Killing Cows + Jumping Sharks
Sometimes taking risks means risking both.
May 10, 2008
A Call for Disruption in Education
In today's Wall Street Journal, Chris Whittle (registration required) makes a compelling appeal for a disruptive approach to education. Whittle--the CEO of Edison Schools--argues that the United States needs a national-level R&D effort to address the problems of primary and secondary education. Whittle asks:
He compares today's education system to a highly fragmented industry, implying that a degree of consolidation--at least for the purpose of innovation--is required. He says, "our national political leadership must fund a whole new level of educational innovation."
Whittle calls for a new type of educational experience, freed from the resources, processes, and values of the "old design." The way that Whittle describes this new educational structure comforms well to the defnition of a disruptive innovation as "an innovation that cannot be used by customers in mainstream markets." The US education system, which grew in an organic way along with American settlement and economic development, is structurally unable to innovate in needed ways. The mainstream markets--in this case the public schools--simply cannot innovate sufficiently on their own.
The implication of Whittle's piece is that disruptive innovation theory could provide a pathway to educational reform. Those interested in improving America's schools should read The Innovator's Solution along with Whittle's new book.Chris Whittle Op-Ed
So where are our national policy makers? Where are the Bell Labs, Xerox Research Parks, Ford Test Tracks, Strategic Defense Initiatives and NASAs of education? Why is America so slow to arrive at the inevitable conclusion that schools are a national security priority -- and that federal funding of R&D investment in them would serve as, shall we say, Homeland Offense?
He compares today's education system to a highly fragmented industry, implying that a degree of consolidation--at least for the purpose of innovation--is required. He says, "our national political leadership must fund a whole new level of educational innovation."
Whittle calls for a new type of educational experience, freed from the resources, processes, and values of the "old design." The way that Whittle describes this new educational structure comforms well to the defnition of a disruptive innovation as "an innovation that cannot be used by customers in mainstream markets." The US education system, which grew in an organic way along with American settlement and economic development, is structurally unable to innovate in needed ways. The mainstream markets--in this case the public schools--simply cannot innovate sufficiently on their own.
The implication of Whittle's piece is that disruptive innovation theory could provide a pathway to educational reform. Those interested in improving America's schools should read The Innovator's Solution along with Whittle's new book.Chris Whittle Op-Ed
Tags: national political leadership us education system chris whittle defense initiatives innovation theory edison schools disruptive innovation educational innovation wall street journal inevitable conclusion fragmented industry educational structure american settlement s education mainstream markets nasas strategic defense educational reform educational experience secondary education
Wanted: Innovation Leaders
Sometimes I think that many firms should place an ad in the employment pages that says: Wanted: Innovation Leaders. Must be visionary, tough, well-connected and willing to risk it all.
I was reading a post from Drew Boyd (see his Innovation in Practice blog) about academic research into what competencies are important in innovation practitioners and innovation leaders. Drew, and the academics and research he cites, are far more eloquent than I can be. However, the lack of eloquence has never slowed me from climbing up on the soapbox.
Any firm that decides to build a consistent, sustainable innovation capability needs senior executive commitment and funding. That goes without saying. But the innovation initiative needs a strong, determined leader who can demonstrate the following four skills or competencies:
Vision: The innovation team leader will recruit people to his team in an uncertain climate to do some fairly risky things. She needs to be able to communicate her vision for innovation capabilities and how that aligns to the senior management team's needs and strategies.
Commitment: Sorry, part-timers need not apply. If your innovation team leader is part-time, how can she convince people to join her team and make a big commitment. They'll all have one foot in the innovation team and one foot firmly planted in their safe, comfortable existing roles. An innovation leader trying to start a challenging new process that probably runs counter to organization culture can't succeed on a part-time basis.
Fearlessness: You can't succeed when innovation trying not to fail. Too many innovation programs seek very simple, very safe ideas to generate and implement. That's not the point. We've already got Black belts and continuous improvement programs and product roadmaps. We need some risk and danger. The leader needs to be able to stick her neck out and ask some crazy questions, cannibalize existing products and overturn markets, or the end result will be more of the same.
Communication: The innovation leader will recruit full time and part time people to a completely new task, create new processes and methods and generate ideas that will hopefully threaten existing products and services. Based on that description, don't you think they need great communication skills? This means both the skills to speak to the executives as well as to inform the team and the general population.
If your team is forming, or you are considering building an innovation program, now is a good time to write the job description of the innovation leader. Part Gary Cooper, Part Dr. Phil and fully committed to success.
I was reading a post from Drew Boyd (see his Innovation in Practice blog) about academic research into what competencies are important in innovation practitioners and innovation leaders. Drew, and the academics and research he cites, are far more eloquent than I can be. However, the lack of eloquence has never slowed me from climbing up on the soapbox.
