Beaurocracy and Innovation - can it coexist

Control vs freedom

Inspiration from  The Management Innovation Exchange (Gary Hamel et al—20,000 participants)

www.managementexchange.com

Last year, I was privileged to hear the legendary Gary Hamel talk - below  is a summary of why he thinks large organisations find it difficult to innovate and what they need to do to change

Large organizations of all types suffer from an assortment of congenital disabilities that no amount of incremental therapy can cure.  

1.  they are inertial. Because they are in a zone of comfort - there is no need to change in the absence of crisis - (why change what's not broke?)

Massive change, when it happens, is belated and convulsive, and typically requires an overhaul of the leadership team.... Often causing fatality !

Absent the bloodshed, the dynamics of change in the world’s largest companies aren’t much different from what one sees in a poorly-governed, authoritarian regime—

WHY - there are only a few if any mechanisms that facilitate proactive bottom-up renewal.

2. They are incremental.

As business grows, the leaders become farmers and not hunters!  There function is to create an organise Beaurocracy, with standards and structured to encourage standardisation - which is in direct conflict with innovation! Management is in pursuit of operational efficiency - that is their kpi!

These structures are toxic to break-out thinking and relentless experimentation.

Those that strive for innovation - acquire young companies that haven’t yet lost their own innovation mojo (but upon acquisition most likely will).

3. They are emotionally sterile.

We rarely see them galvanize the sort of volunteerism that animates life on the social web.  Initiative, imagination and passion can’t be commanded—they’re gifts. Every day, employees choose whether to bring those gifts to work or not, and the evidence suggests they usually leave them at home.  

In Gallup’s latest 142-country survey on the State of the Global Workplace, only 13% of employees were truly engaged in their work.

Imagine, if you will, a car engine so woefully inefficient that only 13% of the gas it consumes actually combusts. That’s the sort of waste we’re talking about. Large organizations squander more human capability than they use.

Inertial.  Incremental.  Insipid.  - will create destruction vs growth.

Allen Pathmarajah has an amazing model of the lifecycle of a business from creation to death of a business!

Hamel says that —idea wikis, business incubators, online collaboration, design thinking, “authentic” leadership, et al—are no more than minor tweaks.  They are unlikely to be any more effective than the dozens of “fixes” that came before them. Remember T-groups, total quality management, skunk works, high performance teams, “intrapreneurship,” re-engineering, the learning organization, communities of practice, knowledge management, and customer centricity?  All of these were timely, and a few genuinely helpful, but none of them rendered organizations fundamentally more adaptable, innovative or engaging.  Band-Aids®, braces and bariatric surgery don’t fix genetic disorders.

How do we build an organizations that is fit for the future ?

We need to change our foundational beliefs to build an organisation that

• is nimble ,

• that will make innovation an instinctual and intrinsic capability.  

• that will inspire extraordinary contributions from our colleagues and employees.  

• We’ve flattened corporate hierarchies, but haven’t eliminated them.  

• We’ve eulogized empowerment, but haven’t distributed executive authority.  

• We’ve encouraged employees to speak up, but haven’t allowed them to set strategy.  

• We’ve been advocates for innovation, but haven’t systematically dismantled the barriers that keep it marginalized.

• We’ve talked (endlessly) about the need for change, but haven’t taught employees how to be internal activists.

• We’ve denounced bureaucracy, but we haven’t dethroned it; and now we must.

• We can cure the core incompetencies of the corporation—but only with a bold and concerted effort to pull bureaucracy up by its roots.

We need to change the core values and DNA of modern management and boards —it's not easy to change what's not broke! There is too much self interest.

The operating system of most organisations is based on beaurocracy - top down

Strategy gets set at the top. Power trickles down. Big leaders appoint little leaders. Individuals compete for promotion. Compensation correlates with rank. Tasks are assigned. Rules proscribe actions. Managers assess performance.  This constitutes the operating system for virtually every large-scale organization on the planet.

Ask just about any anyone to draw a picture of their organization—be it a Catholic priest, a Google software engineer, a nurse in Britain’s National Health Service, a guard in Shanghai’s Hongkou Detention Center, or an account executive at Barclays Bank—and you’ll get the familiar rendering of lines-and-boxes.  This isn’t a diagram of a network, a community or an ecosystem—it’s the exoskeleton of bureaucracy; the pyramidal architecture of “command-and-control.”  

