Archive for the 'Organisational Design' Category

Motorola - creating flexibility

Motorola, (in South Africa at least) has reportedly been experimenting with a shift to more work-life balance in their working hours and office inhabitation requirements.

Apparently, non-traditional working hours are the norm, driven by a vision of seamless mobility where what you do is more important than where you’re at. They also have a “Mobile Zone”, which brings the workplace closer to home via seamlessly connected workstations, thus making the daily commute an option rather than a “must do”.

I’d be interested in finding out more, if anyone knows. Typical of pretty much every company I know, Motorola do not develop their “employer brand” on their website (they know how to market their products, but not themselves as an employer of choice). They have a fairly imposing webpage, entitled “Ethics and Code of Business Conduct“, but this is a dry and imposing document, and not attractive at all. So, their website is no help in learning about their employment approach to work-life balance.

Ah well, I suppose I shouldn’t complain. Helping companies build their employer brands is part of how I make a living, so it should probably be exciting that I have such a huge market of companies who just don’t get it. But, to be honest - it sometimes depresses me…

A Reflection on the Tour de France

One of the more difficult Connection Economy concepts for people to get their heads around is the concept that Edward de Bono dubbed, “co-opetition”. This is defined as the ability of competitors to co-operate.

Watching the longest Tour de France stage yesterday (230 km’s!!), with an early breakaway of 5 riders, that eventually put more than half an hour between themselves and the peleton, it struck me that professional cycling provides a great example of co-opetation. Those five riders had to work together and co-oridinate their efforts in order to get ahead of the pack. But they all knew that about 5km from the end, one of them would break ranks and force the competition to re-emerge and dominate for the last sprint to the line. As soon as the first person broke ranks, the co-operation would be over. But until that point, they’d work well together and get an advantage.

Simple picture, but it works for me.

Book Summary: The Discipline of Market Leaders: Choose Your Customers Narrow Your Focus, Dominate Your Market

I found this in my archives. A great book, and important info for any business.

The Discipline of Market Leaders: Choose Your Customers Narrow Your Focus, Dominate Your Market
by Michael Treacy and Fred WiersemaAddison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1997 edition

Buy it at Amazom.com or Kalahari.net.

“The message of The Discipline of Market Leaders is that no company can succeed today by trying to be all things to all people. It must instead find the unique value that it alone can deliver to a chosen market. Why and how this is done are the two key questions the book addresses.” (p.xii)

The authors maintain that there are three different types of ‘value discipline’ that successful companies can adopt to command leadership in their markets. Which of these (if any) is taken by any particular firm depends upon the sort of product or service that they provide, and upon the organizational culture that they maintain. These three ‘value disciplines’ are summarized in the chart below:

Continue reading ‘Book Summary: The Discipline of Market Leaders: Choose Your Customers Narrow Your Focus, Dominate Your Market’

Men and women in the office

A small little filler in the BusinessWeek magazine, 29 May 2006 edition, caught my eye. It is about what different people want in the physical layout of their offices. Interesting read:

What Do Men Want? A Thermostat
By Elizabeth Woyke

To build a better work space, consult the worker bees. In a poll conducted by Knoll, a furnishings maker, and research firm DYG, 850 workers at companies with 100 or more employees were asked what surroundings made them productive. Some 45% said they work best in private offices. The rest prefer collaborative spaces (16%), their homes (18%), or other sites outside the office (22%).

Some 40% of Gen Y workers, aged 18 to 29, said they like open office plans. (Just 18% said they would choose cubicle-like stations with panels for privacy). “Young people are saying this is how we expect and want to work,” says Christine Barber, Knoll’s director of workplace research. “That’s driving a trend toward more creative, interactive work environments.”

Then there’s what might be called the thermostat factor. Women listed eight attributes as having a “high impact” on productivity, including privacy, natural light, and the option of personalizing a space. Men named just one: the ability to control the air conditioning or heat.

Original source: click here.

