Bad way to teach

Management schools love theory more than reality. We’re told to memorize definitions, frameworks, and lists we’ll forget by next week, as if that builds real managers. Exams reward memory, not understanding. We can recite the five functions of management, but we’re never taught how to actually manage people, make decisions, or fix problems.

And it’s not just management. Most subjects follow the same pattern of empty learning. Even languages are taught like math: rules, tenses, and definitions instead of real conversation. You can’t learn to speak by reading grammar tables, just like you can’t learn leadership by repeating textbook phrases. The entire education system is obsessed with measurable outcomes, not meaningful learning.

Real knowledge comes from doing, from trying, failing, and improving, yet universities fear that chaos. It’s easier to test definitions than to test understanding. So we graduate with perfect notes and no idea how to apply them. The system doesn’t teach us to think; it teaches us to repeat.

No risk, no innovation, no improvement

Modern management has made a religion out of safety. Every process, decision, and idea now passes through a filter of caution. The goal is not to build something new, it’s to make sure nothing goes wrong. But without risk, there is no innovation. Playing it safe may keep companies alive, but it also keeps them irrelevant.

Innovation is born from uncertainty, from trying things that might fail. Yet managers today are trained to fear failure more than stagnation. Every idea must be justified, tested, approved, measured, until it’s no longer an idea, just paperwork.

The irony is that the greatest companies in history were built by people who ignored the rules. Now, those same companies hire managers to make sure no one else does the same.

The safest path is now the most dangerous one, it leads straight to irrelevance. A culture that kills risk kills its own future. No risk, no innovation, no improvement, irrelevance, failure. It’s that simple.

Why do meetings still exist?

Meetings are the most accepted form of collective procrastination in modern management. Everyone knows they waste time, yet no one dares to cancel them. They exist not to solve problems but to create the illusion of control. Managers call them to feel relevant, and employees attend them to look engaged. Real work pauses so that fake work can be performed in PowerPoint.

Decisions that could take five minutes by email turn into hour-long performances of agreement. Each participant speaks just enough to sound important, while saying absolutely nothing. That’s why meetings are loved: they’re the safest place to hide from responsibility.

The modern manager’s calendar isn’t a schedule; it’s a defense mechanism. The fuller it is, the more it proves they’re “needed.” A packed schedule has become a status symbol, even if every meeting is pointless. Efficiency is preached, yet the most inefficient ritual remains sacred.

The worst part is that meetings reward performance over progress. You don’t need to do good work, you just need to look like you’re doing it.

A good meeting today isn’t one that achieves something, it’s one that ends early. And yet they keep multiplying, like an infection nobody wants to treat. Maybe the real question isn’t why meetings still exist, but what management would look like if they didn’t.

A Critique of Peter Drucker’s The Effective Executive

Peter Drucker’s The Effective Executive is one of those books everyone in management worships, but few actually question.

It teaches how to be efficient, focused, and decisive, but never asks why or for whom. Drucker assumes that organizations are inherently good, that being “effective” automatically means doing the right thing. But what if you’re effective at something destructive? What if the system itself is broken? His world was built on clear hierarchies and rational decisions, not the chaotic, politicized, short-term world of management today.

Drucker believes you can learn effectiveness through discipline and self-control, but that logic collapses when executives don’t even control their own purpose, shareholders and politics do. Modern managers aren’t executives; they’re bureaucrats, trapped in frameworks Drucker could never have imagined. Efficiency has replaced ethics, and productivity has replaced meaning. Drucker didn’t write a bad book, he wrote a timeless one that no longer fits its time.

Serbia is beyond saving

I see no hope for this country anymore.

A few months ago, I believed that maybe the students would win, that the protests could finally remove this leech of an incompetent, corrupt president and bring at least a shred of order to Serbia. But nothing changed. The protests may not be officially over, but they feel dead, and the same man still sits in power, more erratic and disconnected by the day.

Serbia is officially branded as a “flawed democracy” that is undergoing democratic backsliding, according to analyses from organizations like Freedom House, but even that sounds too generous. What we truly have is a dictatorship disguised as choice: one man surrounded by loyal, unqualified lackeys who hold positions they don’t understand, while real experts are pushed aside or leave the country entirely. The result is everywhere, collapsing buildings, broken roads, failed institutions, all built by people who were never meant to build anything.

Crime goes unpunished because the guilty all “know someone,” and that someone always leads back to the same circle of power. The media are captured, the old are brainwashed, and the young are leaving. The few who stay and try to create something, small startups, independent thinkers, are crushed before they can even start. Corruption keeps its monopoly, and in doing so, ensures that innovation, like hope, cannot survive here.