THIS STRUCTURE KILLS INNOVATION , STIFLES GROWTH and PERPETUATES the PAST

It stifles new thinking, misallocates power, (since promotions often go to the most politically astute rather than to the most prescient or productive. )  It discourages dissent and breeds sycophants.  It makes it difficult for internal renegades to attract talent and cash, since resource allocation is controlled by executives whose emotional equity is invested in the past.

When the responsibility for setting strategy and direction is concentrated at the top of an organization, a few senior leaders become the gate keepers of change. If they are unwilling to adapt and learn, the entire organization stalls.  When a company misses the future, the fault invariably lies with a small cadre of seasoned executives who failed to write off their depreciating intellectual capital.  As we learned with the Soviet Union, centralization is the enemy of resilience.

You can’t endorse a top-down authority structure and be serious about enhancing adaptability, innovation or engagement.

The dilemma

Managers want conformity, manage the future based on the past - want and need regularity and certainty.

Growth and innovation and out the box thinking comes from irregular people (the misfits) with irregular ideas who create the irregular business models that generate the irregular returns.  

In this environment, what do we need to succeed?

Will Intel survive?  Most revenue comes from computer chips and less than 3% comes from the company’s unprofitable “Mobile & Communications” unit. Are they nimble ? Can they change

Did Kodak survive?

Who replaced Sony Walkmans?

Which large corporations will still  be here in 20 years ?

Unfettered controlism cripples organizational vitality.  Adaptability, whether in the biological or commercial realm, requires experimentation—and experiments are more likely to go wrong than right.

Failure and failing should be rewarded and applauded?

Shrink an individual’s scope of authority, and you shrink their incentive to dream, imagine and contribute.  It’s absurd that an adult can make a decision to buy a $20,000 car, but at work can’t requisition a $200 office chair without the boss’s sign-off.

Control vs Freedom

Make no mistake: control is important, as is alignment, discipline, focus, accountability and all the other liberty-limiting virtues so beloved by accountants and engineers—but freedom is equally important.

If an organization is going to out-run the future, individuals need the freedom to bend the rules, take risks, go around channels, launch experiments and pursue their passions.  

An organisation needs both and do not necessarily need to be mutually exclusive!

It's the ying and yang of business

Great  leaders, like Apple’s Tim Cook or HCL Technologies retired CEO, Vineet Nayar understand that the first priority is to do something truly amazing for customers,

Do shareholders want to invest in sustainability and growth or short-term ROI calculations?

The gains that could be reaped from creating organizations that are as fully capable as the people who work within them will be the winners

To succeed, businesses must do more than fiddling at the margins.  

Collaboration needed to build a culture of collaboration

From the digital guru Katz Kiely 

 Katz Kiely

Skype:  katzkiely

Twitter: @katzy

It’s true many (most) C suiters are alpha types. They have spilled blood sweat and tears to scramble to the top. 

The idea of leader in the old world was all about being the best, the expert i.e. knowing better than anyone else in the organisation. 

It is now about  crowdsourced knowledge and co - creation is hard and for some (of the less flexible) impossible.

They, like everyone else find it hard to let go of deeply embedded behaviours and attitudes …but they can be persuaded to try new more collaborative ways of working if they understand the commercial benefits- and by showing the positive effect of ring fenced networked experiments they can over time start to adopt new behaviours more appropriate to the networked organisation. 

Digital Transformation projects are never successful unless they have the full buy in (not just lip service) of senior leadership. Leaders have to display the behaviours and attitudes they expect their organisations to adopt.  

The shift is from leader as Commander to Communicator (who works with her teams to set the vision and inspires people to travel with her towards that goal) Collaborator or/ and Co- creator (who harnesses the full power of a connected, empowered workforce.) 

Networked organisations who understand the power of co-creation are the most valuable and profitable. Boards are already realising that new style (digital) leaders drive success - 

so C- suiters will have to adapt 

AI taking boring jobs - is this an issue?

Extract Washington post 

Advanced robotics/artificial intelligence. Dramatic improvements in hardware and software are creating a future in which computers will supplant even more human beings in a wide range of dangerous, repetitive, error-prone, or simply boring jobs. Sudden leaps in overall productivity are great for society, but the potential displacement of large categories of blue- and white-collar workers is raising anxiety levels and calling into question long-held principles of industrial policy, including the need for universal employment, the role of organized labor, and the meaning of “full-time.” Characterizing these developments as bad doesn’t help—and, frankly, doesn’t matter. They’re coming anyway.

