: So did you know that Jeff Bezos, the chief executive well, he former chief executive at founder of Amazon, he actually quite extensively discussed one of your papers on decision making in, in, in a shareholders letter?
Henry Mintzberg: Yeah. I was really amazed by that.
Saku Mantere: But actually it is kind of funny because I think he may approach things somewhat similarly. The whole Amazon story has been about well, we can, of course, then discuss the role of Amazon in society, which we will do later, but it’s clearly been a very successful enterprise. And it seems that that there’s been a lot of trial and error, and a lot of learning, lots of experimentation in that story.
Henry Mintzberg: You know, and it’s a quite an academic article, it was in Administrative Science Quarterly, which is the Academic Journal of Management. And it’s called the Structure of “Unstructured” Decision Processes. So sure, it appealed to him.
Saku Mantere: How about organizational structure, then it seems that the written the book on, I’m still going to call it leadership, I know that you don’t like that distinction between leaders and managers. But that’s where the literature was, there was a huge industry of writing books about leadership, so Fayol and Barnard and, and many of these other classics, they didn’t really write about management, they wrote about leadership, and that’s what your work did, it kind of revolutionized that literature, so I made the choice of calling it leadership. So basically what you did was you just went and saw what people who we call leaders, the chief executives, what is it that they do, then you continued by looking at the strategies that actually unfold, emergent strategies or realized strategies. But then he also wrote a very important book on organizational structure, the structure in fives as it used to be called.
Henry Mintzberg: You know, Fayol in the first book, referred to his administration. Yeah, I’m not sure he used the word leader or manager in French, although manager actually comes from French, it has something to do with holding horses.
Saku Mantere: The management of horses, yeah.
Henry Mintzberg: But the book on structure is my most successful book. And it was an attempt to synthesize the research. In a lot of areas, we have tons of research, but nobody synthesizes it, nobody pulls it together. So it’s not useful for practitioners. So I called the original version of that book, which was called The Structuring of Organizations, I subtitle that synthesis of the research. And then I did structure and fives as a shorter version of the same thing. And that was became my most successful book by far. And it’s still being used. Somebody wrote to me recently, he’s a high school teacher. And he says, I’ve been using your book for like, since 1980. God knows what, in high school and you know, can we please have a new edition is amusing, like 40 years later in high school of all things. But in fact, I’ve been spending a lot of COVID a lot of the COVID time in the last two, three years revising it, and doing a new edition, it’s called Understanding Organizations, Finally! exclamation point.
Henry Mintzberg: The book opens by saying, how many organizations are you going to be involved with today? Is 10 an exaggeration? And then I opened by saying, well, your breakfast was brought to you by farms and, and food stores and so on and so forth. You open your email on an Apple or whatever it is, and I go through all then you go to the bank during the day you go or work and all that. And at the end, I say I count 17, how many that I miss. And my point is that we live in a world of organizations from the moment we’re born in hospitals, to the moment we’re buried by hero homes, we’re all involved with organizations, and yet we don’t understand them and we mix them all up.
Henry Mintzberg: So the book is a revision to try and make it clearer, more accessible, and also extends some of the basic arguments. And it’s built around four basic forms of organizations that I call: personal, programmed, professional, and project, and it really works well. Personal, like entrepreneurial companies, where one person is very much autocratic regimes, where one person is in charge. Programmed are the classic McDonald type bureaucracies, everything is programmed, everything is structured. Professionals are hospitals, engineering departments, universities, where it’s the skill of the professionals that central. And project are project organizations, whether they’re consulting firms, or film companies, or, or hockey teams. I actually use sports for all of them.
Saku Mantere: Let’s focus on these four. So if to me, I think there’s a kind of a unifying sentiment here that a lot of the literature in our field tends to be very, very authoritarian, that there are this one size fits all models and rules, that we try to feed the practitioners. And nobody really bothers too much to go on, and see how things actually unfold, at least that when you studied your work, you know, it seems that for leadership, we had decades of literature, advising, you know, what leaders needed to do. And then nobody had bothered to take the time to actually go see what they actually did. And it seems that there’s the same sentiment in the strategy stuff – there used to be a lot of literature when you studied, already it was a kind of an emerging important literature on corporate planning that you know, what was the right way to plan a strategy? And then, of course, we had all sorts of consultants and guidebooks on how to build a most efficient organization starting from Taylor, I suppose. And what your work has really done is to go see how things actually unfold how they work?