Turning Employees into Millionaires

SAP, the conservative German software company announced a month or so ago that it will pay out $ 381 million in 2010, to a few hundred managers, if the company is able to increase its market cap by 100% from a $57 billion starting point in 2006. The explanation to shareholders was “if you want extraordinary performance, you have to offer extraordinary incentives”.

This is a great example of what we believe needs to be done to attract, retain and release talent in your organisation - they must be able to benefit from their contribution. But there are some things SAP needs to be careful of:

  • You cannot give people accountability (or incentives like this) without also giving them responsibility to go with it. Are SAP going to allow staff members to be innovative in their pursuit of the target?
  • What if they get close, but exactly there? There might even be incentive by shareholders and senior leaders to skupper the process in the last few months in order to avoid paying out the incentive. SAP need to put safeguards in place, not only so that this does not happen, but that it does not appear to happen at all.
  • There is a possibility of manipulation. There always is when it comes to share price related issues. The danger is the “Aproi Moi, la deluge” issue - I wrote about this sometime last year - read it here.

I am sure that SAP are dealing with these and many other issues. This is a great thing they’re doing, and I wish them success.

Business Continuity in Age of Constant Change

Conversations about knowledge continuity often relate to succession planning and the retirement of key older leaders. While these considerations are obviously important, they can mask the fact that, these days, business critical expertise and knowledge often reside lower down in the organisation and with younger employees. And when these younger people leave, they can threaten the life of the business itself. New thinking and strategies are required to ensure that businesses find out who knows what, understand how they know, create processes for transferring what they know, develop communities rather than stars and secure their future success by enabling business continuity.

For the past few decades this function has largely been delegated to “Knowledge Management� (KM), who in turn thought of it primarily as a technology solution. The amount of raw information that has been captured but not properly utilised or transferred into companies is frightening (and, very often, overwhelming and confusing, and therefore fairly useless). It is time to move beyond KM to “Wisdom Management�. Wisdom is knowledge that is not time-bound or linked to specific experiences. Rather, it is transferable and has the ability to be used, adapted and applied wherever it is needed.

The problem is that wisdom can’t be bought. It takes time. Or does it?

We live in a world of constant change. In particular, the last decade has seen a dramatic increase in staff turnover and voluntary employee churn. This has been driven mainly by a younger generation who tend to move every three years on average – and move not just within industries, but to entirely different careers, on a regular basis.

Continue reading ‘Business Continuity in Age of Constant Change’

Alumni Talent: How losing the retention battles can help win the talent war

At the moment, one of the pains in the Human Capital side of business is the ‘War for Talent’. With the global village increasing the mobility of our top employees, and the increasing skills shortage in certain key areas Organisational Talent is a commodity as valuable and desirable as gold. However, the more Baby Boomers try to do the things that made them loyal to the company the more their young talent seem to bolt out of the door.

Today’s young talent are seen as arrogant ‘snots’ who refuse to earn their keep and patiently work their way up the corporate ladder. It is nothing like the ‘good old days’ when talent understood that they were being groomed for greatness, and they just needed to wait their turn. On top of all of this the market is competing so aggressively for these individuals that it would be unrealistic to expect them not to move for the types of salaries and opportunities they are being promised. There must be another way to get what we need out of these stars.

Continue reading ‘Alumni Talent: How losing the retention battles can help win the talent war’

Challenges facing a young work force

Earlier this week, the North East Texas Workforce Board’s 2006 Revolution Forum discussed issues related to Gen X and Y in the workplace. In that part of the world, young people under the age of 40 account for more than half of the workforce. Issues that were raised by various speakers and experts related to the 20-something workforce include:

  • Generation Y workers have high expectations and can be “high maintenance,” they can also become the most productive work force seen
  • They have an entrepreneurial spirit - more teenagers than ever before have their own businesses
  • When Generation X first entered the work force, the economy was in a downturn and those workers realized that “jobs may come, jobs may go.” They do not expect job security.
  • They have also developed a different sense of loyalty, that includes their own lives and families just as much as their jobs.
  • Younger workers won’t follow policies and procedures just because they are told to do so.
  • Give recognition and reward in the moment.
  • They think their co-workers should be sources of learning.
  • This generation wants training, social responsibility and ethics in the workplace, and what they seek from older workers is respect, opportunity and wisdom.