Regulating the sharing economy

Extract from washington post 

 The sharing economy. Technology that makes it economically efficient for consumers to share, lease, or co-own expensive fixed assets including vehicles, housing, and expertise is bringing to the surface long-buried compromises, inside deals, and outright corruption in the mostly local licensing, inspecting, and insuring of transportation companies, hotels, and professional services. Some of the largest cities in the U.S. haven’t expanded the number of licensed taxis for decades, for example, creating an artificially low supply of vehicles and complicity in the exploitation by medallion owners of a mostly immigrant pool of drivers.  Uber, Lyft, Airbnb and others seem doomed to continue running head-first into artificial and inefficient barriers to competition, at home and abroad.

Downes is co-author with Paul Nunes of “Big Bang Disruption: Strategy in the Age of Devastating Innovation” (Portfolio 2014). He is a project director at the Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy.

Regulating Autonomous vehicles and drone

Extract from Washington post 

Self-driving cars and self-flying aircraft will revolutionize the design of cities and roads. They will vastly improve the efficiency of agriculture and public safety by providing new sources of real-time information at minimal cost and reduced human risk. And by enabling low-cost deliveries, they will further the revolution in retailing that began with the first e-commerce sites. But federal, state and local regulators are already swooning at the prospects, with a paralyzed FAA missing every deadline for integrating drones into U.S. airspace.  How can we redesign the rules of the road on land, sea, and air — a body of law that has grown around the assumption that humans are inconsistent, easily distractible operators? What kind of police will we need? What kind of insurance? And how will we manage the transition from one transportation paradigm to the next, taking lessons from the clumsy shift to “horseless” vehicles a century ago?

Downes is co-author with Paul Nunes of “Big Bang Disruption: Strategy in the Age of Devastating Innovation” (Portfolio 2014). He is a project director at the Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy.

Venture Capital in Australia: Wyatt Roy looks to unlock Superannuation Trillions...

Venture Capital in Australia: Wyatt Roy looks to unlock Superannuation Trillions...: Unlocking superannuation for start-ups... is Australia going to be startupo nirvanna?

Taking Action to Attract High-Skilled Immigrants, Graduates, and Entrepreneurs

Dear i4j group,

with 6.1 million USD in funding, I’m about to employ 25 people and I’m relocating a 2800sqft Office. Our company will create work and opportunity for millions of people in America in the coming years. 

Now Office of Homeland Security turned down my VISA, I have 30 days to appeal or leave the country. 

Any advice?

For you to know more about tispr:

America wants this immigration - how can we match wants of policy to mechanics of bureaucracy? 

Policy thoughts from the White House 

- America needs a 21st century immigration system that lives up to our heritage as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants – and that grows our economy.

- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced more good news for job creation and economic growth:  a new proposal to streamline the EB-5 visa process, designed for immigrant investors and entrepreneurs who create at least 10 U.S. jobs.  Applicants can expect accelerated processing times, direct communication with specialized intake teams, and decision boards with considerable expertise.

 America needs a 21st century immigration system that lives up to our heritage as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants -- and that grows our economy..... And it seems that the President is taking action .

According to an analysis by the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, the President’s executive actions on immigration stand to boost the nation’s GDP by $90 billion to $210 billion, while shrinking the Federal deficit by $25 billion over the next ten years. These actions will also increase the productivity and wages of all American workers, not just immigrants.

Many of these economic benefits spring from the President’s actions to “make it easier and faster for high-skilled immigrants, graduates, and entrepreneurs to stay and contribute to our economy.” We need to build on our strengths -- after all, over one-quarter of all U.S.-based Nobel laureates over the past 50 years were foreign-born, and more than 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or children of immigrants.

But for too long, our broken immigration system has made it needlessly difficult for America to attract the best and brightest talent from around the world. Highly skilled workers often have to wait years, even decades, to obtain the green cards that will allow them to fully contribute to our economy and become Americans over time. Entrepreneurs have no dedicated immigration pathway that allows them to grow their companies and create jobs here. And every year, we educate some of the world’s most talented students at our universities, only to compel them to go back to their home countries to compete against us.

