Oct 25, 2011 | Change, Leadership
Is there a paradox here, or are collaboration and autonomy complementary?
On one hand we are seeking to encourage collaboration to engage everyone and maximise chances of optimum thinking to occur, whilst usually discounting the potential for “groupthink”. On the other hand we see the value of the autonomy of the individual as a means to provide the intrinsic motivation for them to do their best, to stretch themselves.
It seems to me after 30 years of being engaged, and observing this paradox at first hand that there are a couple of perspectives:
# If you can navigate the short term tensions and difficulties to build successful collaboration, it becomes a long term strength, and despite the ever present short term tensions, if they are managed as debates, no matter how heated, that are based on facts rather than emotion, you can achieve both collaboration and personal autonomy.
# People in an industry develop a way of conceptualising the industry and their place in it, both as an individual and as a collaborative group. The key to growth is being able to redefine the prevailing view, and successfully chase success in the evolving industry.
In the week after Steve Jobs’ death, with all the eulogies being written, the central core of his success was just such an ability to redefine an industry and successfully lead the changes. On the other hand, the once great Kodak invented digital photography, and did not see the value given their view of the photographic industry, Nokia the runaway mobile phone leader 10 years ago is now struggling for relevance, and it took a radical forced restructure of the “big Three” in Detroit before they recognised that their view of the auto industry was not consistent with the desires of their customers.
Kodak, Nokia, and the Detroit three all lacked a leader capable of redefining the industry view held by their businesses, and paid the price for that failure.
Oct 21, 2011 | Change, Communication, Leadership
Creating a sense of commitment to an outcome is the job of anyone who seeks to lead.
Perhaps the most powerful way of achieving this is to build an understanding in an audience of what the current looks like, and articulating the shape of the future.
This should be far more than a presenter just asking themselves rhetorical questions, done well it creates a rhythm to a presentation, that can be compelling.
Probably the most compelling example, certainly the best known is Dr Kings speech in 1963, most immediately recognise the power of that articulation, relating to the couple of minutes at the end where he articulated his dream, having spent the first 12 minutes or so of the 16 minute speech laying out the present. This speech was so compelling it assembled the momentum for enormous change in the social fabric of the western world, consider what could be done in youir organisation with the use of that simple technique.
Trick is to ensure you live the dream, or it is just words.
Sep 30, 2011 | Change, Leadership, Management, Operations, Personal Rant, Small business
The news that Fosters will be sold to SA Miller Brewing represents almost the last Australian food and beverage business with a global brand has now disappeared. I say almost, as I can think of no other, but some may argue that a few sales in Fiji or NZ constitutes global. To my mind, it does not rate.
Why is it that we seem to be unable to build and sustain food businesses from this country?.
Australia is now a net importer of packaged food, according to the AFGC 2010 report, and yet we are an abundant producer, particularly of broadacre commodities, grain and meat. Most people when told we are a net importer go into a state of disbelief, and yet the march of imported food, and the decline of Australia’s manufacturing base has been happening slowly over a long period.
It’s pretty easy to blame the evolution of globalisation of supply chains, the domination of Woolworths and Coles, regulation imposing costs overseas competitors do not have, the geographic spread and relatively sparse population denying the economies of scale, but the reality is that it is a management failure. The failure is shared by boards and shareholders who have tolerated a complacent management, discouraged long term strategy in the chase for short term returns, and simply disengaged with the basic drivers of competitiveness over a long period.
The only hope left is that a few SME’s will emerge from the heavily culled pack that remains, but it seems to me that they have missed the boat, and the barriers that the businesses that existed 30 years ago, and should have breasted, are now simply too high for the small guys to tackle without the scale and capital resources necessary. Our one hope is that there is a processing breakthrough, technologies like the CSIRO High Pressure Processing technology offer some hope, but they are unlikely to be the savior by themselves.
Almost gone, down to the last gasp, what on earth will we do then? Or don’t we care?
Sep 29, 2011 | Collaboration, Leadership, Strategy
Complexity is strangling us, paralysis by analysis has become pretty widespread, and the paradox is that we are all trying to do more with less.
In that context, creating an environment where everyone can contribute to the maximum of their capability seems like a pretty good idea.
To achieve that level of engagement irrespective of the size and complexity of an organisation, all it takes is one simple question”
“What do you think?”
The catch is that the hard part starts after the question, when the cultural environment needs to have evolved sufficiently to encourage people to tell it as they really see it, and then feel they have the power and authority to implement.
Sep 22, 2011 | Leadership, Management, Operations, Small business
One of my clients, a modest sized business inhabiting a narrowing but quite deep niche of manufacturing, has over a period of time put considerable resources into training their essenial technical people to be expert in the fields vital to their success.
A topic of discussion and concern has always been, “how do I get my investment back when I train them, and they leave?”
Perhaps the better question to ask is “what happens if we do not train them, and they stay?”
Aug 19, 2011 | Collaboration, Innovation, Leadership, Social Media
The astonishing explosion of creativity that occurred in Florence in the 1500’s was precipitated when the Medici family brought together creative people from a range of disciplines, painters, sculptors, writers, philosophers, mathematicians, architects, engineers, and sparked the renaissance by creating and facilitating the connections and cross fertilisation between these creators.
The common denominator amongst all these creative people the Medici’s brought together was curiosity, a willingness to see solutions to their problems, and ideas they can use in the work of others, and a willingness to experiment, question, learn, and collaborate.
To a considerable degree, the Medici effect also impacted the UK midlands after the steam engine was utilised in cotton and woollen mills, and it is happening again now in the manner in which the internet is being used to connect people, and transform just about everything in our daily lives.
Perhaps the only thing not being altered is the same thing that remained unaltered in previous incarnations of the Medici’s impact, the necessity for people to trust, and engage with each other on a personal level, and the role of genuine leadership in determining how resources will be assembled and allocated.