Henry Mintzberg: It’s all around learning in a way that the organizations learn those strategies. I think organizations also learn those structures, in the sense that the Immaculate Conception of structure – somebody sitting in an office, you know, this is what prime ministers and presidents do, particularly prime ministers, they sit there and they make their cabinet. And it’s all so convenient. And then they revise their cabinet, they restructure their cabinet. So they take Joe and put them where Mary is, and Mary where Sally is. And Sally where Joe is. And it’s all very easy, a few hours, and you kind of move it all around, and it’s all done. Of course, it can create chaos. And why are these cabinets, you know, 15, 20 people? Well, you can’t have a cabinet of 50 people, right? So you have for example, the Department of Transport every country has a Department of Transport. Would you tell me what air transport, sea transport, and ground transport have in common other than moving vehicles around? So it’s a conglomerate. The Department of Transport is a conglomerate – conglomerates don’t work? Okay, we should have three ministers we shouldn’t have one. We should have one. One for air traffic control kind of problems, one for sea and Coast Guard, and one for trucking and roads and, all that but we structure for convenience on paper?
Saku Mantere: How much do you think this sentiment is influenced by you being an engineer? I think you’re a mechanical engineer. And you know how hard it is to build things.
Henry Mintzberg: Well, mechanical engineers are a bit nutty. I discovered that years later when I you know, I graduated and never much worked in mechanical engineering. And then I ended up at a conference. I don’t know how we ever did with a bunch of mechanical engineers. And we were going out back home at night. And one of the guys said, let’s cut through the field and we were sloshing you know, ankle deep in this water and everything and I thought these guys are just like me. I guess I’m a mechanical engineer. We’re kind of playful and easygoing and let’s try it.
Henry Mintzberg: It’s also you know, getting dirt under your fingernails getting your hands dirty. And that’s sort of my research to in a way, you know, go see what they do in their jobs. Figure out how our structures really work. Track some strategies to see what really happened. it’s so easy, I don’t take great credit for this. As you said a minute ago, people stand detached. And they train managers to be detached MBA programs mostly train managers through case studies and that kind of nonsense to be disconnected from what’s going on. So you read a case about a company that you know nothing about, except what’s in the case, that was written by an assistant to a professor who most likely interviewed mostly the chief executive and got one point of view. And that’s how we train managers. It’s silly, you don’t create a manager in a classroom. That’s the other thing is that you don’t create a manager in a classroom, you learn management on the job, and then you can come into a classroom and reflect on what you’ve learned.
Saku Mantere: So I guess this was the next big thing that you did after working on the nature of managerial work working on strategy working on structure. You, you’ve written extensively about managerial education. You criticize the MBA, and but you also walked the talk. So you actually build two programs that that are still operational at McGill, one for practicing managers, and another one for healthcare leaders. Would you like to say something about those two programs?
Henry Mintzberg: Yeah, I mean, I did this reluctantly, I used to go around, invited to business schools to give what okay, what I came to call my flagellation lecture, I would go and tell them why MBA programs are disruptive. And the funny part is, nobody ever challenged me because I was so in their face. And they knew, they knew that, that MBA programs are great for training, finance, marketing, accounting, those kinds of things, but you don’t create a manager in a classroom. And so eventually, people started to say, All right, so you’re a big critic, what are you doing about it? And I gotta say, you know, I’m an academic, I’m not supposed to do anything about anything – I’m just supposed to criticize. Anyway, we eventually got embarrassed. And we created the IMPM, the International Master’s Program for Managers, And it’s now has its 24th class since 1996, I think. And they love it, it gives them a chance to sit not in a tiered classroom, but at roundtables in small groups and spend half their time reflecting on their own experience and sharing it with each other.
Saku Mantere: Yeah, I remember teaching one group and I was talking to them about organizational change. And one of the students was the, I think, the leader of the International Boy Scouts organization. And then there was an Anglican bishop in the group, yeah, they’re really practicing managers.
Henry Mintzberg: And we love that kind of variety in their health care program, In the healthcare program, we have people from all over the world in all aspects of health care, public health, surgery, you name it, everything, nurses, physiotherapist, and they find it incredibly revealing to spend all that time, they come for 11 days at a time five times over a year and a half, and they do other stuff at work. And they find it incredibly revealing to be exposed to all these other people in their own field who they only meet casually, usually.