Here are the key things that the President’s executive actions will do to improve the immigration system for high-skilled workers, graduates, and entrepreneurs:

Unlocking the talents of highly skilled Americans-in-waiting: Most high-skilled immigrants get started on a temporary work visa (typically the H-1B visa), and if there are no American workers qualified and available to do the job, the employer can sponsor that worker for lawful permanent residence—commonly called a “green card.” But the wait for that green card can last years, even decades, even after their application is approved. During this time the worker is effectively locked into one position at the sponsoring company. The President’s actions will make it possible for these highly skilled workers and certain spouses to obtain a portable work authorization, allowing them to accept promotions, change positions or employers, or start new companies while they and their families wait to receive their green cards, and ultimately become Americans.

Clearing the path for job-creating entrepreneurs: The President’s actions will, for the first time, clarify dedicated immigration pathways for entrepreneurs who seek to start and grow their companies here. Entrepreneurs who meet certain criteria for creating jobs, attracting investment, and generating revenue within the United States will be eligible for temporary status or a green card. More than ever before, these “startup visa” pathways will allow the world’s most promising and innovative entrepreneurs to innovate and hire here in America.

Retaining the scientists and engineers we educate here. Our universities train some of the world’s most talented students in science, technology engineering, and mathematics (STEM), but our broken immigration system compels many of them to take their skills back to their home countries. The President’s actions will strengthen and extend on-the-job training for STEM graduates from U.S. universities, giving them a limited but more reasonable period of time to fully realize their course of study.

The President has also issued a new directive to make sure that his Administration is leaving no stone unturned when it comes to modernizing our system of managing and issuing visas more effectively in order to improve the employment-based immigration system, as well as other pieces of our immigration system.

These are commonsense steps, but only Congress can finish the job. As the President acts, he’ll continue to work with Congress on a comprehensive, bipartisan bill—like the one passed by the Senate more than a year ago—that can replace these actions and fix the whole system.

“Q: What do you think? How does technology affect human relationships?”

Interesting Observation by Bryan Kramer ....

Do you reach for your smartphone as soon as you wake up to check email and respond to texts?

How often are you messaging, browsing, friending, tweeting and sharing on your phone, tablet or computer?

Are we connecting with people around the globe..:.:.. Or are we "DISCONNECTING"?

Has the immediate world has lost out full attention?

Is their a long term impact of technology on personal interactions?

I requested some input from my Facebook followers. I asked: 

“Q: What do you think? How does technology affect human relationships?” 

I was amazed by the overwhelming response.

Conversations Lack Context

Their is an inability to detect tone. Is the writer being sarcastic, funny, not funny, serious or joking.”

Unless you see the person’s face, hear their voice and understand the environment, you have no idea of the context surrounding the written words. 

Misunderstandings, miscommunications and assumptions result, which have an impact on how we view others.

Online Contact Falls Short on Empathy - you need the personal touch

There’s an utter lack of empathy when using technology to interact with others. 

“I’m so sorry your ___ died” or “I heard you lost your job; I feel for you.” Where is the compassion and solidarity with loss? It certainly does exist within the soul of the person who texted, posted or emailed this – but words alone don’t necessarily convey that personal touch.

Do you use technology to pet your dog or cat? Not likely, because they couldn’t care less. Sometimes we fail to realize that, as humans, we’re also animals that need personal touch.

Tech Overload Leads to Cocooning

Technology takes you out of the physical world impacting on the number and quality of human relationships. 

Conversations through social media and email take the place of traditional interactions and discussions; eventually, a person doesn’t even need to leave the house to communicate with others – and many people won’t. The cocooning phenomenon leads to social isolation that can be crippling for some.

Online Dating - a blessing or a curse ? A case study....

“Stan” married his college sweetheart. After two months of marriage, he walked into the home office to find his wife chatting with someone on Facebook. She assured him the guy was just a friend, but Stan soon saw the person’s name all over his wife’s news feed and posts. Not long after, she traveled to meet the man – staying at his place. Their child was born within a year after the visit.

Stan sees that whole relationship as something that started and developed entirely online. He’s convinced his ex-wife’s behavior would have manifested at some point, but technology drove the two of them apart faster. Stan’s new relationship started through an online dating site, but he quickly moved it into the real world. He’s understandably not a fan of developing relationships through social media.

Key Takeaway

There are many positives of online communication - but it is important to balanceour offline and online communications with others – personally and professionally.

 I guess the best approach is to make yourself available through technology only when appropriate, so that it supplements our relationships rather than replacing them.

