Nov 26, 2012 | Change, Collaboration, Leadership, Social Media
What you do, say and think is no longer private. Our lives are opening up to scrutiny as our previously private data moves into the public domain at geometric speed. Much of being human depends on our ability to forge relationships with a few people based on dreams, problems, challenges, and attitudes that are shared with a small group, often only one person.
Radical transparency is the new reality of privacy where the notions of privacy as they have applied in the past to individuals and institutions are simply no longer relevant. It seems absurd to me that we still have regulated privacy in situations where there is a clear benefit to that community to remove it, such as in the case of contagious medical conditions, and whilst we shake our heads at the photos our kids (grandkids?) put up on facebook, that is the new reality.
This change happening around us is emerging as one of the most radical social revolutions in history. How are we, and our institutions going to deal with the absolute ubiquity of information?
Over the last decade, we have effectively given away the assumption of privacy as we understood it, surely the challenge now is to figure out how to manage the new transparency rather than doing a “Canute” about it.
This notion is engaging greater minds than mine. Part one of an email conversation between a couple of the real thinkers in this area, Clay Shirky and Don Tapscott, appeared recently in the Atlantic. It deals forces of change unleashed by the collective intelligence of the net, the 4 broad principals of the internet age, Collaboration, Transparency, Sharing, and Empowerment, as outlined by Don in his June 12 TED talk.
Part two of that conversation examines the impact of the information revolution on the Arab Spring, and its wider implications, demonstrating again, the 4 principals at work .
Radical transparency is a part of our world now, it cannot be undone, so our corporations, institutions, and every individual need to respond to this new reality.
Nov 21, 2012 | Collaboration, Innovation, Leadership, Strategy
“The harder I work the luckier I get”
I’m not sure who said that first, but it is certainly widely agreed, absolutely true, and therefore almost a cliché.
The more ideas, the more the variation in the background, training, and attitudes of those exposed and asked to think about problems and opportunities, the greater the chance someone will see something new. It makes sense therefore to increase the diversity of people thinking about any problem or challenge, as their diversity brings different experience, perspective and understanding to bear, and can create connections not seen by others.
Discussion needs to be stimulated and encouraged, curated if you like, a hothouse for ideas and experiments, where every trial that does not work is one more way that we know does not work. “Edison’s law.”
The new collaboration tools of the web are fantastic, a breakthrough for innovation, but they still do not come close to the potential of motivated individuals exchanging ideas and views in a relaxing, but stimulating face to face environment.
Serendipity happens after the work has been put in, not before.
Nov 14, 2012 | Change, Innovation, Leadership, Strategy
The interesting and fun bits of our world are driven by the vision, imagination, and execution capabilities of people. Much of the capital and technical capabilities required to enable these great things to happen are tied up in our corporations, governed by the legislative, and community demands for absolute compliance to an established norm.
Almost by definition, the norm is boring, ordinary, “so yesterday” as my beautiful daughter would say. How is it then that the boards of those same companies, the people with the ultimate responsibility to determine the long term priorities of the business, and allocate the resources to deliver them for stakeholders make the necessary choices. They have to make choices between the creative, the risky, and the new stuff that will cannabilise their existing position, whilst being tied down to processes that demand short term, conservative, risk averse, and ultimately boring behaviours.
The Corporations Act and various accounting standards, domestic and International, require many things of directors, almost all are quantitative, take great time and energy, and deplete resources, when the real value is added by the qualitative.
As a community, we demand probity from directors, and largely we get it, but the few who play fast and loose, who feed self interest at the expense of the interests of those who are footing the bill, ensures that there are rules crafted to catch the 1%, but that hamstring the 99% in the process.
The few truly great leaders around in charge of our large corporations that manage to make those choices are the exception. Jack Welch at GE made six sigma the manufacturing standard of the west by driving GE along a path invisible to most, and his successor, Jeffrey Immelt followed by a pivot of GE into green power, and has created an 18 $billion manufacturing division in just a few years that promises to be hugely profitable whilst delivering enormous value to the planet. There are a few others, the oft cited Apple, FedEx, Disney, add your own, but it is a short list.
Perhaps it is happening again as the suppliers of the milling and moulding equipment used in manufacturing, are about to be made at least partially redundant by a few outliers who are putting manufacturing equipment on desktops.
Just a pity there appears to be so few in Australia.
Nov 12, 2012 | Leadership, Management
Making decisions is like any other process, you gather relevant information, consider options, look for the optimum outcomes, and decide accordingly. Right?
Often wrong.
Decisions are often made based on the HiPPO (Highest Paid Persons Opinion) what was done last time, how it would be viewed by others, what the “rules” say should be done, and a host of other drivers that really add little value to the quality of the decision making.
Decision making is like any process, the better that information, and the more objectively it can be analysed, the better the decision is likely to be. As importantly, the process is optimised by being sufficiently robust such that if the decision were to be made again, with the same information, but a different , but equally capable group of people, the outcome would be the same.
There are a few questions to be asked of any decision making group:
- Where did the data come from?
- What analysis has been done?
- What is the level of confidence in the outcomes?
Pablo Picasso is reported to have said ” computers are useless, they can only give you answers” which goes to the issue at the heart of decision making, the quality of the questions that are asked and the manner in which that are answered.
How disciplined are your decision making processes?
Oct 24, 2012 | Leadership, Management, Operations
Culture is elastic, it is the hardest thing to change in any organization, the ‘way people do things around here” to quote Michael Porter, is a powerful organiser of behavior.
Changing culture by decree from the corner office simply does not work, all it does is depreciate the credibility of the person issuing the decree.
Often the decree is associated with some mandated behavior changes, they can be imposed, but once the pressure comes off, and in the absence of the changed behavior being well bedded in, it reverts to the old models as soon as the mandate is not aggressively enforced, just like taking away the stretching device in a length of elastic.
The only way to eliminate the ‘elastic effect” is to cut it, by encouraging employees to change their behavior because they see the sense in it, and the change is consistent with their own best interests.
Four ways to make it a bit easier:
- Don’t try and change everything at once by decree. Instead, pick a few critical behaviors, and demonstrate a determination to change them, and articulate the reasons why they must change.
- Recognise that not all the behaviors of an existing system will be bad, there will be good elements that warrant retention, even prominence, so highlight them.
- Ensure that the behaviors you are seeking are consistent with the behavior demonstrated by the senior management
- Ensure that the behaviors required are consistent with the strategy, business model selected to deliver it, and the metrics by with performance of the business and individuals is measured.
If this seems simple, don’t be fooled. Changing culture is the hardest task any leader has, Rosabeth Moss Kanter’s list of the 10 reasons people resist change is a great one. Most “leaders” are not up to the task, and then they are called Managers.
Oct 15, 2012 | Leadership, Management, Strategy
To stay in business we all need to make money today, and we also need to understand where the money will be tomorrow, invest in these future cash generating activities, and sometimes make adjustments to the business model.
These adjustments are not just another re-organisation, but evolution in the way the enterprise interacts with and responds to changes in their competitive, technological and regulatory environment.
To a degree this is crystal-balling, predicting the intersection of your capabilities and customer needs, but it is more about being sufficiently agile to enable experimentation to occur in the manner in which you do business.
If you encourage and support such experimentation with the business model and customer offer in a framework that responds to the question “where will the money be in 5 years?” you will be in pretty good shape.
The old quote from ice hockey great Wayne Gretsky when asked what made him great, “I do not skate to where the puck is, but where it will be” is just as valid in business as it is in hockey.