Read the report here.

Organisational DNA - its what your company is made of!

DNAThats right, its the thing that makes your company tick, its what makes you unique and what makes you the same, like human DNA, organisational DNA is unique, but in some cases make things the same. As humans, we all look alike (mostly, we have two arms, two legs etc) but there are such specific differences that tell us apart. The same is true in companies, or is it? Many companies tend to “clone” competitors. They tend to copy their market and guess what, dolly is reborn in the coporate world. So how does a company change this pattern. Well, they need to take a long hard look at their DNA, organisational DNA that is! In a great article from strategy+business this methaphor is discussed in detail, but to give you some insights, the article states that there are 4 areas that companies need to focus on to change their DNA. They are as follows:

  • Decision Rights: How and by whom are decisions made in your company and who truly makes them, ESPECIALLY those decisions that go beyond the org chart
  • Information: What metrics are used to measure your organisation? How is activity coordinated? how is knowledge transferred?
  • Motivators: What objectives, incentives and career alternatives do people have?
  • Strucutre: What organisation model does you company follow?

Seems simple right and guess what, it is! But get this wrong and you may wind up needing glasses to see the future of your organisation.

The community employer – a new employment contract

It is not breaking news that business paradigms are shifting significantly. The difference, in historical terms, is that the shift is taking place on a global scale never seen before. Thomas L. Friedman, in his seminal book The World is Flat, describes how our world is being flattened by historical events and forces that in the last 15 years have resulted in the globalised, connected, speed-orientated world we live in.

Many factors contribute to these changes - the advancement of the internet, outsourcing, production techniques, and many more. Although the global economy is a product of the cumulative efforts of local economies, many countries are finding themselves in precarious positions where some are forerunners and some are being left behind. Emerging economies are challenging the way we operate significantly. It is a defining time in history that no country is exempt from.

Continue reading ‘The community employer – a new employment contract’

Thoughts on Entropy, Voltage and Learning

Introduction

Some people think that there are patterns in existence that can be re-used between various disciplines like Physics, Religion and Business. This article explores the similarity of thought between several domains and tries to see how understanding in one area can help understanding in other areas.

Entropy in Physics

In physics, the concept of Entropy can have the following meanings: the degree of chaos, or disorder, in a system; or the amount of useable energy in a system. All physical systems tend towards states of least order, or maximum chaos. That is why eggs break, but can never spontaneously un-break, and why when a glass of water spills, it runs into a flat puddle and does not sit on the floor in a glass-shaped globule.

Continue reading ‘Thoughts on Entropy, Voltage and Learning’

Understand what your team needs

Jean CooperAs a team leader it is important to understand what it is your team needs to optimise its performance. If you can read and understand these needs, you will be better able to respond and help your team to the next level.

But let’s be honest: no two teams are similar. Just as individuals are unique, teams are unique. Your team has a unique configuration of individuals, it operates in a unique environment and has a unique history and future. How then, if your team has a unique story, is it possible for you to know what to look out for in terms of your team’s development? And, if no blue-print of your specific team exists, how can you know that responding in a certain way will have a definite desired effect?

Yes, understanding and leading teams are complex. That is why we often feel ourselves ill-equipped to intervene if we sense something’s holding our team back. The natural thing to do then is to turn towards a team building expert to sort your team out. The problem is that many team building experts have set team building programmes that they use for all teams. A generic model and sequence and workbook with discussion questions that touch on all the essential dynamics of the generic team. But yours is not the generic team.

Continue reading ‘Understand what your team needs’

The Learning Organization

In 1990, Peter Senge wrote one of the most influential business books of all time. “The Fifth Discipline” revolutionised many companies’ approach to knowledge management, and introduced the business world to systems thinking in an accessible way. (Get it at Amazon.com or Kalahari.net).

There is a great summary of the five core disciplines, and, in fact, the whole book, at: http://www.infed.org/thinkers/senge.htm#_The_core_disciplines.