Is this a too-dismal view of technology in human relationships? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

This post originally appeared on Bryan Kramer's blog

40pc decrease in low skilled jobs

Low-skilled jobs could be given to robots that can mimic people’s abilities and eventually perform better and at no cost.

According to a major report on automation, intelligent computers that can learn people’s jobs could lead to a 40 per cent decrease in low-skilled jobs. Plus, ‘robot workers’ can cut costs for business in half. IBM, ANZ Banking Group and Westpac are among the companies moving to embrace this type of technology to automate finance, back office and human resources functions.

The Australian Financial Review cited Simen Munter, ANZ’s general manager of group hubs as saying that the bank planned to deploy 100 ‘robots’ in 2016, after running a pilot program across the bank especially in its human resources, finance and mortgage processing departments. Robots are meant to eliminate routine tasks such as invoices, payrolls and closing accounts so that employees can focus on more high-level tasks, Mr Munter added.

ANZ’s general manager of group hubs claimed the bank’s decision to include ‘robot workers’ is not driven by the cost saving and emphasized “it is about smart people working with smart robots.”

According to the report management advisory firm Mindfields, staff reduction strategies will be necessary where staff members cannot be trained for other roles. The report also showed that robotic automation will lead to a “change in hiring strategy and the mix of staffing required.”

- Click here to see more 

Being politically Correct

Don't call machines "robots" - call then "Android Americans"

The current system will go the way of the dodo

From a Facebook feed :- Yanni Konstantinopolus....

 

There will be a time, hopefully soon, when we will have a social revolution and the whole political system will go the way of the Dodo. 

What will rise in its place? I think it's time for the obvious - a humanitarian system, because, lo and behold, we are all humans, and, as such, we need a system that is relevant to us, engages us and looks after us - all of us.

The political systems seems only to take care of the politicians, anybody else that benefits seems to do so by an off chance that doesn't often last.

My comment:- 

Progress starts with desire!

We need a system that is relevant to us, engages us and looks after all of us! - Luvit - is the current mode of 9-5 jobs doing it for us? Are jobs for pay necessary to live a fulfilling life ?  #i4j #burningman

What do you think?

Why does gender Equality Exist in Leadership

Great insights by Kala Philip - General Manager BSI Learning 

Since organisations in the top tier of financial performance have more women in leadership roles, why does gender inequality still exist in leadership?

After reading the research undertaken by DDI Worldwide regarding diversity and gender inequality I was very keen to learn more about why this underrepresentation exists. Therefore I decided, with one of our directors, to sponsor the American Chamber of Commerce Women in Leadership Executive Tutorial to learn more about gender inequality in leadership.

My colleague Kerry Metcalfe-Smith, Director Organisational Development, BSI Learning opened the tutorial with the Current Situation of Women in Leadership. Following Kerry was Tanya Gilerman, Partner, Financial Services, Audit, KPMG who discussed how KPMG Create an Environment to Support, Mentor, Retain and Grow Women in Leadership Roles.

Kerry had undertaken substantive research into gender inequality in leadership roles and presented to us the Leaky Pipeline. Her research uncovered that organisations lose 50% of women at each hierarchical level of management, and this was supported by the AICD findings in 2012 that men are nine times more likely to be promoted into senior executive roles than women.

The question is, why does a leaky pipeline exist?

 Kerry presented two interesting findings:

• Workforce participation affects leadership roles - more women work part time and casual hours than men (DDI Worldwide)

• Midcareer confidence - aspiration and confidence is low to move into top management (DDI Worldwide)

However, is it fair to ask women to take on leadership roles whilst they are working part time?

And is it also realistic for companies to provide their leaders with flexible working hours when they need them to lead and develop high performing teams?

 Kerry listed a number of solutions for organisations including:

• Providing sponsorship and development opportunities for women
• Removing the barriers to appointing more women into leadership roles
• Focusing on the middle talent pipeline - to avoid the Leaky Pipeline
• Promoting flexible working practices
• Making every manager accountable for building an inclusive culture.

Kerry’s solutions explicitly suggest that part time work/flexible hours should not be creating gender inequality in leaders.

OK Kerry, that’s all well and good in theory but how does it work in real life?

