Category Archives: old Enterprise 2.0

We are all expectation machines

Christmas presents

Unlearning is potentially more important than learning{{1}} as it allows us to sweep away concepts and preferences that are now longer relevant, clearing the way for us to learn something new which doesn’t sit well with what we previously knew. But why is unlearning so hard? It’s because we’re trained from birth to favour ideas and experiences that align with our expectations, and abhor those that clash with them. The real challenge is to manage our expectations, as we’re all expectation machines.

[[1]]Unlearning is the most important thing @ PEG[[1]]

Continue reading We are all expectation machines

Unlearning is the most important thing

After class

We’ve all become obsessed with learning over the last few years. The world is changing quite rapidly and we need to constantly learn new tricks if we want to keep up with the market we work in. Learning the new-new thing is often seen as the key to success. This attitude has it all backwards; it’s not learning that is the challenge, it’s our ability to unlearn that’s holding many of us back.

Continue reading Unlearning is the most important thing

Three questions you need to ask

There's three questions you need to ask yourself before you invest a large chunk of cash in some enterprise application:

  • Can I use something, rather than configuring something, rather than customising something?
  • How will the solution support the (social) community who will use it?
  • Is there a reason why I can't buy the solution ‘on-demand’ via SaaS?

Continue reading Three questions you need to ask

You don’t need a social media strategy

Social media has entered the mainstream and the consultants and gurus are out there telling everyone that they absolutely must have a social media strategy. It's rare for a week to go by without hearing of another company wondering about the wisdom of their new blog, Facebook page and Twitter account, part of a social media strategy someone has sold them. I find this all quite mad. If social media has gone main stream then it has changed from being a tool that you might choose to use to add value, to become something that you cannot afford to ignore if you want to keep up. This doesn't mean that you need a social media strategy though. What you need is a communication strategy. Adding social media to the mix doesn't excuse you from working to understand who you want to communicate with, where they are and what you want to say to them. Social media will be a part of this strategy but it won't be the only thing, and its not a reason to ignore the fundamentals.

Continue reading You don’t need a social media strategy

On the process of writing

I happen to have set that sentence down in the old, slow way by hand. If I had used a computer, I might have got it down in a third, a quarter of the time. But like a good many writers, even this far into the twenty-first century, I find that the pace at which I work in longhand – at which my arm, my hand moves in the act of writing – has what is for me a “natural” relationship to the speed at which my mind works and I do not to let go of a relationship that seems peculiarly mine. Writing by hand slows the thought process, allowing thinking to think again, mid-through, and leaving open the possibility of second thoughts. It has an effect too on syntax, on the way a sentence gets shaped.

—David Malouf, The Happy Life, Quarterly Essay QE41

How should we measure out people?

We all know the old adage:

What get’s measured is what get’s done.

However, if you constrain your measurement of your employees’ performance to counting the goals they score, then you’re doing most of your team a disservice. While their hand might not have been the last to touch the ball before it landed in the goal, supporting players often make vital contributions. If there was no one there to pass the ball to the player in front of the goal, then there would never have been a goal.

Most sports take this into account and include “assists” (passes that help another player score) in the statistics they collect. This broader approach allows us to measure individuals based on their main roll on the playing field: number of goals scored for a shooter, number of assists for those on the wing, number of deflected shots for a defender, and so on. Unfortunately, this too has it’s own problems.

What is the best option for someone playing on the wing, someone who finds themselves in possession of the ball, in front of the opposition’s goal, and with none of the opposing team anywhere near them? Should they take a shot at goal? Or should they wait for a shooter to catch up, potentially along with players from the opposing team, and pass the ball to the shooter? Intuition tell us they should do the former: take the easy shot and score the goal. A bird in the hand is better than one in bush. Logic, however, tells the wing to wait for the shooter: pass the ball and count the assist. While taking the shot might have a higher chance of scoring a goal (and potential winning the game), in the longer term the wing is thinking about their career, and their future as a wing is determined by their ability to collect assists, not goals. Sometimes the metrics we put in place encourage undesirable behaviours.