There is a high level executive summary of most of the key concepts related to “Learning Organizations” available at: http://www.skyrme.com/insights/3lrnorg.htm.

Female Friendly Firms are actually Family Friendly

Around the world, a growing number of organisations are starting to realise that it is a massive loss to lose women in the 30s and 40s - women who opt out of the rat race in order to focus attention on family issues, including child care and ageing parents (see previous post on the Sandwich generation). To cater for some of the demands on these multi-tasking women’s time, some companies are starting to become more flexible about work hours, provide more services to employees and become more friendly to “personal” issues that need resolving.

These companies are often celebrated as “women friendly”, and there are many lists emerging now of women-friendly companies. Governments and non-profits are putting energy into raising awareness of these issues (e.g. EOWA in Australia - Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency).

The Age in Australia, reports today that EOWA is having the desired effect, with more and more female (family) friendly companies emerging - read the report here.

Continue reading ‘Female Friendly Firms are actually Family Friendly’

Building the towers

HierarchyWe’ve just had a new manager join the team at the company I’m working for. To give you a bit of background … I joined this company because it’s small and creative and there were no heirarchies or political games. (Well - ok, there is always some level of politics …)

He’s been here for 2 weeks and 3 days … and already he is planning on adding in a new level of “management”. And so it begins … the heirarchy is coming. (Whether I like it or not.)

But I can’t help thinking … why is this the first exercise new management like to do? (The good old restructure!) Sure, I’m all for change - change can be invigorating and good. But I can’t help wondering if change for the sake of it is just plain old counter productive.

I’m still on the fence as to whether this will be a constructive move (maybe I will be proved wrong about my cynical outlook!) … I guess I’ll just watch from the sidelines and try to embrace the new tower!

Why Knowledge Management Fails

New research has proven what we’ve been saying for some time: that technology (and innovation) is not the key to successful corporate renewal or knowledge management. The real key to success is PEOPLE. Intellilink Solutions puts it this way:

Knowledge management is not only about information; it is also about the people you have recruited, trained, developed, and promoted within your organization. KM involves not only the implementation of a software system; it involves understanding your business needs, your organization’s culture, and your personnel. To succeed, any KM initiative requires that you know your people and clearly define the behaviors that need to be changed or reinforced.

(read full report here).

Continue reading ‘Why Knowledge Management Fails’

Change is easier when you are healthy

I was reading an article on church growth and leadership (we have a lot to learn from non profit leadership), and came across a few gem quotations that I think are important (read the full article here), from H. Dale Burke, senior pastor of First Evangelical Free Church of Fullerton, California:

“Change is easier when you are healthy, not unhealthy. If change is prompted by a crisis or severe decline, the [people are] prone to be suspicious of leadership and the new direction proposed. After all, why trust the leaders who let things fall into such disrepair? Innovation almost always comes at a cost, so doing it while you are growing just makes sense. It is always best to pursue excellence while you’re on a roll.”

Tom Landry, one of the greatest coaches in NFL history, was always hardest on his team after a big win. His observation was that the best time to grow and improve was while the team was on a winning streak. Most winners tended to become prideful, believing they had arrived, so he would be more critical after a win, looking for ways to fine-tune the plan or add a creative, new twist to their offense. The goal was to take their best performance and build on it, not maintain it. After a disappointing loss, the team’s energy was drawn to fixing obvious deficiencies and making sure the team did not lose heart.

“Innovation should not be exercised in the emergency room of [an organisation] but as a valued discipline of ongoing health maintenance. If a great [organisation] wants its future to be as exciting as its past, it must embrace change and its accompanying risks before it becomes unhealthy. Change must become a lifestyle.”

If you really believe your values…

Any organisation - any group of people working together - needs to have a shared view of what they are trying to achieve, the structures through which this will be achieved and a guiding set of operational and environmental ‘rules of engagement’ to guide behaviour and ethics. Whether these are explicit or implicit, good or bad, they will exist and they will guide how companies operate.In order to try and guide organisational behaviour and development, increasingly, companies around the world are adopting formal statements of corporate values.