Saku Mantere: Let’s then move to rebalancing society. We’ve kind of talked about four major things that you’ve done. And the fifth one, I think that the one that you’re most engaged with at the moment, obviously, then you’ve written about healthcare, you’ve written about the Canadian condition, you’ve written about air travel. So you’ve written voraciously, I would say, but, if I structured this way: that you have the management slash leadership pile, you have the strategy pile, you have the organization pile, and you have the managerial education pile. And then the fifth pile is what I would call rebalancing society. Do you remember when he first started thinking about things at this scale?
Henry Mintzberg: Intensively? Yeah, because I went to Prague in 1991, which was two years after the Velvet Revolution two years after the fall of communism in Czechoslovakia and other places in Eastern Europe. And the conclusion in the West was the capitalism had triumphed. And it was absolutely evident to me being there. It wasn’t about the triumph of capitalism at all. It was about the fall, the collapse of communism. Communism did more to bring itself down than capitalism did, because it was so out of balance on the side of the public sector, and the private sector was very weak in most of the communist countries except for Yugoslavia and controlled by the public sector as it still somewhat is in, in China. And I thought there was a third sector and I thought of it as the community sector, the non-business non-government sector.
Henry Mintzberg: And I wrote an article and published it in 1992, in the Scandinavian Journal of Management, that actually mentioned the three sectors without calling it, which I did later, the plural sector. Plural because this comprises all those organizations that are neither government nor business, just think about it, McGill University, Greenpeace, co-ops, all kinds of trusts and associations and huge charities, churches, I mean, it’s huge, it’s massive, and yet it’s ignored, because everything is left right government business, you know, private public, and they ignore the sector that’s more about common property, and more about non-business, non-government activities.
Henry Mintzberg: So about 25 years later, I published Rebalancing Society in 2015, that got into that and described a healthy society as balancing three sectors, public, private, plural. Communism was out of whack on the side of public sector. Capitalism has since thrown America and Britain and many other countries out of whack on the side of the private sector – because of this mistaken belief that capitalism triumphed.
Henry Mintzberg: Back then, in the 80s, the Western, the strong Western countries were balanced. But because they thought capitalism triumphed, it’s been triumphing ever since throwing America and Britain in particular, many other countries totally out of balance. And the populist governments that have arisen in reaction to capitalism, are plural-sector imbalance, whether it’s religion and Turkey, or the poor in Venezuela, they’re different communities that control the government and control the society. So it’s a third way of being out of balance, compared with Finland, Norway, Sweden, the Scandinavian countries that are beautifully balanced. Canada is not bad. New Zealand is wonderfully well balanced. There are countries, but they’re mostly smaller countries.
Saku Mantere: I was actually thinking about the National Rifle Association’s influence in the US and US politics.
Henry Mintzberg: It’s a plural sector organization – so is the Nazi Party – they’re community associations. It’s not all good. But a lot of it is.
Saku Mantere: I’m kind of trying to draw a connection with what you said earlier that organizations tend to require different ways of governance, depending on what their purpose is. And it seems that also the three sectors they’re somehow different.
Henry Mintzberg: Yeah, in fact, it’s important to not mix them up in terms of how they’re managed. I personally prefer the other framework, which is the “personal, program, professional, project” as a way of talking about how organizations are governed and how they work. Because the personal organizations are very centralized, controlled by an individual. The programmed organizations are controlled by rules and regulations and standards and planning, and all that. The professional organizations are largely controlled by the professionals, who are largely controlled by the professional associations: if you want to look for power in a hospital, look to the doctors. And if you look to the doctors, you better look to the Medical Associations because they determine the protocols and so on that guide their behavior.
Henry Mintzberg: And in a project organization which is truly creative, decentralized, that’s where you get the most interesting kinds of innovation that Clay Christensen talks about. These are largely in project-type organizations, very decentralized, but very flexible, very organic organizations. So the creative ones are the project organizations and the personal ones if the chief is creative, and the other two professional, and programs are exploiting organizations, not exploring organizations, and I’m not using the word exploiting in the negative sense – they exploit existing technologies.