Simple, single dimensional measures are attractive as they seem to allow us to quantify the world, and our team’s performance. The problem is that the world isn’t quite so simple. Our measures often set individual interests against those of the team. Rather than forming a team which is working together toward a common goal, we’ve created created a group of individuals who’s personal goals can often be in conflict with the team’s best interests.

What we really want to measure is how effective each team member’s contribution was. Given the opportunities presented to them, did they make the best, most effective, use of them? Was waiting for the shooter and then taking the assist the most effective thing they could do for the team? This depends on the context of the assist. If the shooter – a more accurate player – was only a couple of steps behind, with the competition still somewhere at the other end of the court, then yes, it probably was. The shooter has a better chance of scoring and the opposition was is not a factor. If shooter arrives with the opposition or, even worse, after them, then no, the wing should take the shoot. Even though the shooter is more accurate, the confusion caused by the opposing team means that the shooter will have a lower chance of success when surrounded by the opposition, than the would wing standing there on their own.

Business works the same way. One of the dirty secrets of performance reviews is that they often reward the employees who manage to attach themselves to the most successful project or department, not the ones who make the best use of the opportunities presented to the business. For example, if you managed to work your way into SAP supply chain projects in the mid to late nineties, you could expect a nice pay rise and promotion at each performance review. The market was booming and each project you moved to would be bigger and better than the last, allowing you to consistently deliver over your performance targets. It’s not that you were performing better than any of your peers in other areas, it’s just that your domain grew more than theirs. We see a similar thing in the share market, where many companies like to pat themselves on the back for a good year, when in reality they didn’t do that well compared to the rest of the market.

What we’re looking for is not the player with the highest statistics, the player with the most goals or assists. We want the most effective player, the one who can create the greatest advantage of the opportunities presented too them, using their own skills and those of the people around them. Rather than promote the people who float up with a rising market, we need to find those people who are more effective than their peers, and put them in a position where they can lift the performance of the entire business. The people who can deliver outlier performance.

Problems and the people who solve them

Note: This is the sixth and final part of a longer series on how social media is affecting management. You can find the earlier posts – The future of (knowledge) work, Knowledge Workers in the British Raj, The north-south divide, Working in Hollywood and World of Warcraft in the workplace – elsewhere on this blog.

What impact will Social Media have on your business? Is it evolution, revolution, or a non-event? It’s hard to deny that Social Media is changing how we understand the role of government, and how we interact on the social commons. But what is its impact on the private sphere: the gated communities which are our businesses and organizations? Some folk claim that we’ll see a similar shift in the private sphere as we’re seeing in the public one. A revolution in the workplace as the workers realize that they really do control production, downing tools in search of a better deal and conditions.

This point of view ignores two key facts. First, that private spaces are, by their nature, more flexible than public as we are free to define who can inhabit them. Revolution is unlikely. Business owners still need someone to hold accountable for the performance and behavior of their businesses, just as regulators and governments want to ensure that someone in the organisation is on the hook for meeting their demands. Management will continue to manage, and to be held accountable, no matter how empowered the workforce becomes{{1}}. Second, that the technologies we’re deploying don’t just change how we carry out the tasks our businesses needs, as they also change what tasks we need to carry out. There is no reason for tomorrow’s organizations to operate within the same framework that yesterday’s ones did.

[[1]]The future of (knowledge) work @ PEG[[1]]

The nature of work is changing, and the shift in work practices looks like it will be comparable to the shift we saw during the Industrial Revolution – between the 18th and 19th centuries – when almost every aspect of daily life was influenced in some way. Before the Industrial Revolution people worked from their homes, farming or blacksmithing as the need arose, and the concept of work-life balance hadn’t found its way into the dictionary. After the revolution most people worked in vast bureaucracies, leaving home every morning to travel to work (or, early on, living in vast company owned dormitories next to their work) and fit themselves to into the tasks demanded of them.