These values were often entrenched in the companys ethos by the founders of the company. Most of these lists of values are fairly generic and common sense, including such items as honesty, integrity, trust, respectand other basic human decencies. A few of them, however, go further than just the obvious and common sense, and add values that are specific to the functioning of the company.

But there are three major problems:

1. Values that are not really values

Many of the values on corporate lists have more to do with brand, customer service and market reputation than actual guiding principles for organisational behaviour. They are often mainly stated as business outcomes, rather than human attributes. Most executives appear to link values to branding, rather than to bottom line business performance.

For example, Xeroxs values include: customer satisfaction, quality and excellence, premium return on assets, use of technology for market leadership, valuing employees, and corporate citizenship. This is not an unusual list for a multinational corporate. But these are not so much values as they are business imperatives. And they may even be self-contradictory (if we value employees are we allowed to retrench them when were not getting a premium return on assetsand shareholders are demanding greater returns?).

The reason most corporates dont focus on behavioural values is that it is much easier to measure ROA (return on assets) or ROI (return on investment), than ROV (return on values). In fact, I do not know of a company that measures ROV (return on values, or something equivalent). In a recent survey by the American Management Association, only 63% of Executives surveyed indicated that their companies even made an attempt to reward people based on their adherence to corporate values.

But that raises the interesting question of how to measure your values. True values are not, and cannot be, objective. Its therefore absolutely essential to decide up front who gets to measure them, and what yardstick will be used.What information will they need, and how often will they do an analysis? And what will you do with the feedback?

2. Incentivising adherence to the values

If companies truly believed their values, they would incentivise adherence to them, and punish any deviance from them. While many companies have vague scorecards that measure how their people stack up against some ofthe business performance linked values, very few actually reward staff for brave ethical behaviour.

In our consulting work, we find that only a very few of our corporate clients refer regularly to their values, or use their value statements to guide behaviour in meetings and interactions, both internal and external. One of the best in this regard is Investec (http://www.investec.com/GroupLinks/AboutInvestec/MissionStatement) a bank, focusing on high end private clients. Its not just their hard hitting statement of values, but also our knowledge of how these values are applied and referred to during meetings. Another company phrases it like this: Everyone may demand that these values be applied, and everyone’s behaviour is assessed for compliance with them.

Consider the following questions:

  • If we value staff development, how much money and time do we allocate to this every month?And is it the staffs decision about whether they have been developed/valued or not?
  • If we value innovation, do we encourage experimentation, and therefore expect (and measure and reward) the failures that will go along with it?
  • If we value honesty, what do we do to someone who withholds information from colleagues or clients?Do we reward the people who through honesty, reduce profitability?
  • If shareholder wealth creation is never a stated core value, why do we place it at the top of our company priority lists?
  • If living your values means that you will lose money for a period, or have a competitive disadvantage, will you stick by them?

3. The Personality (and Behaviour) of the CEO/MD

The final major problem with living out corporate values is that every piece of research done on values indicates that one of the single most important factors is the involvement and attitude of the CEO. For example, in a 2004 Booz Allen Hamilton and Aspen Institute survey of senior executives across 30 countries, 85 percent of the respondents said their companies rely on explicit CEO support to reinforce values, and 77 percent say such support is one of the most effectivepractices for reinforcing the companys ability to act on its values.

Ultimately, the CEO shapes the company, not just by corporate directives and organisational design, but also by sheer force of personality and character. To ensure that your corporate values are lived out, you need to be absolutely dogged about ensuring that your leaders have the values you espouse (rather than simply acknowledge them or aspire to them).

Living the Values

Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric used a very simple matrix to explain how values and work environment connected at GE. He talked about two ways of thinking of employees: whether or not they bring in the numbers(i.e. their performance and contribution), and whether or not they live by the values of the organisation.

 
Does not bring in the numbers
Brings in the numbers
Has the values
II
IV
Does not have the values
I
III

Quadrant I is an easy decision. Theyve got to go. Get rid of them quickly. Quadrant IV is excellent give them a raise, hold them close, keep them happy and working.