Enter Tanya Gilerman of KPMG. Tanya presented to us the ways in which a global consulting firm has increased their number of women leaders due to the vision of KPMGs CEO regarding gender equality in leadership. In June 2015, of the 51 new partners appointed, 56% of internal partner promotions were women, and some of them were on maternity leave

"Leadership", Tanya announced, "is about the job, not the gender." KPMGs goal is to not lose talent. They want to invest in their people and provide all team members equal opportunities for promotion regardless of their personal situation and need for flexible hours. The consequence of not doing so is the loss of productivity, innovation and talent.

 So as Tanya spoke it became increasingly evident that Kerry’s solutions were indeed realistic. Below are a number of points Tanya shared regarding supporting women in leadership: 

• Provide flexible return to work arrangements to include: 
  • Working from home
  • Reduced work load after returning to work
  • Access to phone and computer to keep in touch with the team during leave

• Future Leaders Program - which fast tracks high performers with access to senior leaders as mentors. If the gender ratio is not equal for this group, the company has to rethink its choices.
• Challenge the organisational culture. Just because somebody is working three days a week, male or female, why can they not be promoted?

KPMG, like any other organisation, they want to promote the best person for the job. But the real difference I saw, and Tanya demonstrated was that KPMG want to give women and men the same opportunity to develop into the best person for the job, regardless of their personal needs.

I’ll leave you with a takeaway from KPMG, the “If not, then why not?” question leaders must ask themselves. For instance:

 If there aren’t part time leaders in your organisation, then why not?

If there aren’t flexible working arrangements in your organisation, then why not?

 When you have great talent you need to hold onto, why let traditional definitions of a workweek let them slip through your fingers?

What can we learn from the Japanese

From thought Leader Curtis Carlson

See the text below.  This is a remarkable book.  Only a Japanese could write those words but, as is typical, they have great meaning.  No wonder the head of Toyota is having everyone read it.  

I always thought that our employees at SRI were the most important.  In a very real way I loved them.  I had enormous respect for them and they inspired me every day.   Management’s major responsibility is to grow the company and make sure that no one is unfairly threatened by the company’s poor performance.  I didn’t always succeeded and it broke my heart every time I failed.   If we helped our staff to do the right things I also knew that they would put our customers first.  Paradoxical for some I know — but true.  I wanted them to do important things that would give their professional life meaning — a powerful form of “happiness" for technical professionals.  I also wanted to make sure they had essential value-creation skills so that they could be successful and control their careers, not someone else.  I was sure that if we helped them do these two things SRI would do well.  

From the book.

"My sole focus in managing the company has been to ensure that it endures, because I believe a company' s greatest virtue is endurance. To be perfectly honest, for the first 20 years, I had no spare time to think about such things. I was simply desperate to survive and keep the company going. I think it was about 25 years after joining the company, when the pressure finally began to ease a bit, that I started thinking about why companies exist and what corporate growth really means. The conclusion I reached after pondering such questions for years is that a good company exists to make its employees happy, thereby contributing to its local community and society at large. I realized that endurance was the most important part of making this happen, because if the company fails to endure, the happiness of its employees will come to an abrupt end. 

Seek Not to Be a Successful Company, But a Good Company 

Having decided that a company exists to make its employees happy and that a company' s greatest virtue is endurance, I began to entertain doubts about the conventional wisdom of what defines successful management. Doctrines emphasizing sales above all, the expansion of profits, or market capitalization seem all too often to come at the expense of employee happiness. It is impossible to manage a company whose sales do not grow, and in the absence of profits, a company' s very survival may be in doubt. Yet, once you make increased sales and profits your sole objective, employee happiness becomes secondary. In short, you start to think about how profits could be effectively raised by reducing labor costs and welfare expenditures, or by cutting back on activities that give back to the community and support culture and the arts. This seems completely backward to me. Management is all about finding a balance between the company' s numbers and the happiness of its employees. "

Hiroshi Tsukakoshi;  Hart Larrabee. Tree-Ring Management (JAPAN LIBRARY).  Kindle Edition. 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/to-whom-do-japans-most-powerful-turn-for-advice-the-sensei-of-seaweed-1441069219

http://www.amazon.com/Tree-Ring-Management-Take-Business-Slowly/dp/4916055462

Venture Capital in Australia: NICTA NAD CSIRO merge to create one of the largest...

Venture Capital in Australia: NICTA NAD CSIRO merge to create one of the largest.innovation companies in the world : NICTA ( Australia’s chief IT research facility)  has merged with CSIRO’s Digital Productivity flagship creating   a new organisation, Data6...