The Industrial Revolution gave us Taylorism, a view of business which equates the organization to a vast programmable machine. Businesses were inward looking, intent on improving their internal operations. Optimizing business was the challenge of defining the perfect sequence of tasks, each carefully sculpted to deliver maximum value at minimum cost, and then selecting and shaping employees to fit the tasks.

The environment business operates in today has changed dramatically since Frederick Taylor created scientific management. The world used to be fairly stable; you wore the same clothing styles (more or less) as your parents before you, as would your children following after. Today, however, the environment changes significantly every year, if not every month or week. Nowhere is this more evident than with the creation of fast fashion, with Zara flipping the company’s supply chain on it head to optimise time from runway to shelf rather than cost, swapping the seasonal fashion collection for a constant stream of new products and driving new customer behaviours in the process.

The stability business used to rely on has given way to a more uncertain environment; the predictable progression of the business seasons in a temperate climate exchanged for the unexpected and often unpredictable storms and hurricanes of a more tropical clime{{2}}. Our success used to rely on the quality of our toolkits – the business processes and assets at the heart of our business – as it is these toolkits that enabled us to survive the steady progression of the seasons. Today our success relies on our skill – our ability to leverage the on-demand services and capabilities we find around us – as it is our ability to adapt these tools we find around us to the unexpected threat or opportunity, that now determines our success.

[[2]]The North-South divide @ PEG[[2]]

The old, highly specialized and highly entailed experts we used to rely on are rapidly becoming a liability, and we’re incrementally replacing specialized skills with solutions, frameworks and on-demand services. From IBM’s first election toting machines built with repurposed punchcard readers from knitting mills, through early departmental computers (such a L.E.O., the Lyon’s Electronic Office) to the birth of enterprise IT (and client-server along with it) and more recent web technologies, the history of technology in business has been a story of slowly reifying layers of expertise in tools, enabling this expertise to be distributed and leveraged. Social Media is just the latest step in this evolution, the key difference being that it automates and streamlines the communication and collaboration between individuals, rather than tasks that these individuals work on.

Our companies are being hollowed out, their middle layers of management replaced by software and solutions. Rather than empowering middle management, Enterprise 2.0 and Social Business Design is eliminating them. Social Media is empowering the team at the front line and the executive to connect directly with each other, bypassing the many layers of middle management most organizations contain. They’re externally focused – the front line intent on tending our customers and delivering product, the executive focused on understanding the waves in the market and charting the business’s path forward – where middle management was internally focused, concerned with keeping the bureaucracy functioning, a bureaucracy that many organizations are in the process of dismantling. Similar to the rural Indian civil service in the British Raj{{3}}, we’re moving to flat, or even super-flat, organizational structures which swap the command-and-control of the past for clear objectives and the devolution of responsibility for decisions to the front line.

[[3]]Knowledge workers in the British Raj @ PEG[[3]]

Tomorrow’s business, after it has adopted Social Media, will not just be a new command-and control paradigm (bottom-up rather than top-down, distributed rather than centralized) retrofitted to our existing bureaucracies. Tomorrow’s business will be something different, smaller and much leaner, built from dynamically forming coalitions focused on achieving a common goal. The highly skilled specialists concerned with building the complex toolkits will become a thing of the past.

The transformation from large bureaucratic organizations to more fluid coalitions will result in a similar shift in work practices as we saw during the Industrial Revolution. We can already this the beginnings of this with companies starting to understand that their knowledge workers prefer to supply their own tools (such as mobile phones and laptops), as well as the current trend for organisations to restructure their contracts with suppliers, focusing on the outcome they want delivered rather than quality and cost. Smaller workforces holding more general skills will integrate themselves with a community of partners, suppliers and high value free agents, with the company functioning in a similar way to the studios in modern Hollywood{{4}}. The company sets the agenda by determining what problems it wants to focus on, while providing its staff and the broader community swirling around them with a platform to dynamically form teams around specific challenges and goals, World of Warcraft style{{5}}. Rather than defining the perfect task and then fitting the employee to the task, we need to define our goal and then assemble the perfect team to achieve that goal.