But given the choice of working with and retaining people from either Quadrant II or Quadrant III, which would you choose. This can be tough, but Jack Welch says you have no choice: you must get rid of the person who is bringing in the numbers but not living the values. Thats where leadership has to step in and make the difficult decisions.Quadrant II people can always be trained and developed. You can teach skills. You cant teach attitude, character or values.

Values cannot be imposed on a company. When doing an exercise to create a list of corporate values, most companies end up with an idealistic wish list. However, a better approach would be to identify what values actually exist in the company. These are the only ones that will actually be lived through thick and thin. Your values are what you are, not what you want to be. You can possibly have a few aspirationalvalues on your list, but these should be clearly marked as such.

In a small company, thats easier to do, as it relates to the individual founders. As companies grow, it becomes increasingly harder to ensure that employees live by the original values of the company. And the only way to change the values of the organisation is to get more people into the organisation who actually believe and live the values you want to exhibit. This is just another reason why people are our most important asset, and deserve the full attention of the senior leaders of every organisation in the world.

Why teams? To adapt, learn and relate

It is no secret that we are living in a fast-paced world that requires new skills, attitudes and approaches from individuals and organisations. A world where the ability to adapt, learn and relate is critical for survival and success. Adapt, learn, relate three competencies without which your organisation will not survive the next ten years. Three competencies greatly supported by the effective use of teams in your organisation.In this article I will explore why an organisation structured around dynamic teams, also called X-teams, has a competitive advantage moving into the future. X-teams are teams that change continuously. Their goals and objectives change. Their members change. Their members are also part of other teams. Their environment changes. In fact, there is nothing static about x-teams. Still these teams and, subsequently, organisations that structure themselves around dynamic teams like these, have an extra-ordinary potential to adapt to change, learn form experiences and form strong, long-lasting relationships. (For some more background on X-teams, read The comparative advantage of X-teams Ancona & Bresman, 2002). This article supposes that the teams we are talking about, are effective, optimally functioning teams. Of course this is not something to take for granted or to underestimate. The purpose of this article is only to indicate why a structure of effectively functioning teams can be highly beneficial. It does not deal with how to implement this or how to ensure that these dynamic teams remain dynamic and effective. I will focus on the how in the next few e-zines.Adapt
Adapt refers to more than an organisations ability to change. Contrary to our normal understanding of the word adapt, which is mostly used in a reactive sense, we are talking here about proactive adapting, or proactive change. Adapting not to current circumstances, but to your understanding of future circumstances. In a recent study I did on the characteristics individuals need to succeed in the future workplace, this mindset aptitude for proactive change was called a passion for change which refers not only to the ability to cope with change, but also the ability to embrace and create change. In order to survive in today and tomorrows economy, organisations need to have both the mindset of proactive adapting (a passion for change) and the dynamic organisational design that will support, sustain and encourage this continuous change.

As organisations are faced with an increasing demand for flexibility and adaptability, huge strain is being placed on current organisational structures. It often happens that we try to operate in a complex, multi-dimensional, fast-changing and chaotic environment with organisations that are still Taylored (excuse the pun) for a previous era. This creates a great deal of confusion regarding roles and responsibilities (which leads to conflict, insecurity and often a breakdown of trust) as the environment continually forces employees to cross departmental, functional and hierarchical boundaries. Government departments especially struggle with this dilemma, but they are not alone. Many corporates (and their organograms) do advocate a loose, project-oriented, matrix structure, but middle management often still covertly cling onto little silos/empires of their own, making the confusion, conflict and insecurities even worse than within an overtly rigid structure.

On the contrary, an organisation that looks more like a fluid alliance of teams can respond quicker to change and notions of change. Dont get me wrong Im not suggesting that you should restructure your company into fixed, long-term teams. This will most probably only create a new, differently structured, structure. What you probably could consider (for a start) is to loosen up a number of project-oriented teams that assemble around specific project goals and then disassembles again at the completion of the objectives. No matter how you decide to do it, you need to build flexibility(and the ability to respond to chaos) into the very fibre of your organisation.

