Feb 20, 2011 | Alliance management, Collaboration, Social Media
Things have changed, the tools of web 2.0 make collaboration, at least theoretically, really easy, so why it is so hard to get done?
Outside the web, where Wikipedia, Linux, Ideo and a few others have rewritten the rules, and boomed as a result, the output from new collaboration tools appears far more limited. Most businesses I deal with are struggling with co-ordinating a video conference, and that is about the end of the tools that they are using.
In a fundamental way, they need to consider the architecture of their collaborative efforts. What works for a co-located team, even if it has a few “fly-ins” will not work for a truly distributed team, or one that is working on a complex development, even when co-located. It seems a few rusted on practices need to be revisited:
- Responsibility for the outcome should be clear, along with budgets and timelines. It is the group that holds responsibility collectively, not individuals, and individual performance is measured by their contribution to the groups achievement of the outcome.
- The “how to” get the job done is left to the team.
- The team should be able to co-opt and manage outside skills as necessary to get the job done with relative freedom.
Feb 17, 2011 | Leadership, Management
This is a story of 2 bosses.
One bloke I worked for over a considerable period in two different corporations never told me exactly what to do. We agreed outcomes and the resources to achieve them, project time frames and milestones, and he was always willing to discuss, encourage, provide council, and play devils advocate, but never directed, but through the conversations, always knew exactly what was going on, and was engaged in the process. This left me with the responsibility for the outcome, and a personal commitment to achieve it.
The second bloke wanted to micro manage activity, providing a continuous stream of “advice” that were in fact instructions, which left me with no feeling of personal responsibility. I had the authority to get stuff done, but little engagement with the outcome beyond staying out of trouble, until we parted in mutual frustration.
This recognition of the differences between authority and responsibility is more than a matter of style, it is the core of leadership, and success.
Feb 8, 2011 | Change, Innovation, Management, Strategy
When one of the giants of industry, in this case, General Electric, takes a position on a topic, and supports that position not just with money and commitment, but sets out to persuade anyone who will listen to adjust their own perspective for everyone’s good, we should all listen.
GE undertook a business transformation driven by the 6 sigma developments of Motorola, and made 6 sigma the management fad of the 90’s, and more recently has embraced an enterprise wide search for “eco-friendly” products and services, termed “ecomagination” which has spawned new business that turned over $US 5 Billion in 2010. They have now turned their attention to the innovation process, publicly embracing an open model across their business units, and have just published a credible survey they have termed the “Innovation Barometer” , which sets out to interpret the views of 1000 very senior executives across 12 countries about the way they see the innovation process evolving. There are some standout conclusions.
- Successful innovation will come from a whole of society benefit, not just a bottom line benefit for the innovator.
- The role of SME’s will increase substantially
- So called “green” innovation will play a pivotal role
- Collaboration across enterprise, geographic, scientific and cultural barriers will become pre-eminent.
Our Prime Minister prattled on last week picking up some of these themes, but failed in my view to provide what every innovation thinker knows is fundamental to success, an objective, (perhaps a BHAG) best exampled by JFK’s 1961 national BHAG of reaching the moon by 1969, providing a driving vision of the end point.
Feb 3, 2011 | Leadership, Management
When was the last time you saw people around the water cooler laughing like a bunch of kids, in work-time?
Did you think that perhaps they were being frivolous, wasting the organisations time?
If you did, you would not be alone, as we seem to take ourselves too seriously, and our organisations tend to frown on what is seen as frivolity.
However, when you think about it, laughter is a sign of strong, positive personal relationships, something most organisations work for, so laughter should be seen as a symptom of success, not frivolity.
In a new book, Tom Rath who leads Gallups workplace consulting practice argues in his new book “Vital Friends” that a person with a “best friend” at work is 7 times more likely to be engaged in work than the average.
The book is a the result of a pile of research, but when you stop and think about it, the notion of productivity being associated with being happy makes absolute sense.
Feb 2, 2011 | Communication, Customers, Management, Marketing, Sales
Opportunity cost is a concept well understood, and often used in a theoretical sense, but not often is it translated into something easily understood.
In a store just before Christmas, I was tossing up between two brands of domestic coffee machine, that appeared pretty similar in all but price, the better known brand being substantially more expensive. The sales assistant sensing my indecision, and perhaps thinking I might do more ‘research” and he would lose a sale solved the dilemma by asking, “would you rather have” X” brand, or “Y” brand and 20kg of coffee beans?”
That turned the theoretical “opportunity cost” although I had not considered it in these terms at the time, into something tangible that had a value relevant to the purchase, and made all the difference…… I took the “Y” brand machine and with the saving, bought some exotic coffee beans.
Jan 30, 2011 | Management, Strategy
A couple of years ago working with the CEO of a family company as it struggled for commercial sustainability in an increasingly hostile environment, we came up with a 3 part package by which to judge all the competing priorities that were on the table.
- There had to be a measurable outcome which was going to be hard to achieve, but not out of reach in an 18 month time-frame.
- The results when achieved would be meaningful in the context of their competitive and strategic environment, not just financially sensible.
- The results needed to be visible, in that way contributing to the internal “momentum” of the business.
Two years on, and the business is going well, and the simple three part test has become a key component in decision making at all levels. The deliberate exception is the strategic discussions with much longer time frames, but even then, the tool often provides a framework that informs the discussion, usually leading to a conclusion about which issues require some resource to develop a quantitative base for future decisions.