Any firm that decides to build a consistent, sustainable innovation capability needs senior executive commitment and funding. That goes without saying. But the innovation initiative needs a strong, determined leader who can demonstrate the following four skills or competencies:
- Vision
- Commitment
- Fearlessness
- Excellent communication
Vision: The innovation team leader will recruit people to his team in an uncertain climate to do some fairly risky things. She needs to be able to communicate her vision for innovation capabilities and how that aligns to the senior management team's needs and strategies.
Commitment: Sorry, part-timers need not apply. If your innovation team leader is part-time, how can she convince people to join her team and make a big commitment. They'll all have one foot in the innovation team and one foot firmly planted in their safe, comfortable existing roles. An innovation leader trying to start a challenging new process that probably runs counter to organization culture can't succeed on a part-time basis.
Fearlessness: You can't succeed when innovation trying not to fail. Too many innovation programs seek very simple, very safe ideas to generate and implement. That's not the point. We've already got Black belts and continuous improvement programs and product roadmaps. We need some risk and danger. The leader needs to be able to stick her neck out and ask some crazy questions, cannibalize existing products and overturn markets, or the end result will be more of the same.
Communication: The innovation leader will recruit full time and part time people to a completely new task, create new processes and methods and generate ideas that will hopefully threaten existing products and services. Based on that description, don't you think they need great communication skills? This means both the skills to speak to the executives as well as to inform the team and the general population.
If your team is forming, or you are considering building an innovation program, now is a good time to write the job description of the innovation leader. Part Gary Cooper, Part Dr. Phil and fully committed to success.
Tags: innovation capability senior management team innovation capabilities innovation initiative innovation team drew boyd innovation programs innovation leader sustainable innovation part timers employment pages organization culture team mate academic research eloquence time basis soapbox sidekick team leader academics
Six Sigma and Innovation
The recent business week article on 3M discussed an interesting point about tension between Six Sigma and Innovation. James McNerney, former CEO of 3M rolled out six sigma after taking over 3M. The stock market rewarded his initiative but many feel that the company lost its innovative touch. The basic question is " Can six sigma and innovation co-exist in an organization?"
On the surface, there is an inherent tension between Six Sigma and Innovation. Six Sigma aims to take any uncertainities (variability) out of a process while innovation by definition induces uncertainities.
However, six sigma and innovation are both essential for an organization. Six sigma impacts the bottomline while innovation grows the top line. Big companies like P&G and GE have gone on record saying that they are looking for 4-6% organic growth (~growing revenues by billions of dollars every year). They are not going to do this by compromising on process efficiency (six sigma). Can you imagine GE moving away from Six Sigma?
Companies will have to manage both going forward. One has to create different process, structure and culture within a company to efficiently manage both. A recent HBR article by Michael Tushman of Harvard and Charles O' Reilly of Stanford acknowledges the paradox of exploitative versus explorative efforts. Their conclusion is that successful companies are able to separate innovation efforts from continuous improvement efforts.
I do think that a company has to master the art of managing both six sigma and innovation to be competitive.
On the surface, there is an inherent tension between Six Sigma and Innovation. Six Sigma aims to take any uncertainities (variability) out of a process while innovation by definition induces uncertainities.
However, six sigma and innovation are both essential for an organization. Six sigma impacts the bottomline while innovation grows the top line. Big companies like P&G and GE have gone on record saying that they are looking for 4-6% organic growth (~growing revenues by billions of dollars every year). They are not going to do this by compromising on process efficiency (six sigma). Can you imagine GE moving away from Six Sigma?
Companies will have to manage both going forward. One has to create different process, structure and culture within a company to efficiently manage both. A recent HBR article by Michael Tushman of Harvard and Charles O' Reilly of Stanford acknowledges the paradox of exploitative versus explorative efforts. Their conclusion is that successful companies are able to separate innovation efforts from continuous improvement efforts.
I do think that a company has to master the art of managing both six sigma and innovation to be competitive.
February 25, 2008
David Ogilvy on Creativity and Success
“It takes a big idea to attract the attention of consumers and get them to buy your product,” wrote Ogilvy. “Unless your advertising contains a big idea, it will pass like a ship in the night. I doubt if more than one campaign in a hundred contains a big idea.” Ogilvy was an advertising executive who praised the virtues of creativity; if an ad didn’t sell, it was because it wasn’t creative. His years of experience taught him that people were not going to buy a product if the ad was boring; only interest and curiosity would entice people to buy.