Learn
A lot has been written on the learning organisation (see Peter Senges work). This learning, amongst other things, refers to an organisations ability to learn from its experiences. Do we capture what we learn? Are these learnings being fed back into the system for future reference? Do we have an atmosphere where people are willing and able to give honest opinions and feedback? Are we open to experimenting and failing? Does failure get punished or rewarded?

Teams, as functional sub-units within an organisation, can be highly effective in generating and capturing learning, developing individual team members and feeding learning and experience back to the organisation. The fact that people can relate and connect better in smaller units, where a common goal is sought, also makes people more willing to ask and give honest feedback, risk making mistakes and develop each other. In the team a safe atmosphere can be created where this learning can take place. Of course the feedback and accountability mechanisms need to be in place in order to ensure that the learning is captured and really fed back into the system. And of course a general openness to learning need to exist in the bigger organisation before it will be truly effective in the sub-units (teams) that the organisation is made up of. But teams can be highly effective units to foster, grow and sustain a learning climate in the organisation.

A further benefit of seeing your teams as your primary learning units, is the potential for cross-functional or inter-disciplinary learning. In dynamic project teams we find people who would normally sit in different departments, working in one team towards one goal. Suddenly the financial and environmental specialists are working shoulder to shoulder with the engineer and sales executive. A great opportunity for debate, conflict, learning from diversity and innovation.

Relate
Relate refers to your companys ability to connect with its people. Not only the people drawing salaries from it, but also the people spending money on its products and investing capital in it. We are thus talking about your companys ability to relate to its stakeholders. Or, put differently, to engage in, grow, and sustain meaningful relationships with employees, customers, investors and the community it operates in. We live in a connection economy where an organisations competitive advantage lies more and more in this relational ability. The challenge is to create strong and effective relationships through which people can fulfill their true potential and thus be of optimal value to the organisation. Also remember that the people working for you today will be your customers, business partners, community leaders and investors tomorrow. Strong relationships pay off sooner or later.

Teams are exceptional vehicles for an organisation to connect with its people on an inter-personal level. Teams provide the closeness and togetherness through which relationships can start and develop. The team is the link between the intra-personal, inter-personal, organisational and customer-interface relationships. It is on the project-team level that the organisations vision and values become practical and authentic. It is also on this level where the customer-experience is felt and where people connect on levels beyond day-to-day operations and deadlines. And if the broadband information-flow that results out of these, more personal, connections are fed into the organisational consciousness, you can get an organisation that is in sync with the values, dreams and fears of its people.

Finally
The DNA of your organisation is what really carries the information about your existence. Unlike, biological DNA, however, you can determine what you want to embed into the DNA of your company. And if what you want your company to be is to realise at all, then it needs to be reflected in the smallest sub-systems you are made up of. Teams. Not just departmental sub-groupings. Multi-disciplinary teams that are mini-versions of the bigger system. Teams that can change and make decisions. X-teams.

How do you remain “cutting-edge”?

sand duneYesterday I attended a presentation by Prof. David Block on the Power of Vision. He gave us a wonderful metaphor when thinking of what it means to remain at the cutting edge as a business.

He asked us how much TNT it would take to move a sand dune in Namibia? The answer: none. All it takes is a beetle walking along the leading edge to disrupt (scratching) the line so that the wind can do its job in moving the dune.

So, remaining at the cutting edge is about knowing where to scratch, and embracing the ability to be wind-swept.

Technorati Tags:

An idea: Free airlines

Economy class seatsI have been on too many planes in the last 7 days. Probably a total of 40 hours actually sitting in the plane, let alone the airports and taxis. While doing so, I was reading an article about how TiVo 9and similar technologies) are causing great concern amongst advertisers. The ability for people to digitally control their TV watching, choosing to fast forward (or not even record at all) the adverts, is worrying. Early plans include paying people to watch adverts (or giving free TV to those who choose not to block out adverts).