Saku Mantere: It seems to me that the historical examples where we’ve seen a lot of plural organizations pop up, or they’re not necessarily even organizations, they might be social movements that are not very organized depends on but there’s this this curious flourishing that happens often in, in specific geographic sites. So I’m thinking of, say, artistic movements. We have, say, Vienna, after the First World War, where there was a major cultural flourishing, then we have the United States, which used to be, I suppose, in the 19th century, it used to be the land of opportunity, and there was a lot of social activity. And I suppose when you have this frontier mentality, that you have communities that that need stuff done, then there are schools that are being founded, and there’s healthcare being organized, and you know, you organize a co-op store and, and these kinds of things. So, do you see any commonality of when we see in the plural sector, perhaps in a positive sense?
Henry Mintzberg: We did a little video of this. It’s on my Mintzberg minutes with a video of my channel on YouTube. And we did a video of the three sectors vis a vie, a skating rink. And the message was as follows the left foot and the right foot, government and business have to push you ahead and skating in, in in balance, and in parallel, so you can’t skate on one leg. Society can’t skate on one leg. You can’t skate on government, can’t skate on business. You skate on government and business pushing together to move you forward, but you’re up against the snow that’s blocking you. And that’s where the shovel comes in, because the shovel or the machine clears the snow. So the left foot and right foot can do their job. And the shovel is the plural sector, the plural sector opens the path. So the government and business can do what they have to do. What all these stories have in common, it seems to me is, is that the plural sector opens the pathway. Okay, so in Vienna, I’m sure there was strong business and I’m sure there was strong government and all that, but it was community that opened the pathway and created the norms, and the attitudes and the enthusiasm that sent these places forward.
Henry Mintzberg: You mentioned places but you didn’t mention one for good reason is Brazil, most people don’t realize that Brazil has one of the most vibrant plural sectors of any country in the world, when I hear of some really new interesting idea. Like, in Brazil, there’s a movement that that ceases or, or plants themselves on unused farmland, and farm it, they farm it, they don’t ask permission. It’s being unused, it’s owned by somebody, they go out and farm it. And in America, these people would be in jail – in Brazil, they’re heroes. Brazil has an incredibly vibrant plural sector. So when I hear, the way Brazil dealt with HIV AIDS was spectacular and shocked the world bank that thought it was out of control. And they controlled it through plural sector organizations, who got together – it’s that consolidation, the plural sector that really moves things. All the people affected by HIV AIDS, and they consolidated into a movement that brought down the level of, of AIDS enormously in Brazil. Bolsonaro notwithstanding, it’s an aberration of a sort. But Lula was certainly very strong on community, and community in Brazil is amazingly vibrant, amazingly, probably more than any place in the world.
Saku Mantere: I’m hearing the same mechanical engineer spirit that sort of let’s go on and change the world. So let’s go do things rather than, than distance ourselves. Let’s go and shovel out the snow so that the structures can do their work. One thing where that’s particularly hard that you’ve thought a lot about recently is climate change. Because climate change isn’t a single problem, it’s kind of all the world’s problems clumped up almost. It has to do with inequality as it’s as much as it has to do with technology, it has to do with World Politics – everything that’s hard, seems to be clumped up in that problem. So how do you envision the plural sector engaging with really hard problems like that?
Henry Mintzberg: Well, let’s start with this comment, which is outrageous, but absolutely true. I believe. We will get nowhere. Nowhere with climate change until we rebalance society, nowhere, what we get now are 40-year plans from four-year governments. It’s laughable. It’s laughable, they last four years, and they make 40-year plans, it’s just kicking the problem down, kicking the can down the street to the next government – they’re doing almost nothing. We will get nowhere on climate change until we rebalance society, we will get nowhere with income disparities until we rebalance society, we will get nowhere with the demise of democracies until we rebalance societies and the globe. Globalization is an imbalance on the global level, because there’s no countervailing power to globalization, to economic globalization, which is the only globalization that really matters. There’s no countervailing power. So it dominates and we will get nowhere. So the core of the problem is the imbalance and until we address that, so we have to address that.
Saku Mantere: How do you see the plural sector bringing balance into the equation? Let’s say that, well we see cities for instance, smart cities, and arguably cities are the type of a political structure that seem to be doing the most, or at least they’re doing more than governments that that’s, I guess, fair to say. And I guess cities are appropriate size so that people can actually have some kind of a dialogue between the sectors, they’re co-located so they people can meet each other. So is there anything in that idea?