Ogilvy became the most sought-after advertising man because he understood precisely what it was that made an ad appealing. Take, for instance, his now famous campaign for Hathaway, a Maine-based shirt manufacturer. Ogilvy created a man with an eye patch, who appeared to be a sophisticated eccentric. The eye patch came to be the man’s signature garment, even though it was the Hathaway shirt he was meant to be selling. In the end, the character had become such an icon that Hathaway ads could be run without even mentioning the brand’s name and the company’s revenues tripled within just a few years.
In addition to having a creative idea, Ogilvy believed that “the most important decision is how to position your product.” His campaign for Dove soap, which he positioned with the phrase “one-quarter cleansing cream”, became one of the most successful and enduring ads of his career. However, Ogilvy also understood that positioning meant little if the rest of the ad was a flop. “A lot of today's campaigns are based on optimum positioning but are totally ineffective - because they are dull, or badly constructed, or ineptly written,” said Ogilvy. “If nobody reads your advertisement or looks at your commercial, it doesn't do you much good to have the right positioning.”
While Ogilvy didn’t believe that such “aesthetic intangibles” as “balance” and “movement” of an ad had an impact on its effectiveness, he did have certain creative techniques to make an ad more visually appealing. For instance, Ogilvy would often make the logo twice the size – “a good thing to do because most advertisements are deficient in brand identification.” On the other hand, he never made headlines too big to be legible in magazines or newspapers. He would also show his client’s faces “because the public is more interested in personalities than in corporations.”
Other Ogilvy techniques included studying and imitating graphics used by editors, since “it has been found that the less an advertisement looks like an advertisement, and the more it looks like an editorial, the more readers stop, look and read.” He would place photographs at the top of his ads, given that “people have a habit of scanning downwards,” and also learned that there is little value in saying something without illustrating it because “the viewer immediately forgets it.”
Ogilvy believed in making an ad creative, yet always in good taste. “There are very few products which do not benefit from being given a first class ticket through life,” he once said. Not everyone was going to agree with his strategies, but Ogilvy believed that “if you are too thin-skinned to survive this hazard, you should not become an account executive in an advertising agency.”
Sponsored By: Brand Aid
Marty Neumeier on Creativity
While rummaging through some marketing books for a research project, I dug up this tasty quote for us marketers...
November 18, 2007
Does your leadership "suck"?
John McKenna at the Leadership Epidemic blog has posed a question and asked for responses from a number of bloggers. His main thesis is that most leadership sucks. I guess I'll have to differ with him in this case, since I find little indication of leadership in most of the firms I work in.
It will help to start by defining our terms. To me, leadership is defined by the ability to create a vision that stretches your team's or organization's ability, and demands more than exists today. A good leader helps others overcome their uncertainty and fears. A good leader identifies the best traits in each of us and attempts to capitalize on those traits. A good leader is understands the possibilities in his or her vision and works hard to achieve those for himself, his company, his country, and so forth.
Now, in that context, there are few true leaders in most businesses, since it is impossible to pursue more than a handful of "visions" or strategies in any business without complete chaos. Most senior executives in businesses are "managers" - that is, they understand the vision and attempt to implement it to the best of their understanding. They don't create the vision, and in most cases don't fully back it or understand it, but are doing their best to implement the vision. In any context, in any organization, there can be a maximum of one leader in this regard, however, in most firms there aren't any real leaders. Most CEOs are pragmatists, guided by Wall Street and expected earning and returns. Some leaders, like Jack Welch for instance, became recognized because he had a vision and pleased the street. Some leaders, like Steve Jobs, have been recognized for their vision but have had up and down experiences - most likely because they could not communicate their vision effectively to a solid management team below them. In many other firms, however, it is difficult to identify who is responsible for creating a vision and encouraging people to follow his or her vision. I'm working right now in a Fortune 500 company where no one can even tell me what the 3 to 5 year strategic plan is.
We've managed to dumb down a lot of leadership as well, by increasing focus on process excellence and Six Sigma. These tools aren't wrong, they just create such a micro-focus that eventually no one in the organization is looking beyond the next Type 1 or Type 2 issue. I like to say that we have plenty of 90 day leaders, but few 3 year leaders - if by these designations we mean their focus and scope of influence. Now that many firms have optimized their costs, they need to turn their attention to the bigger challenges of growth and differentiation, which requires leadership and risk.
Within a function or team, anyone can be a leader. I've worked for charismatic types who understood leadership beyond mere platitudes. Many of the best leaders I've worked with and for came from military backgrounds. What's established in the military is the importance of the team and individual, and officers in the military understand that they come last - the team comes first. Many of these leaders demonstrate that leadership by determining a plan and helping the rest of the team understand the plan and their place in it. These leaders seek the best from their team, build camaraderie and demonstrate leadership by taking the toughest roles and not asking anyone to do something they wouldn't do.
