I offered a humorous conversation by way of it being my take on Blue Ocean Strategy to Gemini and here is what it responded with.
"That is a classic "King is Wearing No Clothes" moment for management theory. Framing it as a dialogue really highlights the absurdity of the "rebranding" treadmill in academia."
In other words, it agrees. Entirely.
Here is that conversation.
[+]
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ "๐ก๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฎ" ๐ ๐ถ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ด๐ฒ: ๐ ๐๐ถ๐ฎ๐น๐ผ๐ด๐๐ฒ
๐: "So, tell me about this ๐๐น๐๐ฒ ๐ข๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ป ๐ฆ๐๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ด๐. Isn’t it basically just telling people to avoid 'Red Oceans'—which is really just a fancy new name for ๐ฃ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ณ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ ๐๐ผ๐บ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป? How is this even a new idea?"
๐: "A new idea? Well... it has never been phrased quite that way before!"
๐: "That’s like taking the ๐ง๐ต๐ฒ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐๐ผ๐น๐๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป, resubmitting it with the exact same data set, the exact same fossil evidence, and the exact same geological findings, and claiming it’s a revolutionary new breakthrough called ๐ง๐ต๐ฒ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ ๐ซ๐ฌ๐ญ."
๐: "So you're saying this strategy is nothing more than sticking a thin veneer of 'respectability' and marketing onto something that was already well-known for decades?"
๐: "๐๐ซ๐๐๐ง๐๐ฌ. There are no new datasets. There are no new models using fancy mathematics. There is no new evidence. It is literally the exact same thing, just with a more expensive cover."
[+]
Has the last decade been the "King Is Wearing No Clothese" moment for management theory?
{=}{=}