Leaders need to change from commanders to communicators

Posted by:-

Katz Kiely

Founder and CEO 

Kiely & Co

Skype:  katzkiely

Twitter: @katzy

It’s true many (most) C suiters are alpha types. They have spilled blood sweat and tears to scramble to the top. The idea of leader in the old world was all about being the best, the expert i.e. knowing better than anyone else in the organisation. Shifting to models based on crowdsourced knowledge and co - creation is hard and for some (of the less flexible) impossible.

They, like everyone else find it hard to let go of deeply embedded behaviours and attitudes …but they can be persuaded to try new more collaborative ways of working if they understand the commercial benefits- and by showing the positive effect of ring fenced networked experiments they can over time start to adopt new behaviours more appropriate to the networked organisation. 

Digital Transformation projects are never successful unless they have the full buy in (not just lip service) of senior leadership. Leaders have to display the behaviours and attitudes they expect their organisations to adopt.  The shift is from leader as Commander (which perfectly suited to mechanistic view of the organisation) to Communicator (who works with her teams to set the vision and inspires people to travel with her towards that goal) Collaborator or/ and Co- creator (who harnesses the full power of a connected, empowered workforce.) 

Networked organisations who understand the power of co-creation are the most valuable and profitable. Boards are already realising that new style (digital) leaders drive success - so C- suiters will have to adapt to survive

Are music festivals and doofs - a social experiment - solving the need for jobs? A precursor to the new kibbutz?

My daughters (22 and 25) love going to music festivals, (what they call "doofs" ) 

Are these festivals / communities , a social experiment that will be a base for a "new way" of connecting / adding value / living - creating for their community , a sense of self worth / finding ways to spend your day in a positive motivating way. Is this a better way than the "establishment - 9-5 work week - (for most) doing a job to survive, so they can feed and educate their family, and take 4 weeks a year annual leave - ( they say that job stands for "just over the breadline").

Is this a precursor to the revival of the "kibbutz" ?

Bellow, Katz Kiely talks about a potential new way of a connected community - finding meaning by taking out "the establishment" . 

From katz kiely

Katz Kiely

Founder and CEO 

Kiely & Co

Skype:  katzkiely

Twitter: @katzy

I was lucky enough to be invited by the founders a couple of years ago. I may not have accepted (“I’ve got work to do”) but Dan Ariely explained that I, with my passion for organisational transformation and behaviour change, should experience it.   

I now see Burning Man as a social experiment, exploring what happens when money and brands are taken out of the equation and volunteerism, creativity, collaboration and empowerment are put centre stage.

Participants come from all sorts of sectors: arts, media, finance - you name it. While there are elements of “pagan” festival, many of the activities are less widely understood. 

Contrary to the popular conception, I see the playa as a prototyping engine: with a wide variety of workshops, innovation camps, conferences, unconferences. The level of conversation and debate at Burning Man are, from my experience, exceptional. 

A couple of take aways to share a couple of experiences relevant to this discussion:

I had to visit the onsite hospital last year. The hospital, like everything else on the playa, is managed and manned by volunteers: professional nurses and doctors. I asked why they had given up their precious holiday time to volunteer. Each and every one said the same thing. At Burning Man the paperwork is taken out of the equation. They get to do what they signed up for : help people get better.  The service was impressive, and efficient, but human. The relationship between professional and patient is very different than in your typical hospital. The patients are genuinely grateful. The endless bureaucracy and paperwork is taken out of the equation. Most said they come back to volunteer year after year.

Impressed, and Infected by the volunteer spirit, I did a morning shift at the coffee centre the next morning. I brewed coffee for 4 hours. We served thousands of people. It could not have been a more menial job - but is one of my favourite memories of Burning Man. Why? Because of the work environment. We were working  together to support a connected community. Our efforts were respected and celebrated by those we served. Our playfulness did not get in the way of our work, but made the team more empowered and efficient. Empowerment leads to productivity.

In some ways the playa may have been an appropriate platform for Tuesdays meeting. Maybe next year :) 

Katz Kiely

Digital Strategist & Transformation Agent

Twitter: @katzy

How Institutions can change into an Innovation Entity

John Hagel - on how institutions can  change and disrupt themselves into an innovation institution

Jordan - You're absolutely right - the transition is going to be the challenge.  I suspect the bulk of the transition will come from new entrants who pioneer and innovate around the scalable learning model and use this as a basis for unseating the incumbents who hold on to the scalable efficiency model.  This will likely lead to a painful and tumultuous transition with great potential for backlash as incumbents mobilize to use regulation and other weapons to try to block the new entrants from undermining their position. 