By not having innovation, you are damning your country to failure. The only current sources of income for Serbia are exploiting its natural resources and selling real estate, something that should be a basic human right, not an industry. There is nothing being created here. No new products, no unique services, nothing that carries the mark of Serbian ingenuity or progress.

Unlike developed economies such as the US, the UK, or France, which thrive on innovation, technology, and global exports, Serbia feels hollow, like an imitation of an economy rather than a real one. We survive by draining what we already have instead of building something new. Our resources will run out, and our real estate bubble keeps inflating, pricing ordinary people out of their own cities. Without innovation, creation, or ownership of ideas, a country isn’t growing, it’s just waiting to collapse.

FON is badly organized

For a Faculty of Organizational Sciences, FON seems to have forgotten the meaning of the word.

What follows isn’t just student frustration, it’s a reflection of how a university that teaches management consistently fails to manage itself.

The academic year after the students’ protests has been absurdly managed, eight months without classes, followed by six back-to-back exam periods and no real breaks. The dean publicly “supported” the protests, but his actions said otherwise, online lectures resumed despite widespread opposition, and students were treated like obstacles, not participants in the system. Some professors even blamed the students for the disruption, as if demanding a better future for our country was a mistake.

Instead of standing with their students, they used fear, claiming FON would lose funding or programs if we continued to protest, without any proof. The real issue isn’t the protest; it’s the refusal to take responsibility and organize effectively.

Even FON’s website, with its confusing navigation and fragmented systems for exam registration, mirrors the disorder within.

Beyond logistics, FON feels like it’s training us not to be leaders or entrepreneurs, but obedient middle managers in someone else’s system, to give up before we even start. Our classes, books, and case studies rarely ask us to imagine building our own Serbian company, only how to “help a German company make more money.” Because how could a company exist and survive in Serbia when corruption is all it currently knows.

We’re taught management theory every day, yet surrounded by an institution that can’t manage itself.

Stupid innovation

We’re taught to glorify innovation. Every new invention is pitched as a step forward, a clever disruption, a mark of progress. But here’s the uncomfortable reality: not all innovation is good. Some of it is pointless, harmful, or simply stupid. Just because something can be invented doesn’t mean it should exist.

We don’t talk enough about bad innovation. The products that solve non-existent problems, the technologies that make products even worse.

 

A $400 Wi-Fi juicer that squeezed juice packs you could already squeeze with your hands. A monument to Silicon Valley’s obsession with reinventing the obvious.

Squeezed out: widely mocked startup Juicero is shutting down | Silicon Valley | The Guardian

Sold as the future of wearable tech. Delivered as a creepy surveillance device nobody wanted to wear in public. A failure not just of design, but of common sense.

Google Glass Enterprise Edition 2 Developer Kit (Glass Pod and Titanium Band) : Amazon.in: Electronics

  • Plastic coffee pods

Convenient but extremely unnecessary. A brilliant way to turn convenience into global pollution.

Which is best - aluminum, plastic or compostable coffee capsules?

  • Hoverboards

Cheap self-balancing scooters that exploded (literally) because manufacturers raced ahead of safety.

Hoverboard 6.5 inch White | Voltes - Electric Mobility

  • Endless social media “features”

Are stories, reels, shorts, fleets, threads and endless copies of each other necessary? Innovation disguised as repetition, designed only to steal more of our attention.

Instagram unveiled a new feature. Here's how you can use it (and why you'll want to) | ZDNET

  • 3D TVs

A stupid, useless gimmick that died almost as fast as it arrived.

Reviving Home Entertainment- Trends in the 3D TV Market

  • Disposable e-cigarettes

Marketed as a healthy alternative to smoking. In reality, they hooked a new generation on nicotine while creating mountains of toxic waste.

ECO Menthol E-Cig | Disposable E-Cigarette | ePuffer Vape

Innovation without purpose is just noise. Sometimes it’s laughable, a Wi-Fi toaster, sometimes it’s dangerous, vaping devices for teenagers, and sometimes it’s destructive, convenience products that poison ecosystems.

The real problem is that we confuse novelty with progress. We treat any new feature, any shiny object, any “world-changing” startup pitch as inherently valuable. Progress isn’t about making things new. It’s about making things better. And those two are not the same.

When money blocks progress

Business Idea. Businesswoman in a Business Suit Holds a Light Bulb in Her  Hands. a Gold Dollar Coin Light Bulb Emits Light in the Stock Vector -  Illustration of high, energy: 203548012History is filled with brilliant discoveries and revolutionary technologies that never had the chance to reach their full potential. Sometimes, it’s not because the idea didn’t work, but because it threatened powerful financial interests.

