Open Letter to Prof. Roger Martin

Dear Prof. Roger Martin ,

I have read with interest your "Open Letter to Mihai Ionescu", an act of gross and disproportionate bullying against me. There is no way not to respond to your statements in this letter, one by one, since I don't agree with most of them.

One thing before I start: you can't write an 'open letter' and say in it "I don’t and won’t engage in dialogue with you" ... it's like telling me "I say this about you, publicly, and you should better shut up!" ... Well, that's a little bit too late for that. You shouldn't have used an 'open letter', if that's what you wanted :-)

Let's go!

Respectfully disagreeing

I don't know what is your understanding of rudeness and insult, but it surely differ from mine, and it might not be just a cultural thing. I am direct and I don't hesitate to call things exactly as they appear to me. That may create discomfort to those affected by my statements, ignoring the logic of my arguments and maybe feeling that they are under attack from myself. I don't have anything with the person, he or she may be a very nice human, but IF I think that their ideas expressed publicly are harmful to those listening or reading what they say, I often find it difficult to look the other way and not take a public stand against those opinions.

Respectfully disagreeing? First of all, why do I feel insulted, somehow betrayed, and consider some statements in your letter to be at least offensive? Maybe because you throw adjectives and boycott flames at me in an 'open letter' and don't provide any specifics? To be very frank, I am disgusted that you have acted this way. I did hold a lot of respect for you, and not even once did I refer to you as 'Roger Martin', I always used the respectful form 'Prof. Roger Martin'. But you didn't seem to care.

By the way, I wonder, have you feel insulted by a rude post like this one that is mentioning you and your work?

STOP THE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT MUMBO-JUMBO!

Or, by the rudeness of this post:

KAPLAN-NORTON BALANCED SCORECARD & PLAYING TO WIN

in which I say: "Kaplan-Norton BSC and Playing to Win? In my view, a match made in haven"? Do you find it insulting?

Or, did you find insulting that I placed the Playing to Win cover besides that of The Execution Premium? Was it rude that I named your book "a must read book on Strategy", as well?

THE TWO MUST READ BOOKS ON STRATEGY

I bet that you have been insulted by this rude post, haven't you?

A TREASURE TROVE OF STRATEGY INSIGHT

Now, do you have a better understanding of the term somehow betrayed that I have used above? Don't worry, I'm over it, just read further.

I will just ignore the paragraphs in your letter about your vested interest in crusading against Strategy Execution and Strategic Planning. You just increased exponentially my motivation to expose the emptiness and toxicity of your crusade.

The style of expressing views

Isn't it surprising that I express "views so absolutely" that you "don’t feel inclined to engage"?! Like promoting your Playing to Win framework as the right way to formulate a Strategy, rather than using SWOT, or starting from the overused Mission-Vision-Values?

You say that we should "not automatically attempt to smash them to bits" when combating the opinions or the work of others? Really?

How do you think that a fellow academic of yours, Prof. Bob Kaplan , Senior Fellow Emeritus and Marvin Bower Professor of Leadership Development at the Harvard Business School, co-author with Dr. David Norton of The Execution Premium, felt when he saw your article Why ‘Execution’ is a Bankrupt Management Concept that you have published a few months ago? How do you think that he felt when he saw your statement saying that "it is logically indefensible AND bad for you"?

Hmm? How do you think that he felt, Prof. Martin? Insulted by your "views so absolutely" expressed that allow no further discussion about the subject of a good part of his life's work? What about the million of readers of their books, how did they feel when you tell them that they have wasted their money in buying those books about Strategy Execution, and that their admiration for the creators of the Balanced Scorecard framework is a disgrace?

When I have asked you if you have read The Execution Premium, you replied that you wouldn't even consider reading a book with that title! And you are telling me about "views so absolutely" that others "don’t feel inclined to engage"?!?

Overlapping areas of interest

You say that you "have zero interest in the ‘strategy technician’ space" and that you are "into the design of strategy choices – and particularly into the design of strategy choices that result in action".

First of all, your remark is derogatory. Why? Because the title that has been there in my profile for a long time is Strategy Management technician. I doubt that you have eyesight problems, so I guess that you just intensionally downgraded my title into 'strategy technician', giving it a "poor strategy technician" connotation.

And to make things clearer, you add that "If anyone ever called me a ‘strategy technician,’ I would by sadly disappointed", something that happens while "companies hire me to do – to get great strategy choices to happen", as you say. I wonder why this makes me feel sorry for the poor 'strategy technician'? :-)

Well, I can't see how you can be proud of this arrogance, Prof. Martin.

Hmm ... But guess what? Surprisingly for you, I am too into the design of strategic choices. And while you advise companies ...

"when choosing where to play, you face a specific set of considerations, such as geography, customer segments, channel, product categories, and stages of production, but when choosing your how to win activities, the set of considerations is less structured and categorical"

... here is what I advise companies to consider for their Strategic Choices, as "structured and categorical" as a proud 'strategy technician' as myself can possibly aggregate from the work of dozens of Strategy thought leaders.

THE FOUNDATION OF STRATEGY

I bet that you don't think that ...

a 'technician' is someone who logically connects the dots of available concepts and assembles components at detailed level, in the most instrumental way possible, then tests the result in practice

The bullying Professor

Dear Prof. Martin, this is what the 15 years as Dean have taught you? This is the wisdom you exhibit to a poor 'strategy technician'? This is the humbleness that we expect to see in a true leader? Where the heck did this come from: "I would avoid anything you recommend – because the recommendation came from you"?!? Hey, that's a direct boycott rally! Would you mind if I sue you for that? I am sorry but that is plain and gross bullying, since you show no specific and detailed reason why you have thrown dirt at me and looked down at MY work like this.

YOU HAVE JUST DECIDED TO BULLY ME FROM THE HEIGHT OF YOUR PROFESSIONAL STATURE, AND YOU HAVE A VESTED INTEREST TO DO IT!

Shame on you!

But unlike you, dear Professor, I don't throw to garbage what I have learned from you and from your books, just because I don't like your communication style, your arrogant personality (see the proof of vanity below) and because you have chosen to bully me publicly in this manner. I value the content, not author's ego!

A proof of vanity

Besides self-gratulating yourself for defending a woman colleague/protégé (what a noble gesture! ... but you forgot to mention your vested interests /*) whose ideas posted online I have criticized for over a year, I cannot ignore a statement in your 'open letter' that actually made me sick:

"there are legions of you and just one of me"

Really?

Regards,

Mihai

/* I feel obliged to publish details on the vested interests that you have in conjunction to your colleague/protégé. There was certainly no compassion or chivalry that has driven the attack of this 'open letter' of yours!