Leadership doesn't suck in most organizations. It is not apparent in most organizations or is stifled by the short term expectations of investors, which creates a quarterly driven mentality. The best place today to find true leaders in businesses is in smaller, private firms. Also, the military does an excellent job of producing individuals who are capable of great leadership, but the military as well is awfully sensitive to public pressure, the media and so forth, so many of the leaders are tamped down to align to political and public sensitivities.
Building Winning Brands: Summarized
We've spent the past few months exploring the sixteen things that you must do to create a winning brand.
You can find a summary of each here. Let's take another look...
1. Brands are personifications of organizations, products, services and experiences and they are the source of relationships.
2. Top management support is crucial to a brand’s success.
3. A brand’s identity must be frequently and consistently presented.
4. Profound customer knowledge is essential to building winning brands.
5. The brand and its products and services must exceed customer expectations.
6. Brand building begins with awareness.
7. Relevant differentiation drives customer brand insistence.
8. A brand should strive to evoke emotions and create sensory experiences.
9. A brand should exhibit admirable human qualities.
10. A brand must stand for something.
11. Constant product and service innovation build strong brands.
12. A brand should strive to create a sense of community.
13. The corporate culture must reinforce the brand essence, promise and personality.
14. Internal brand building is essential to external brand building.
15. Front line employees are key to a brand’s success.
16. Co-creating a brand with its customers will help the brand continue to thrive.
If you implement each of these 16 concepts in your organization, I guarantee you that your brand will win in its marketplace.
You will know that your brand is winning in the marketplace when…
• The brand is mentioned to customers and potential customers, and they brim with enthusiasm in their response.
• Your brand’s external messages “ring true” with all employees.
• Employees are enthusiastic and consistent in recounting what makes their brand special.
• The brand’s market share is increasing.
• Competitors always mention your brand as a point of reference.
• The press can’t seem to write enough about your brand.
• Your CEO has a strong vision for the organization and its brand.
He or she talks more about the vision than financial targets.
• Your organization’s leaders always seem to “talk the brand” and “walk the brand talk.”
Now you know the 16 most important things that you must do to create winning brands. May you unleash your brand’s power and transform your organization through branding.
Sponsored By: Brand Aid
November 12, 2007
washington car insurance quote, free insurance life quote whole, annuity online quote
http://lifefinanceinsurance.com - health insurance quote wisconsin - buying an annuity - disability insurance company
short term disability insurance - cost insurance life low - long term care policy
http://lifefinanceinsurance.com - apartment renters insurance - health insurance online quote - disability insurance life quote
November 11, 2007
Second Life Will Revolutionize New Product Development and Engineering
Matthew Traum of Design News has an interesting article on how the virtual world of Second Life may dramatically impact new product development and engineering design. Excerpts: “First there was the drafting table and the pencil. Then there was 2-D CAD; next came 3-D drafting utilities like SolidWorks and ProEngineer. Now, San Francisco-based Linden Lab has evolved computer-aided design to its next plateau, offering free access to a computer-generated alternative universe called Second Life (SL) where users can build anything. Ironically, the SL developers did not intend to design a solid modeling tool. SL was just another massive multiplayer online experience until users spontaneously began utilizing it for engineering design.
“It as serious development tool,” says Assistant Professor Chang Liu (a.k.a. Chang Tuxing in SL) of the Virtual Immersive Technologies and Arts for Learning (VITAL) Lab. at Ohio University. “Second Life is just emerging into the mainstream and a lot of engineers are not there yet,” says Pam Broviak, PE, (a.k.a. Pam Renoir in SL) public works director and city engineer for La Salle, IL. “When I show engineers Second Life, their initial reaction is ‘it is just a game’ because it looks like a game. They have to get beyond that.”…..
Using her SL identity, “Pam Renoir,” Broviak manages the Second Life Public Works Resource Center, one of the first destinations in the metaverse focused on applying SL to real-world engineering. The Center serves as a clearing house for information related to engineering and public works in SL. Broviak has also been using SL in her engineering practice to design plumbing systems. …..Unlike real world piping, Broviak’s plumbing system now exists in cyber space, where it can be used as a kind of 3-D wiki. Engineers, plumbers and homeowners can use Broviak’s design as a template, modifying it for their own applications. Broviak imagines that eventually an entire 3-D library of plumbing solutions could be accessible to engineers visiting Second Life….. “What takes it further than conventional 3-D drafting tools is the level of interaction,” Broviak says. “Once you build something, you can pick it up or walk through it; its immersive, like the object is really there. You can’t do that with CAD.”