1. Nikola Tesla and the “Free Energy” Threat

Nikola Tesla’s work with alternating current (AC) revolutionized electricity distribution, defeating Thomas Edison’s less efficient direct current (DC). But Tesla’s more ambitious dream, wireless global power through the Wardenclyffe Tower, was abruptly halted when financier J.P. Morgan withdrew support. Morgan feared that if electricity could be transmitted wirelessly, it couldn’t be metered and sold. The project collapsed, and the tower was eventually dismantled for scrap, leaving one of history’s most daring visions unrealized.

2. Philo Farnsworth vs. Corporate Giants

Philo Farnsworth invented the first fully electronic television system in the 1920s, envisioning it as a tool for education and enlightenment. But his work ran headfirst into the might of RCA, whose president David Sarnoff launched lengthy legal battles over patents. The court fights drained Farnsworth’s resources, and by the time he prevailed, the commercial television industry had moved on, without him.

3. The Electric Car’s First Death

In the late 1990s, General Motors produced the EV1, a sleek, fully electric vehicle decades ahead of its time. Drivers loved it, but the car threatened oil industry profits and the traditional automotive business model. GM abruptly ended the program, repossessing and destroying most EV1s, citing “lack of demand.” Many believe the real reason was pressure from oil companies and a reluctance to invest in infrastructure that would reduce gasoline sales.

4. Renewable Energy Before Its Time

In the 1970s, inventor Frank Shuman’s earlier solar thermal power concepts from 1913 were rediscovered. Shuman had built a functioning solar power plant in Egypt long before the oil boom. His vision could have reduced reliance on fossil fuels, but with cheap oil flooding the market, investors saw no profit in solar energy. His work was shelved for decades, only reemerging when climate change forced a rethink.

5. Stanley Meyer’s Water-Fueled Car

Stanley Meyer claimed in the 1990s to have developed a car engine powered by water through a process of splitting hydrogen and oxygen using minimal energy. His technology remains disputed, but his invention drew enormous attention, but also resistance. Meyer faced lawsuits, was labeled a fraud, and died suddenly after a meeting with investors, fueling speculation that his ideas were intentionally buried to protect the oil industry’s dominance.

The Double-Edged Sword of Funding

While these stories show how money can suffocate innovation, it’s also true that funding is often the lifeblood of progress. The same financial resources that can block change can, in the right hands, accelerate it. Visionary backers have turned obscure ideas into global revolutions, consider how the Wright brothers’ modest bicycle business funded their experiments in flight, or how early venture capital propelled companies like Apple and SpaceX from garages to the global stage. The difference lies in the motivation of the person holding the purse strings. If their goal is short-term profit, disruptive innovation becomes a threat; if they value long-term progress, money becomes a powerful catalyst for change. In this way, financial influence is neither inherently good nor bad, it’s a tool, and the outcome depends entirely on the wielder.

These stories of failure share a common thread: innovation that threatened established financial power met swift resistance. Ideas with the potential to disrupt profitable industries are often silenced, delayed, or discredited. Science moves forward not just through discovery, but through the courage to resist the forces that would rather see the status quo remain intact.

Is AI killing or saving innovation?

The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Innovation | AppsGeyser BlogArtificial Intelligence is often seen as the driving force behind a new industrial revolution. It can be very helpful in various fields, from medicine to marketing, but is it moral to use AI for everything, especially innovation?

Is AI Fueling Creativity or Replacing It?

At first glance, AI seems like the ideal partner for innovation. It can analyze data at incredible speeds, identify patterns that escape our notice, and take over mundane tasks, allowing humans to concentrate on supposedly more important creative endeavors.

But here’s the harsh reality: AI doesn’t create. It enhances.

AI reorganizes what we already know. It takes existing information and mixes it into new, yet unoriginal results. For instance, GPT models aren’t envisioning the future, they’re forecasting the next likely word based on historical data. That’s helpful, but not true originality.

Genuine innovation often arises from conflict, gut feelings, wild ideas, or even mistakes, elements that AI tends to eliminate. If we’re not careful, AI could make our results quicker but less impactful.

 

The good in AI

It would be a mistake to brush off AI as just a copycat. When utilized effectively, it acts as a catalyst for innovation.

Take drug discovery, for example; AI can model billions of molecular interactions in just a few days. In climate modeling, it generates scenarios that no human team could ever calculate. In language translation, it removes barriers and makes knowledge accessible to everyone.