On the other hand, as an optimist, I believe it is possible for existing institutions to transform themselves, but not through the classic top down, "big bang" approach to transformation that has proven to have a very high failure rate.  Instead, I have been a proponent of a different approach to large scale organizational change that I call "scaling edges" - http://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/center-for-the-edge/articles/scaling-edges-methodology-to-create-growth.html  A few of our existing institutions will be able to navigate through the changes using this approach.

Thanks for the heads up on Dans ted Talk

Just checking you have seen Dan's TED talk what really motivates us at work 

Here's as TED overview if you haven't  got time:  http://ideas.ted.com/what-motivates-us-at-work-7-fascinating-studies-that-give-insights/

Social Media disrupting the Established Economy

David Nordfors sites an example of radical innovation disrupting the economy:-

The media - mainstream- is becoming irrelevant in the social media communication Eco system. More people listen to the small movements than we might be aware of. People are looking for and finding new ways to relate to their environment through all the new channels available .

This blogging/ messaging/ visualizing ,new Eco system will not change legacy institutions,but will help build other options. If you examine education and the

New available materials in many formats,you have an opening for creative self actualization and enhancement. Innovative self education is already happening for millions. Mooc and Khan are just the beginning.
David

Innovation and economics - radical innovation needs radical change

A question by Curt Carlson 

 I can’t imagine that a society where 85% of the people don’t work would be a good thing.  Work is at the heart of being human — ones identity and self worth depend on it.   It seems unstable and likely to collapse from terrible policies that the 85% would impose on the 15%.  How do you think about that?

Response by Jordan Greenhall 

The key to creating an effective innovative economy is to get legacy systems and legacy habits out of the way while making people feel secure that their needs will still be met!

This can be done only with effective communication, connecting and collaboration! 

Changing the mindset and creating an innovative economy starts with education - and changing the way our education system links in with our economic institutions. 

These linkages make it nearly impossible to radically innovate in jobs without also radically innovating in education.   

Human beings don't need work.   They need more fundamental things like agency,  creativity,  community,  a sense of material safety,  etc.   Mileage will vary,  but my go to here is Max Neef on human needs.   

As it turns out, our civilization model has pushed a great number of these needs into "work".   Increasingly so over the past four centuries.   Indeed,  a big cause of the modern ennui is the fact that work is a poor satisfier for many of the needs that are being piled upon it.   Even really creative work,  but particularly the kind of stuff that usually goes under the heading "work". 

Now,  clearly,  we can not simply delete work.   85% of the population "just sitting around"  is a disaster.   What we must do is innovate entirely new satisfiers.   Optimally satisfiers that meet human needs much more effectively than our legacy approaches and do so much more efficiently.   Neef calls the best of these "synergistic satisfiers".   

Obviously a challenge for the ages,  but my sense is that we are very well positioned to meet it.   To me,  the hard part is doing it in the face of and in the midst of the broad institutional dysfunction that is characteristic of the current environment.   

For example,  take education.   When nearly every child,  teacher and parent is fully tapped day in and day out by the legacy system,  there isn't a lot of room for innovation.   Let alone radical innovation.   

But, if by some circumstance,  the entire educational system shut down all at once and,  as a consequence,  got out of the way; we would develop a dozen new models that are at least as effective in months.   And in a year we'd be well on our way to a set of satisfiers that are 10x more effective.   

In general,  a move like this is unwise.   New is usually a dangerous choice.   But as i believe that a decomposition of the legacy system is coming one way or another..... To create a radicL innovative economy one needs radical innovative ideas and action! 

Response by David Michaelis

We need to redefine WORK and its meaning. The writing of Hanna Arendt in the Human Condition might be relevant to this challenge. 

Arendt theorizes that the "human condition" is tri-partite, that is, composed of three dimensions: labor, work, and action.  To reduce the human condition to labor (as Marx did) and/or to work (as capitalism does), she argues, is to deny the fundamentally significant work that human beings can engage in, namely, action.  Understanding this, she believes, makes it possible to understand better how this allows political and economic systems to enslave human beings. 

 best

david