Ohio University has used SL to create a complete virtual engineering college, including a building slated for future construction. At this SL campus, engineering and computer science courses are taught in parallel with real-world counterparts. “One of our buildings won’t exist for another year, but my students already had a class in it,” Liu says. “First we tried to replicate buildings exactly, but then we learned it was better to modify them from the original to make them more functional in Second Life.”
For now, Broviak and Liu are engineering pioneers within SL; among the first to embrace this immersive alternate reality as a serious tool for real-world engineering design. Nonetheless, they share a vision for how SL may soon be used once its capabilities and scope are discovered and exploited by engineers.
“I see Second Life being used as the first step in the planning process for many future engineering design projects,” Broviak says. “Building something in there does not take a lot of time. Companies will soon discover that much of their initial design work can be accomplished in-world where everyone has a chance to use it and comment on it before anything is actually built.”
Broviak also foresees manufacturers and suppliers setting up virtual storefronts in SL where engineers can browse and specify parts for their projects. Potential buyers will interact with 3-D computer-generated components instead of thumbing through a 2-D catalogue or Web browser. Companies could even build large versions of their products embedded with interactive scripts to enable customers to walk through and see how the internal components function. Liu sees SL as a pathway to reduce production cycle time and increase user input earlier in the development process.
“Normally what designers are doing is not accessible to users,” he says. “But, Second Life is different in the sense that products are built in-world, which totally changes the dynamic. Creation is no longer the work of a developer.”
Link to full article: http://www.designnews.com/index.asp?layout=article...
Students not prepared for the innovation economy
A nationwide poll of registered voters reveals that Americans are deeply concerned that the United States is not preparing young people with the skills they need to compete in the global economy. An overwhelming 80 percent of voters say that the kind of skills students need to learn to be prepared for the jobs of the 21st century is different from what they needed 20 years ago. Yet 60 percent say that schools have done only a fair or poor job keeping up with changing educational needs.
The national poll was conducted by Public Opinion Strategies and Peter D. Hart Research Associates on behalf of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Among the other key findings:
• Eighty-eight percent of voters say they believe that schools can and should incorporate 21st century skills such as including critical thinking and problem-solving skills, computer and technology skills, and communication and self-direction skills into their curriculum.
• Sixty-six percent of voters say they believe that students need more than just the basics of reading, writing and math; schools also need to incorporate a broader range of skills.
• Fifty-three percent say they believe schools should place an equal emphasis on 21st century skills and basic skills.
“The loud and clear message from this poll is that Americans recognize the need for our schools to help our students get back ahead of the curve in quickly changing world,” said Geoffrey Garin, Peter D. Hart Research Associates. “Right now, far more Americans view us as falling behind other countries in this regard than see us as taking the lead.”
“We now know that employers and the public are united in their understanding of what it takes to compete today,” said Partnership President Ken Kay. “These results provide education leaders and policymakers the tremendous opportunity to make our education system more aligned with the needs of the 21st century workforce. The public strongly supports more rigorous expectations for students that integrate 21st century skills into core academic subjects.”
“The industrial model of education is glaringly inadequate for the 21st century innovation economy. We cannot compete with a narrow scope of disciplinary skills. The education system should give more emphasis to problem solving, systems thinking, interactive learning, integrating multiple disciplines, self direction, learn-to-learn skills, integrity and ethics,” comments Egils Milbergs, president, Center for Accelerating Innovation. He noted that “immersive virtual environments such as Second Life hold great potential to dramatically expand student competencies and learning beyond the typical classroom."
Visit the Partnership for 21st Century Skill’s website for more information on the poll and 21st century skills, www.21stcenturyskills.org . Read a summary of the poll results www.21stcenturyskills.org/documents/oct._10_launch_slides.ppt
Bruce Nussbaum's Innovation Gym
I recently had a chance to catch up with BusinessWeek's Bruce Nussbaum who was a good enough sport to go ahead and share a his "innovation gym" story with us on video. What I like about Bruce is that he's not afraid to stir up the pot. Apparently, he caused a bit a scene at BusinessWeek by taking down photos of CEO's in order to put up imagery that would stimulate his staff as they worked on the inaugural issue of INside Innovation.
The video clip is only two minutes long and I suggest you watch it. Bruce obviously peppers in a bit of humor as he reflects upon his experience trying to create his own version of innovation INside the historic walls of the McGraw Hill building—but I'll bet you one thing. I bet you have a story just like this. Maybe even a couple. If that's the case—you're doing something right.
UK Invests in Innovation to "Race to the Top"
The UK government will invest £1bn in business innovation and technology development over the next three years through the newly established technology strategy board (TSB). The strategy is aimed at positioning Britain as a key knowledge economy at the forefront of 21st century innovation and is based on a report by Lord Sainsbury of Turville entitled “The Race to the Top” (published October 5). The report states that the best way for the UK to compete in this age of globalization, is to move into high-value goods and services, for which an efficient and effective science and innovation ecosystem is vital.