[[4]]Working in Hollywood @ PEG[[4]]
[[5]]World of Warcraft in the workplace @ PEG[[5]]

The most significant shift for our businesses is the transition from being knowledge using organizations, to knowledge creating organizations. While the world might be flat (as Thomas Friedman showed us{{6}}), with globalization and the Internet providing on-demand access to low cost products and services from around the globe, the world is also spikey (as Richard Florida claims{{7}}) as the need for localized and personalised services drive demand for unique and creative solutions which fit into a local context. The winners in this race will be the businesses that can marry the two.

[[6]]Thomas L. Friedman (2005), The World if Flat, Farrar, Straus & Giroux [[6]]
[[7]]Richard Florida (2005), The World is Spikey, The Atlantic [PDF][[7]]

Which brings us back to the impact of social media on your organization. It’s not a revolution that will remove the need for the C-level; someone still needs to sign the books and be held accountable to shareholders. Social media might tip the balance a little toward a more collective form of management, but it will not rewrite the rules overnight. Nor is it little more than better and more efficient groupware. Creating a social business is not simply rearranging the people (and power dynamics) or your existing business; it demands smaller, more dynamic teams with more potent and focused team members who might not be on your payroll full time.

What Social Media is doing is driving organizations to complete the shift started in the last few decades, moving from manufacturing centric enterprises to knowledge creating organisations.

The basic economic resource – ”the means of production,” to use the economist’s term – is no longer capital, nor natural resources (the economist’s “land”), nor “labor.” It is and will be knowledge. The central wealth-creating activities will be neither the allocation of capital to productive uses, nor “labor” – the two poles of nineteenth- and twentieth-century economic theory, whether classical, Marxist, Keynesian, or neo-classical. Value is now created by “productivity” and “innovation,” both applications of knowledge to work.

— Peter Drucker, The Post-Capitalist Society{{8}}

[[8]]Peter Drucker (1993), The Post-Capitalist Society, HarperCollins[[8]]

Historically companies have provided a locus to gather the capital, resources and skills required to provide the scale needed to manufacture products cheaply and efficiently. Today problems, the problems of our clients and customers, are increasingly becoming the focus of our organizations, as capital, resources and skills are commoditized, caught between globalization and the Internet. The strongest determinant of success in business today is the ability to solve problems that other people (and organizations) care about. Companies are transitioning from an internal focus to an external focus, intent on gathering the skilled craftsmen required to deliver the projects needed to solve the problems that the company concerns itself with. Companies are becoming the focal point for a network for skilled craftsmen and service providers who are required to solve the problems that the organisation is interested in.

Business is increasingly becoming a question of forming the right team, at the right time, in the right place, with the right tools to provide the best possible outcome. We’re also trying to achieve this in an environment where it is no longer feasible to own all the resources and people we need. Consequentially, success now depends on our ability to mobilize the resources and skills we need from across a broader network that includes not only our (few) employees, but our contractors, partners and even customers. Social media and social business are the tools that allow us to tweak our operating models to do this.

So the impact of social media on our businesses is to strip them back to their cores and (re)focus their energies on what really matters in a rapidly changing and unpredictable environment: problems and the people who solve them.

World of Warcraft in the workplace

Note: This is the fifth part of a longer series on how social media is affecting management. You can find the earlier posts – The future of (knowledge) work, Knowledge Workers in the British Raj, The north-south divide and Working in Hollywood – and the final issue – Problems and the people who solve them – elsewhere on this blog.

What does our organization look like when the middle layers are removed? How does a team form and establish it’s goals in a world where there is no middle management to do it for them?