Then, one of the pilots abused (!!) his position, and promoted a calendar through the PA system (OK, it was for animal welfare, but it was still abuse of his position). Then, a great thought came to me. Why not sell advertising on plane flights? You have a captive audience, most of whom have nothing better to do. Most adverts are better than the rubbish they normally show on short flights anyway. Why not designate certain flights on certain routes as “adverflights” and make them much cheaper than usual - advertising revenue pays the difference.

Hey. Whatever. Its just an idea, OK. Use it. Don’t use it. But if you do, remember that you heard it here first.

More on presentations

PresentationFollowing up on my recent post Why your conference sucks, here is a great list of tips and hints for presenters. There are a couple of reasons I think the source is cool - I found it via Steve Rubel’s blog, illustrating how social software often digs up “gem” resources out of nowhere (i.e. I would have never found this web page if not for Steve’s blog). Secondly, it is pretty old - ten years old I think - which explains the reference to the overhead projector. And yet, these simple principles are so often overlooked by even the best presenters.

Hope you enjoy it…

Continue reading ‘More on presentations’

Online, on tap resources

Imagine this…

You’re a manager in a large corporate, and you’re working on an important project. You assess your current team, and you realise that you’re a little short of some skills, and the team is not quite as balanced as should be. It could also do with a little bit more diversity. So, using your company’s latest web-based staffing software, you go online and enter a request for two additional staff members to provide 20 hours a week of input to your team. You are able to select from a wide variety of fields - either specifying a particular selection, or deciding which criteria are not important.

You may be able to specify some of the following: age, gender, culture, language, country of origin, current country of residence (for multinationals), personality profile (Maybe Meyers-Briggs MBTI, or Enneagram type, for example), leadership style (based on agreed profiles), team style (e.g. Belbin), skills and talent themes (e.g. Markus Buckingham’s ‘Now Discover Your Strengths‘ and Gallup’s StrengthQuest profile), expert knowledge and subject expertise, etc.
Continue reading ‘Online, on tap resources’

Your company’s problem: YOU!!!!

despairFast Company - Soul Assassins

Consulting: If You’re Not Part of the Solution, There’s Good Money to Be Made Prolonging the Problem
Meetings: None of Us Is as Dumb as All of Us

These are some of the blurbs in the posters that Despair Inc. are promoting in their Radical Demotivation campaign. In challenging the motivation industry, the trio of Justin and Jef Sewell, and E. Lawrence Kersten are challenging the noble employee myth so that we can realise just what our company’s problem is (US!) and just how we can let them know about it!. From the horse’s mouth:

“Look,” Kersten says, “obviously some people can be highly fulfilled by their jobs. Doctors, for example: It seems like saving lives would be highly fulfilling. Building bridges, building businesses — a lot of careers can fulfill a person’s inherent passion. But I don’t know how passionate you can be about processing paper. The point is that most people should work to make money. They shouldn’t expect a company to make them happy. A company can be friendly and good, but it can’t really make you happy. At the same time, it shouldn’t insult you. It shouldn’t say, ‘We’re a family and have values,’ and then act like Enron.”
Continue reading ‘Your company’s problem: YOU!!!!’

The Game of Snakes and Ladders in the 21st-Century

Today, your office headquarters could be an impressive office block, your humble study or the local deli. Because the modern office environment has changed (and continues to transform even while you read this), new work opportunities have arisen. Together with these opportunities several prerequisite changes have come to the forefront; changes which are essential if we are to ensure a successful outcome for both the worker and employer in the new millennium. Trying to play by the ‚old rules‛ will not work or be much fun in the 21st-century office where men and women will face challenges that others before them never even contemplated.

But what has wrought this change of which I speak? Technology. The world changes as fast as technology advances. It is technology that enables us to understand the global picture in an instant. It is technology that keeps us informed on the minute, every minute. The hour does not dictate when we will hear about an important or catastrophic event. We do not rely on traditional media any longer to report an incident on the radio or evening news. We can search for breaking news on the Internet ourselves, or receive important information on our cell in the form of text, voice or picture.

Continue reading ‘The Game of Snakes and Ladders in the 21st-Century’