Originally commissioned by Gordon Brown, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, as part of the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review, the review was directed to look at the role that science and innovation can play in enabling the country to compete against low-wage, emerging economies such as China and India. The report revealed that while the UK’s record of innovation is better than is commonly supposed, the UK has not yet produced the best possible conditions to stimulate innovation in industry. Company strategies based solely on low costs will end in a downward spiral, each year bringing a new low-cost competitor. As Lord Sainsbury's review points out, global competition shouldn't be a 'race to the bottom', to see who can produce things the cheapest. It should be a 'race to the top', where we draw in the best and brightest researchers to help tap into new, high-value markets, based on our talent, infrastructure and innovation."
The announcement comes as the TSB announced 75 new collaborative R&D projects worth £42 million. Businesses were invited to bid for the funding last year in areas of innovation such as bioscience, healthcare, energy efficiency and low carbon technologies.
Key recommendations were the development of a national "proof-of-concept fund" and more flexible 'knowledge transfer programs' (KTPs) to help firms to gain funding and personnel as they grow. In addition, Lord Sainsbury recommended that the Small Business Research Innovation (SBRI) scheme should be reformed to adopt the principles used by the US's successful Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) scheme. The report also called for increasing international collaborations to help attract researchers from abroad and link British researchers with the best and brightest researchers globally and expand links with leading scientific nations. The report highlights the importance of a skilled workforce, claiming that training is a key part of any innovation 'ecosystem' and should be a key priority for policy-makers. Proposals to improve the teaching of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects were also highlighted in the review, as well as new measures to improve collaboration between academia and industry.
Further information about the Sainsbury Review can be found on the Treasury website
LINK: PDF file of The Race to the Top: A Review of Government’s Science and Innovation Policies (798KB)
Are today’s organizations creating hardworking Idiots?
Maybe corporations do get what they deserve
The German World War II general Erich von Manstein is said to have categorized his officers into four types.
The first type, he said, is lazy and stupid. His advice was to leave them alone because they don’t do any harm.
The second type is hard-working and clever. He said that they make great officers because they ensure everything runs smoothly.
The third group is composed of hardworking idiots. Von Manstein said that you must immediately get rid of these, as they force everyone around them to perform pointless tasks.
The fourth category are officers who are lazy and clever. These, he says, should be your generals.
Discovering this information set me to wondering how General von Manstein’s categories might apply to business organizations today.
The lazy and stupid ones
Most organizations have some managers within them who are lazy and stupid—at least, that has been my experience. Although they claim they try to get rid of any employee who is found to be lazy, let alone stupid as well, they don’t seem to be so successful, judging by the number who are left—some even in fairly exalted positions.
Maybe one reason for this is that lazy and stupid people rarely do much active harm. The harm they do is more often based on missing opportunities and stifling the creativity of those who report to them. Bad enough, but not always easy to turn into clear grounds for dismissal—especially if the person in question is protected by someone powerful. Still, my guess is that even lazy and stupid people today realize that the best route to self-preservation is at least to appear busy and active.
The hardworking and clever ones
Von Manstein’s next group is made up of hardworking, clever people. Organizations mostly want as many of these as they can get, for obvious reasons. But you’ll notice that the general seems to confine them to the military equivalent of middle management: jobs that are aimed at making everything run smoothly.
I suspect one reason is that such people do make excellent administrators. They can take orders from above and turn them into practical ways of achieving the desired results. Some are so useful in these roles that they are never allowed to rise higher. Others maybe want to progress, but lack something that—at least in von Manstein’s view—is essential to become a good general. That something, it seems, is laziness. He wants the choice of generals to be made from people who are clever, naturally, but also lazy. Why should that make them better top executives?
The lazy and clever ones
One reason might be that laziness is the principal spur to creativity. Lazy people are always looking for easier, simpler, and less arduous ways to do things. If they are also clever, the chances are that they will find them, and make them available to everyone else.
Lazy people are also natural delegators, and find it very attractive to let their subordinates get on with their work without interference from above. Lazy, but bright, generals would be likely to make sure they focused on the essentials and ignored anything that might make for unnecessary work, whether for themselves or other people. In fact, it’s hard to see why you would not want your top managers to be as lazy as they are clever. It would indeed make them great strategists and leaders of people.
The hardworking idiots
Now to the last group: the ones von Manstein said that you should get rid of immediately. That group is made up of people who are hardworking idiots. He says such people force those around them into pointless activities.
I don’t know about you, but I suffered from several bosses I would unhesitatingly put into precisely that category. They were extremely hardworking—and demanded the same from their subordinates—but what they set others to work on (and what they spent their own time in doing) was mostly worthless.
