Alexander Freiherr von Humboldt (1769–1859) was one of the most respected scientists of his time, and today he is often described as the last great polymath because of his tremendously wide-ranging interests. From a management perspective this fact alone is not particularly noteworthy; the remarkable fact is that he actively put his extensive knowledge to work to accomplish his various projects.
After completing his studies, which focused on science and technology, he worked as an assessor of mines and later as senior mine manager in the Franconian principalities of the Hohenzollern family. In the summer of 1799, together with the French botanist Aimé Bonpland, Humboldt set about realizing his vision of exploring the entire region of Latin America, which was still virtually uncharted territory to scientists at the time, by completing a broadly conceived, self-financed expedition devoted entirely to science. The trip took a full five years, and before embarking on it, he and his team secured the unusual privilege of free passage through Spanish South America and permission to pursue their research unhindered, even though the Spanish colonies had previously not been accessible to foreigners. Humboldt was a humanist, and his aim was, “To turn the unfamiliar into the known, using reason and suitable methods.”1 In a farewell letter to a friend, the euphoric explorer wrote, “I will collect plants and fossils and be able to make astronomical observations using excellent instruments;. . . I will perform chemical analyses of the air. . .. However, all that is not the main aim of my expedition. I will constantly observe the interaction of forces, the influence of the inanimate world on animal and plant life. My eyes will constantly focus on this harmony! . . . Mankind must strive for the great and the good.”2
To conduct their research, Humboldt and Bonpland transported numerous instruments thousands of kilometers through Central and South America. They identified countless geographical features, described some 3,500 new plant species, studied the exotic fauna, and documented the customs and history of native peoples. On the way back to Europe in 1804, Humboldt visited U.S. President Thomas Jefferson, and the two men discussed the idea of constructing the Panama Canal, though Jefferson ended up rejecting the idea because he considered the terrain impassable.
After his return, Humboldt spent decades analyzing the many botanical, geological, and mineralogical materials he had collected and published his findings in a 35-volume work titled Voyage to the Equinoctial Regions of the New Continent3 (equinoctial being the favored term for equatorial in Humboldt’s day). During the last major creative phase of his life, Humboldt also produced his five-volume Cosmos, in which he attempted to sum up what was known about the Earth in his time, adopting a holistic, cosmological viewpoint.
Humboldt devoted his life exclusively to tackling a mammoth task of his own choosing. Such total dedication to a specific endeavor is characteristic of all top achievers. In his work, Humboldt always combined his broad general knowledge with a clear specialist focus. His almost encyclopedic knowledge set an example to many of his contemporaries. In fact, the grandiose poet Goethe found Humboldt such a knowledgeable dialogue partner that he described him admiringly as a “seemingly neverending fount of knowledge.”4 “Such a versatile mind!”5 an exhilarated Goethe is said to have exclaimed.
For the purposes of this book, the interesting fact for you as a manager is that, in addition to specialist qualifications, knowledge traditionally regarded as general will (once again) come to be seen as very important. The reason for this becomes apparent below.
The title of this chapter highlights the need to invest in training. Whether you wish to invest in education is a personal decision. As a manager, the latter is not imperative for attaining your objectives. All the same, some arguments in favor of a solid education are presented below, after the following comments on training. It makes sense to distinguish two domains in which people are trained with a view to working effectively for their organization: first, management training, and second, training to acquire specialist knowledge and expertise.
People don’t query the systematic accumulation of specialist knowledge and expertise any more than they ask questions about continuing training in this connection. Those working in the health-care sector; in education, culture, or administration; in information technology, commerce, or the financial sector; or in any other profession for that matter, will acquire the specialist knowledge and expertise required to exercise that profession. And that specialist knowledge and expertise are constantly updated and consolidated as a matter of course. All this indicates professional competence and, as such, is perfectly understandable.
But it is far less self-evident for people to adopt the same rigorously methodical approach to management training. As a result, very few executives have received systematic instruction in how best to manage. So they may have built up their background scientific, technical, legal, or economic knowledge, but generally speaking they will not have acquired any notable management know-how. Extensive management courses are taught to economics students at universities and colleges, but nowhere else. Consequently, what makes most competent managers so able is the fact that they have taught themselves the necessary management skills on top of their specialist and expert knowledge. People intent on ensuring an effective organization and guaranteeing their own personal effectiveness should attribute special importance to the acquisition of management know-how. This is because organizations are never about specialist knowledge and expertise as ends in themselves, but rather about applying such knowledge in a bid to bring about results that benefit customers. Yet this know-how about how to apply knowledge and attain results in an organization is management know-how. In other words, both kinds of knowledge are needed. So organizations and people who focus on this will have a very clear competitive edge as they will be able to apply their specialist knowledge and expertise more effectively and more efficiently in practice.
While the first two domains, training to acquire specialist knowledge and expertise and management training, are key in determining the effectiveness of the organization, the acquisition of general knowledge is a third domain that is a personal matter, not imperative for performing effectively. You can manage a business area competently without having an appreciable store of general knowledge. Nonetheless, it is a conspicuous fact that some of the best companies obviously attach importance to this issue. For instance, the section in The Nestlé Management and Leadership Principles, headed “The Nestlé Leadership: Adding Value,” explicitly states that in addition to their professional skills, practical experience, and focus on results, high-level managers are also selected for their “broad interests” and “good general knowledge,” among other things.6
For the grandparents of people starting their careers today, it was perfectly natural to strive for a good general education. Among the generation of people who graduated from high school before World War II, the best students attributed great importance to general education, which they cultivated and nurtured as part of their own personal identity.
Today, that attitude is less widespread and self-evident, even though our present knowledge society undoubtedly needs educated people. Not as an end in itself, and not to realize some kind of humanistic educational ideal, but rather with a view to gaining a deeper understanding of reality and coming to terms with it more effectively. In this context, a general education should make it easier for people to think their way into different disciplines, cultures, and religions and recognize the links between them. Organizations do not need polymaths who easily master multiple disciplines; they need people who at least have a basic grasp of several domains and can find their footing in any of them. All this should help to ensure that effective managers make good decisions, that risks are spotted before it is too late, and that opportunities are seized. The higher a manager’s position within an organization, the more important these skills become, because problems and opportunities can be seen and understood only for what they are in their respective context.
To reiterate, the distinction to make is this: whereas managers can run their business area perfectly well and be very well grounded in their specialization without having an exceptional command of general knowledge, the more senior they become, the greater their need for background knowledge, including an understanding of other disciplines, will be if they are to make effective decisions.
Changes in one sector or domain often stem from innovations arising in another area or discipline. In the future it will become more and more important for managers to draw on such know-how from other domains. Accordingly, it can only become increasingly advantageous to undergo continuing training constantly and expand your own personal horizons. Put the other way around, you will also have to be able to make your own special discipline accessible and understandable to others so that they too can benefit from what you know.
Few people have set such a powerful example of how learning and teaching can complement each other so well as Alexander von Humboldt.
What are you doing to foster your training and continue your training, and which specific objectives do you intend such measures to attain?
What are you doing to expand your horizons? Where might this knowledge prove useful?