Companies find themselves caught between the conflicting needs of working smarter while keeping costs down. Creating a competitive edge means finding the high-value skills required to out think the competition, and they’re willing to pay a premium for the privilege. At the same time, an increasingly competitive market is pushing revenues down, creating a financial void that will most likely consume the margins and mid level management of many organization.

A new business dynamic is emerging, one which is much more fluid as it’s based on networks of organizations and high-value individuals – much like the industry model Hollywood stumbled on during the transition to television in the fifties. Companies in industries as diverse as automotive, banking, retail, and real estate are responding to the new recession mentality by focusing on their core competencies and value- add, driving these organizations to consolidate, rationalize and externalize supporting functions, as they rely on a growing ecosystem of partners to deliver everything from their go- to-market strategies through product development to manufacturing and fulfillment.

Slaying dragons

In 2010 something in the order of eleven and a half million people, broken into two factions, completed over sixteen million tasks every day without the aid of a bureaucracy, spending an average of twenty two hours a week dynamically forming teams and solving problems. How did they do it?

With a population greater than that of New York City, World of Warcraft provides us with an interesting case study of how to motivate and mobilize large groups of people. Management experts, such as Tom Peters, consider the ideal size of an organization to be around one hundred and fifty people, as beyond this size, knowing everybody in person becomes impossible. Above one hundred and fifty people intermediate layers of power and delegation begin to develop and companies enter the realm of complication. World of Warcraft seems to indicate that this doesn’t necessarily need to be the case.

Many organizations are struggling to successfully knit focused and effective teams from the incoherent mass of individuals both in and outside their organizations. Entire industries are migrating to an operating model which has more in common with the fluid and dynamic film industry in Hollywood, than they do with the 1800s railway companies from which they are derived. Companies are beginning to function like movie studios; externalizing supporting functions such as production and distribution to allow them to focus on identifying worthy stories in their genre of interest, or the problems they choose to focus on; and then blending internal management and guidance with external capabilities to create vehicles to exploit the opportunities they have identified, with highly skill free agents, producers and actors or knowledge workers and subject matter experts, bringing their unique world view which will draw together the threads of an engagement, taking it from the mundane and making it into something special.

World of Warcraft provides gamers with a platform that enables them to solve this problem, dynamically forming teams for a population of individuals. Leadership emerges organically, an attribute of the environments and context in which the people are acting, and lasts only as long as the task at hand before the team dissolves and the individuals find their way to new opportunities. World of Warcraft also provides the individuals with a career framework independent of any particular engagement or organization, empowering them to manage their own progression from defenseless cannon fodder to all powerful wizard (or warrior).

The concept of using elements of game play mechanics outside a formal game — known as gamification – is growing support outside the narrow confines of the game industry, this interest is, however, typically focused on the consumer space, and seen as a tool to encourage people to adopt applications or as a useful talent management tool to help develop leadership skills. Massively-multiplayer online role playing games{{1}} (MMORPG) seem to provide a grander opportunity by enabling us to create fluid and adaptable frameworks which allow both organizations and individuals to work together toward shared goals in the short term, whilst also providing them with the room to grow their skills in the longer term.

[[1]]Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) is a genre of role-playing video games in which a very large number of players interact with one another within a virtual game world.[[1]]

The concepts behind World of Warcraft’s success have a long heritage, with roots reaching back to 1974 when Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) was first released. Originally designed by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, D&D was derived from miniature wargames and is widely regarded as the beginning of modern role-playing games and the role-playing game industry.

Young geeks engaged in a D&D like role playing game in a scene from Steven Spielburg’s 1982 film, E.T.
Young geeks engaged in a D&D like role playing game in a scene from Steven Spielburg’s 1982 film, E.T.