Today’s fast-paced, macho style of organizational culture creates, and then fosters, the hardworking idiot. Indeed, I think it takes a great many sound, useful, hardworking, and clever people and turns them into idiots by denying them the time or the opportunity to think or use their brains.
If you don’t look busy all the time, you’re virtually asking for a pink slip, never mind what it is that you are doing—or whether it is actually of any use to the organization or its customers. It’s all so rushed and frenetic. If all that matters is “meeting the numbers” and getting things done (whatever those things are), managers will be forced into working hard at projects that they know make no sense.
The dumbing down of organizations
The dumbing down of organizations isn’t caused by poor educational standards or faulty recruitment. It’s due mostly to the crazy pace that is set, and the obsessive focus on the most obvious, rigidly short-term objectives. The result is a sharp increase in hardworking idiots: people who are coerced into long hours and constant busyness, while being systematically forced to act like idiots by the culture around them.
Don’t ask questions. Don’t cause problems by thinking, or waste time on coming up with new ideas. Don’t think about the future, or try to anticipate problems before they arise. Just keep at it, do exactly what is expected of you, and always get the most done in the least amount of time and at the lowest cost. If von Manstein is correct, the result will be that more and more employees will be used to perform essentially pointless tasks. Isn’t that exactly what we see?
I think that even a fairly cursory look around most organizations today would confirm the accuracy of this observation. Consider all the time wasted in unnecessary meetings. The obsessive emphasis on staying in touch, regardless of need. The torrents of e-mails, most of which are simply copies of documents of no direct relevance to the people to whom they are sent. The constant collecting of data for no clear reason. Management by numbers and motivation by numerically-based performance measures. Trust replaced by obsessive control and leadership by forced ranking of subordinates against vague criteria determined by committees with no idea of the specific circumstances.
You do not need ethical insight or human understanding to operate a machine, and machines are how many of today’s leaders see their organization: machines for making quick profits, not civilized communities of people working together to a common end. We can only hope some organizations at least see the error of their ways before the hardworking idiot becomes the commonest creature in the hierarchy.
It’s no fun to be forced to deny your own intelligence on a daily basis. We can still reverse the trend, but only by dropping the current out-dated dogmas, dangerous half truths, and total nonsense that disfigure management thinking. Let’s do it before it is too late
How creativity is being strangled by the law: Larry Lessig on TED.com
Larry Lessig gets TEDsters to their feet, whooping and whistling, for this elegant presentation of “three stories and an argument.” The Net’s most adored lawyer brings together John Philip Sousa, celestial copyrights, and the “ASCAP cartel” to build a case for creative freedom. He pins down the key shortcomings of our dusty, pre-digital intellectual property laws, and reveals how bad laws beget bad code. Then, in an homage to cutting-edge artistry, he throws in some of the most hilarious remixes you’ve ever seen. (This talk, like all TED.com's content, is licensed under Creative Commons -- which Larry created.) (Recorded March 2007 in Monterey, California. Duration: 19:07.)
Watch Larry Lessig's talk on TED.com, where you can download it, rate it, comment on it and find other talks and performances.
Read more about Larry Lessig on TED.com.
Embed this video: Use this code to run the video on your own site:
November 05, 2007
Osborn: Creative Problem-Solving Process
Alex Osborn is the "O" in the agency BBDO. In 1953, he wrote a book entitled "Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem-Solving." He was one of the first - if not the first - to write about the practical application of brainstorming and creative problem-solving (CPS). Here is how he outlines the CPS process...
(begin quote)
The creative problem-solving process ideally comprises these procedures: (1) Fact-finding. (2) Idea-finding. (3) Solution-finding.
Fact-finding calls for problem-definition and preparation. Problem-definition calls for picking out and pointing up the problem. Preparation calls for gathering and analyzing the pertinent data.
Idea-finding calls for idea-production and idea-development. Idea production calls for thinking up tentative ideas as possible leads. Idea-development calls for selecting the most likely of the resultant ideas, adding others, and reprocessing all of these by such means as modification and combination.
Solution-finding calls for evaluation and adoption. Evaluation calls for verifying the tentative solutions, by tests and otherwise. Adoption calls for deciding on, and implementing, the final solution.
Regardless of sequence, every one of those steps calls for deliberate effort and creative imagination.
(end quote)
The United States, Switzerland, Denmark and Sweden on top of the Global Competitiveness Index
The annual Global Competitiveness Index has been released and the United States tops the overall ranking in The Global Competitiveness Report 2007-2008, released by the World Economic Forum. Switzerland is in second position followed by Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Finland and Singapore, respectively. Chile is the highest ranked country in Latin America, followed by Mexico and Costa Rica. China and India continue to lead the way among large developing economies. Several countries in the Middle East and North Africa region are in the upper half of the rankings, led by Israel, Kuwait, Qatar, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. In sub-Saharan Africa, only South Africa and Mauritius feature in the top half of the rankings, with several countries from the region positioned at the very bottom.