Henry Mintzberg: Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. And the smaller the city, the better in a way, there’s more of a sense of community in a smaller city. You know, The Economist has a ranking of democracies and only 21 countries in the world are ranked as full democracies. And they’re mostly small. The I think Finland is number three, Norway’s number one, New Zealand, I think is two. The biggest of those countries is Japan, which is the 11th biggest in the world. So the 10 biggest countries in the world are not full democracies. Why are all these tiny little countries so together? Like countries like Costa Rica, countries like Uruguay, why are they so together? I guess because there’s a sense of community, people know each other and you can’t get away with things the way a Trump can get away with stuff in the United States. Suddenly, Nixon or Trump end up running the country. These are utterly corrupt human beings, utterly, utterly corrupt human beings, and yet they maneuver through a big impersonal system right to the top.
Saku Mantere: One sentiment that I remember you once expressing was that you’ve spent your entire career studying organizations in different ways, and then you said that you’ve spent your private life avoiding them. So in one sense, I guess, you know, there’s something really exasperating also what happens in organizations when they, for instance, a firm has been created to deliver profits to its shareholders. That’s what legislation, you know, defines it to be. And it seems that, that they are very, very hard to control sometimes. They have different roles in society. But we do know many examples where they’ve, they’ve really crossed the line as you described. But that in some sense, it feels to me that it is often an organizational rather than a human problem that we’re talking about. Maybe it’s both, but I think the organizational problem is perhaps more fascinating. So why is it that organizations are so hard to control?
Henry Mintzberg: I think it’s the imbalance problem again. Let’s go back to patents, okay? And monopolies. We always have years ago, telephone landline monopolies. We had electrical monopolies we still have electrical.
Saku Mantere: And those were often co-ops right?
Henry Mintzberg: Some are co-ops and some aren’t, but we controlled them, we granted monopoly rights, and in turn have regulatory bodies to control how much they price their electricity. What we have with pharmaceuticals is the granting of monopolies with no controls. And these are life and death products. And why is this happening? Well, why didn’t it happen when we were monopolizing power, and phones, because society was imbalanced and government was able to hold business in check. And now, we’ve got this absurd idea that somehow government is bad – this is the American disease, government is bad and businesses good. I love business. I love my car, I love my iPhone, I love restaurants. I love business in its place.
Henry Mintzberg: I want business in its place, which is the marketplace and out of the public place. And it’s completely reversed itself. And it gets worse, constantly. And so the income disparities simply come from the fact that the financial organizations have such incredible control over the movement of funds and everything that they’re ripping off, monumentally. We’ve got this pressure to conform and serve the stock market constantly for the short term. So people can get in and out and make some money and destroying these companies are damaging at least these companies in the long term.
Saku Mantere: The paradox, of course, is that it’s our retirement savings. It’s basically people’s money that drive the stock market.
Henry Mintzberg: Well, rebalancing society is far from finished. So I want to write a more popular pamphlet kind of thing to wake people up to that something more accessible and easy for people to get to. I want to bring, which is the main website to the attention of many more people. We’re doing all kinds of things like that, where we’re looking into possible video forms and all kinds of ways to achieve that. After that, I think the whole question of democracy needs to be rethought. What we call democracy is not necessarily democracy for everybody, and we need to rethink that. But, you know, and then I want to sort of go back to publishing the short stories that I wrote – I wrote a whole bunch of short stories that never got published – personal, they’re not fiction, they’re personal experiences. I wouldn’t mind doing a kind of autobiography at some point called dreams. I never could have dreamt which is this charming life of being able to do all this. So yeah, I’ve got enough to keep me going for till at least 120.
Saku Mantere: So we have a lot to look forward to. Thank you so much, Henry. It was a pleasure.
Saku Mantere: Wow, we covered a lot of ground there, didn’t we? Thanks for joining in, I hope you enjoyed this conversation and I hope you’ll be able to come back and join us on future episodes of Delve.
Robyn Fadden – host: You’ve been listening to a conversation between Desautels professor and preeminent management scholar Henry Mintzberg and Desautels professor and Delve Editor-in-Chief Saku Mantere. Find out more about Henry Mintzberg’s latest work at and Listen to more episodes of the Delve podcast and read articles based on management research at You can follow DelveMcGill on all podcasting apps, on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter and Instagram. Subscribe to DelveMcGill podcast and follow us for critical thinking and insights on management today.