D&D provided gamers with a framework to go on an adventure together by allowing them to create characters, virtual personas, . The game defined a set of professions (a Cleric, the Fighting man, and a Magic-User, in the first edition of the rules) and races (human, elf, dwarf, halfling{{2}} and gnome), established the mechanics of determining if a character was successful in their actions, and provided a system for individuals to measure the experience their character had accumulated, making them more skillful. Players could also tune their characters by tweaking the character’s physical attributes – strength, dexterity, constitution, intelligence, wisdom and charisma – as well as by acquiring virtual equipment and tools.

[[2]]Hobbits in all but name.[[2]]

Playing D&D is a multi-week, or multi-month, journey where a party of friends would work together to explore a land, engage in quests, solve puzzles, crawl through dungeons and slay dragons (and other mythological monsters). Over time the rules developed by adding new professions, new races and by building more sophisticated experience models, become more complex in the process. (Too complex for some though, who prefer the original, simpler, rules)

The D&D character sheet for Sam Wisewhiskers, a mouse thief created by Tony Diterlizzi.
The D&D character sheet for Sam Wisewhiskers, a mouse thief created by Tony Diterlizzi.

World of Warcraft used Dungeons and Dragons as a starting point, addressing on of the major challenges in playing the game: forming a party of suitable friends to go exploring. Blizzard Entertainment (the company which develops and supports the game) created an online environment – an entire virtual world – where individual can login, create a character and start to explore. Players can start out as individuals, but to advance rapidly to higher levels they soon find that they must participate in teams, called guilds, and embark on increasingly challenging quests. The game changes with the players’ actions and game developers add new levels of quests as players become more proficient. There are also no set rules for winning the game or for forming a guild.

World of Warcraft as seen from the outside world.
World of Warcraft as seen from the outside world.

Forming, storming, norming and performing

The quest teams in World of Warcraft form organically around the goal, with an initial few reaching out into their (social) network to find the individuals they need, the individuals focused on solving the types of problems they team expects to find on their journey. It’s not enough to identify a fighter or thief or supply chain expect, for example, as the characters skills need to be match to the expected challenges and the teams ways of working. The final team will pull in a diverse range of characters and skills: some are priests, some are warriors, others are magis, some have different skill levels, different expertise, different potions, and different abilities. The planning processes is spread across in-game forums, as well as a plethora of Internet forums and wikis outside the game. Leadership emerges organically, reflecting the group consensus of whom has the best chance of leading them to success. And finally, the players need to work together, in real time, to conduct the mission and achieve their goal.

The team formation processes deal with a number of significant challenges which also exist in the offline world. How to pick team members, weeding out the incompetent and fostering relationships with the competent. The games forces the team to determine – as a group – what additional skill sets are needed and available at any given time, as well as understanding how different people (with different personalities and styles) will work together. Planing a large raid or quest is also not a task that comes together easily, and leaders must identify the people willing to word toward the goal whilst providing members with enough notice of the team’s activities to enable them to fit the game into their schedule. For the team to reach its gaol, every team member needs to play their role while working together to adapt to changing circumstances.

If the team does fail to reach its goal, when the team must take a step back, reevaluate its plan and team structure, and come up with a strategy to avoid the problem next time round. Leadership also needs to deal with the reality of under performers. Sometimes they’re just bad players. Other times they want to do better but don’t know how, and need a little guidance. And when everything doesn’t go to plan it’s important to determine what when wrong, as well as highlighting what went right.

As in life, investing time in the team will result in the team improving. People also have lives outside of the game, just as they have lives outside of work, and balancing the conflicting demands of life, game and work means that situations arise when people can’t always be where they said they would be (while there should always be consequences for people who rarely live up to their commitments). The world that is World of Warcraft is also constant changing, forcing players to rely on each other and invent new tactics and techniques to succeed in the rapidly changing environment, forcing guild members into a mode of constant collaboration and invention.