“The United States confirms its position as the most competitive economy in the world. The efficiency of the country’s markets, the sophistication of its business community, the impressive capacity for technological innovation that exists within a first-rate system of universities and research centers, all contribute to making the United States a highly competitive economy. However, some weaknesses, particularly related to macroeconomic imbalances, continue to present a risk to the country’s overall competitiveness potential, and to the global economy as a whole. This danger has most recently been demonstrated by the fallout and contagion caused by the country’s sub-prime mortgage crisis and the ensuing global credit crunch,” said Xavier Sala-i-Martin, Professor of Economics at Columbia University and Co-Editor of the Report.
The GCI is based on 12 pillars of competitiveness, providing a comprehensive picture of the competitiveness landscape in countries around the world at all stages of development. The pillars include: Institutions, Infrastructure, Macroeconomic Stability, Health and Primary Education, Higher Education and Training, Goods Market Efficiency, Labor Market Efficiency, Financial Market Sophistication, Technological Readiness, Market Size, Business Sophistication and Innovation.
Egils Milbergs of the Center for Accelerating Innovation commented: “The WEF report findings for the US on the whole are very positive. But this is no time for complacency. Other nations have made innovation a strategic priority. We need to up our game by designing a new generation learning system, rewarding creativity with innovation prizes, investing in innovation ecosystems and implementing policies conducive to longer term innovation and risk-taking by the private sector.”
The GCI Rankings in full
Country Background Links
US
Switzerland
Denmark
Sweden
Germany
Finland
Singapore
Japan
UK
Netherlands
November 03, 2007
How Serious Corporations Use Games at Work
Sears Retail Training has used a game to help its 10,000 sales associates improve customer experience in stores. More.
Business Week in its special report: "Companies around the world, including McKinsey & Co., Royal Philips Electronics, and Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development are bringing games with 3D computer graphics into the workplace to appeal to the generation raised on Nintendo, World of Warcraft, and Second Life. They are using games to recruit new talent, improve communication between managers and their far-flung staff, and train employees and new hires at all levels."
Innovation Zen
Need more proof that passion rules? Check out PostSecret. Started as an art project Post Secret has morphed into the largest ad-free blog on the Internet. A blog where people send in their secrets. Strangly voyeuristic and extremly personal, the website is about passion; the fuel that drives our loves and hates. The fuel that drives everything.
I have decided to take my own advice; that I shouldn't think a product should work, I should know it will work. I am missing a delivery date in order to make another prototype. I'll take my lumps now, but I know I am making good product.
I have decided to take my own advice; that I shouldn't think a product should work, I should know it will work. I am missing a delivery date in order to make another prototype. I'll take my lumps now, but I know I am making good product.
The Buffalo Bills have got something special going on. I said it back in August, and it is still true today. With the emergence of Trent Edwards, Marshawn Lynch, and Lee Evans the Bills have the makings of a Super Bowl Contender. My buddy has made me promise that when the Bills make it to the next Superbowl we have to be in attendance. He has agreed that we will also go to the parade when they when. BTW, doesn't count if the team is no longer in Buffalo
Innovation is not hard. It takes some smart people, who treat each other with respect, and are willing to work hard to try something different. It really is that simple. Note: It gets much harder when you skip the respecting each other part.
LEGO, mass customization, and open innovation
As part of a mini series looking into open innovation, we have a look at LEGO Factory. Just over two years ago LEGO announced LEGO Factory, a service that lets users build their own virtual LEGO models with the free LEGO Digital Designer software. These models can then be ordered from LEGO and are shipped in custom packaging (for a custom price). In addition, users can upload their models to a gallery to share with the community of users, if the LEGO Factory Team deems the model appropriate. From the gallery users can purchase other users’ creations as a real set or download the model to view or modify.
In his post on LEGO Factory, Frank Piller describes the combination of mass customization and a user community to share customized products as real open innovation at LEGO. While LEGO has facilitated the process of realizing your own designs, haven’t users been realizing their own designs all along? When playing with sets designed by LEGO in the pre-customization days, one would generally build the model according to LEGO’s instructions, play with it a while, and take it apart to start building whatever one wanted. The fun was in building whatever one wanted with whichever bricks were around. LEGO users always built custom models (at least I did). Decades later LEGO finally caught on and cashed in. Using users’ designs to make money may be a form of open innovation, but using LEGO bricks to create custom models is really nothing new.