But maybe the most significant aspect is that AI fosters inclusivity in innovation. Tools that used to need technical knowledge are now available through user-friendly AI platforms. A high school student can now produce a short film with professional quality. In these situations, AI doesn’t just accelerate processes. It opens up opportunities—and that’s genuine innovation.

 

The bad in AI

Now, here’s a more concerning angle: As AI systems improve at providing answers, we’re getting worse at asking the right questions.

There’s a quiet decline in human judgment taking place. Professionals in various fields are increasingly leaning on AI’s recommendations and placing their trust in them. This isn’t merely a technical problem, it’s a cultural shift. We’re gradually moving being problem-solvers to just prompt-writers.

 

In the future

The discussion shouldn’t be “AI vs. humans,” but rather “AI alongside humans.” The true frontier is in co-creation, using AI to uncover paths we couldn’t see on our own, rather than having it do the walking for us.

 

AI shouldn’t be the one innovating. It should be a booster. It can enhance our tools, broaden our horizons, and speed up processes. The twist is that as AI gets stronger, the value of human creativity increases. Innovation isn’t solely about what we can create. It’s about the choices we make in what we create and the reasons behind those choices.

AI isn’t killing or saving innovation. It’s reshaping it. And it’s up to the user to reshape it in their own way.

Tennis clubs must go digital

Tennis in the Digital Age: How Technology is Changing the Game - Michael Koffler

The lack of digitalization in tennis clubs is not just a matter of convenience, it’s a critical roadblock to growth, relevance, and community engagement.

Old systems in a new world

Even with the global shift towards digital transformation, many tennis clubs still operate in a surprisingly analog manner. Court reservations are handled by phone calls or paper sheets, payments are collected in cash, and communication happens mostly through word of mouth. Few clubs track player data, run engaging online platforms, or provide visibility for their programs.

This absence of digital tools is not just an inconvenience for players, it’s a major missed opportunity for growth. In a time when consumers expect quick access, personalized experiences, and smooth digital interactions, clubs that resist modernization risk losing younger players and falling behind innovative organizations.

What tennis clubs should digitalize

To stay relevant and competitive, tennis clubs need to adopt digital solutions that enhance operations, and improve the member experience. Here’s what that looks like:

1. Online Court Booking Systems

  • Why: Players want to book courts anytime, without calling the front desk.

  • Benefits: Reduces scheduling conflicts, improves court utilization, and saves staff time.

  • Example: Clubs using ClubSpark in the UK allow members to book courts in seconds via mobile apps.

2. Digital Payments & Membership Management

  • Why: Cash payments are outdated, members expect online transactions.

  • Benefits: Secure, faster payments, automated invoicing, and better financial tracking.

  • Example: The USTA’s digital platform allows members to manage subscriptions and renewals seamlessly.

3. Player Data Tracking & Analytics

  • Why: Data-driven training keeps players engaged and motivated.

  • Benefits: Coaches can tailor sessions, monitor progress, and organize fairer competition formats.

  • Example: Elite clubs use PlaySight Smart Courts to track performance stats and provide instant video replay.

4. Communication Platforms & Match Notifications

  • Why: Players want instant updates on schedules, tournaments, and social events.

  • Benefits: Stronger community engagement, fewer no-shows, and increased participation.

  • Example: Many European clubs use WhatsApp integration with booking platforms to notify players of last-minute availability.

5. Social Media & Online Presence

  • Why: New players, sponsors, and local communities find clubs online first.

  • Benefits: Expands visibility, attracts younger audiences, and showcases club culture.

  • Example: The All England Lawn Tennis Club (Wimbledon) runs digital-first campaigns that boost global visibility and inspire local clubs to do the same on a smaller scale.

6. Automated Tournament & League Management

  • Why: Manual brackets and paper scoreboards are inefficient.

  • Benefits: Faster organization, live score tracking, and easier ranking updates.

  • Example: Many U.S. clubs use TennisLink to run USTA leagues fully online, from registration to results.

7. Community-Building Apps

  • Why: Players don’t just want matches, they want connection.

  • Benefits: Encourages networking, easier partner-matching, and higher retention.

  • Example: Platforms like TennisPAL or Slinger App let members find hitting partners and organize games instantly.

The urgency of digital adoption

Digitalization is no longer optional, it’s the foundation of a modern tennis club. Automating repetitive tasks allows staff to focus on coaching and building community. Data insights improve training. Online platforms make clubs more attractive to both new members and sponsors.

The longer clubs delay, the larger the gap grows between what’s possible and what’s real. And the more opportunities they risk losing.