Not so much hardcore technology stuff, but here's a reading list I put together a while back, aimed at IT executives, CIOs, etc.
http://fogbeam.blogspot.com/2013/05/10-essential-reads-for-c...
http://fogbeam.blogspot.com/2013/05/essential-reading-for-it...
Not on that list (I had not read it at the time), but one I'd highly recommend is Eric Beinhocker's The Origin of Wealth. http://www.amazon.com/The-Origin-Wealth-Remaking-Economics/d...
One point that stood out to me, is that all firms face a constant, internal tension between the need to do "operational stuff" that actually works very well with a traditional hierarchical management approach, and the need to do "exploratory work" which does NOT map well to hierarchy. Failing to understand and manage this tension may be why many firms feel so dysfunctional.
The other point that stood out to me, is the idea that instead of a strict hierarchy - or complete undirected chaos - the best way to combine efforts towards both goals is by having individuals with a high degree of autonomy and empowerment coupled with a strong shared vision and common goals.
In this model, the primary purpose of leadership is to imbue the members of the organization with that "strong shared vision and common goals". Or to put it more simply, you tell people what needs to be accomplished, not how to accomplish it, and trust them to use their judgment.
On a related note, the book Adaptive Enterprise[2] makes a strong case for the idea of high decentralized teams, connected to each other through what the author calls a "Commitment Management Protocol".[3]
I would say that both of these books have some useful ideas that could be applied to construct a better management structure than what most present-day firms use.
[1]: http://www.amazon.com/The-Origin-Wealth-Remaking-Economics/d...
[2]: http://www.amazon.com/Adaptive-Enterprise-Creating-Sense-And...
[3]: http://coevolving.com/blogs/index.php/archive/conversations-...
Evolution, Complexity, and the Radical Remaking of Economics http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Wealth-Evolution-Complexity-Eco...
don't let the false prophets of equilibrium theory and efficient market theory bend your ear too far ;)
if you get into looking for a job, there are a few books that list common questions for quant jobs also...
It seems to me that a bit of data and a little bit of modeling would have greatly improved the opinion piece this document describes.
As for Economics, it is really time to rethink the field. I rather liked Eric D. Beinhocker's book, The Origin of Wealth (http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Wealth-Evolution-Complexity-Eco...). See also his Wikipedia bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Beinhocker.
There is a great discussion of this (and a further mapping of fitness functions and evolutionary algorithms to a 2-dimensional "fitness landscape") in The Origin of Wealth by Eric Beinhocker - http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Wealth-Evolution-Complexity-Eco...
Absolutely phenomenal exploration of complexity economics.
So why are economists obsessed with competition as an ideal state? It is a relic of history. Economists copied their mathematics from the work of 19th-century physicists: They see individuals and businesses as interchangeable atoms, not as unique creators. Their theories describe an equilibrium state of perfect competition because that is what's easy to model, not because it represents the best of business.
Yes, exactly. Pretty much all classical / neo-classical economic thought is rooted in the idea of equilibrium, but a strong case can be made that economic systems are not equilibrium systems. Eric Beinocker covers this ground very thoroughly in The Origin of Wealth[1]. I would personally recommend this book to everyone interested in economics. Beinhocker and the other "complexity economists" present a model of economic activity as an evolutionary system with periods of punctuated equilibrium as opposed to a strict equilibrium system.
[1]: http://www.amazon.com/The-Origin-Wealth-Remaking-Economics/d...
In business, equilibrium means stasis, and stasis means death. If your industry is in a competitive equilibrium, the death of your business won't matter to the world; some other undifferentiated competitor will always be ready to take your place.
Bingo. Yes, the "goal" is to achieve a "monopoly" but even if you do achieve that, you don't get to set still and just collect limitless money for perpetuity... because evolution will eventually deliver a competitor in one form or another.