World of Warcraft shows us the outline of a new approach to to forming, storming, norming and performing{{3}}. Clearly defined goals provide a nucleus which the team can form around, acting as a yardstick to measure the skills required as well as helping to establish what success looks like (including how each team member’s contribution will be measured). The skills that the character model articulates provides team leaders with a way of understanding each potential members strengths and weaknesses, their interest in the endeavor and the problems they solve. The challenge for organizations is to develop a game framework for themselves: a set of policies and rules which allow individuals to articulate the skills they have and the problems they’re interested in solving, and which enable experience to be apportioned after the engagement.

[[3]]Forming, storming, norming and performing is a model of group development developed by Bruce Tuckman in 1965, who maintained that these phases are all necessary and inevitable in order for the team to grow, to face up to challenges, to tackle problems, to find solutions, to plan work, and to deliver results.[[3]]

Different ways of working

In our increasingly diverse environment, we must often construct our teams with people who solve problems in different ways, and who have a range of different ways of learning and working. Differences in working styles between cohorts are even used to explain while one cohort should be more creative, innovative, productive or reliable than another.

[table id=1 /]{{4}}

[[4]]Adapted from IBM report : “Driving Workforce Productivity by Enabling Social Connection “ (June 2009)[[4]]

Organizations struggle with incompatible working styles, with Gen Y’s desire for constant feedback and a Traditionalist’s favor of top-down command and control, with entire books being written on the topic.

Rather than a boat anchor, diverse teams – pulling in people from a broad range of backgrounds and age groups – can actually produce some of the most effective solutions, as Scott E. Page, author of The Difference{{5}}, found. Just as age is a poor indicator of an individuals ability to adapt to the changing environment, ago is also a poor factor in determining the working style an individual might favor or their ability to work with others who have a different style. In their book A New Culture of Learning{{6}}, Douglas Thomas and John Seely Brown describe two “hard-core gamers.” “Ambitious and risk-taking” Nick has “fast reflexes” when playing. Yet he enjoys working with his guild mate Becky who “relies on patience, careful strategy, and knowledge of the game.” What makes this even more fascinating is that Becky is Nick’s mother.

This is not the first time that personality has been seen as a factor in determining working styles. The nineties brought us tools such as Myers-Briggs{{7}} and FIRO{{8}} which enable us to measure our personalities and those of our employees. The hope was that a better understanding of interpersonal dynamics would promote a smoother and more productive work environment.

[[5]]Scott E. Page (2007), The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools and Societies, Princeton University Press.[[5]]
[[6]]Douglas Thomas and John Seely Brown (2011), A New Culture of Learning: Cultivating the Imagination for a World of Constant Change, CreateSpace.[[6]]
[[7]]Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a psychometric questionnaire designed to measure psychological preferences in how people perceive the world and make decisions, which Myers and Briggs extrapolated from Jung’s writings in his book Psychological Types.[[7]]
[[8]]Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation (FIRO) is a theory of interpersonal relations, introduced by William Schutz in 1958.[[8]]

The Myers-Briggs types and their distribution across the population.
The Myers-Briggs types and their estimated frequency across the population. As you can see, the data suggest that those who prefer Sensing are more frequent in the population than those who prefer Intuition. Source: The Myers & Briggs Foundation.

The world is changing faster than ever and our skill sets have a shorter and shorter shelf life. In this environment the highly entailed, and highly trained specialist will find that their carefully guarded skills and ways of working will rapidly change from advantage to problem unless they are willing to adapt to the environment around them. Strategies which resist a constantly changing world are insufficient to keep up, and organizations need to embrace the diverse and organically formed teams that can enable them – as it does the guilds in World of Warcraft – to succeed in a rapidly changing environment.

Continued in Problems and the people who solve them.

Working in Hollywood

Note: This is the fourth part of a longer series on how social media is affecting management. You can find the earlier posts – The future of (knowledge) work, Knowledge Workers in the British Raj and The north-south divide – and subsequent issues – World of Warcraft in the workplace and Problems and the people who solve them – elsewhere on this blog.

Whom do you work for? For many people it’s not the company who’s logo is on their uniform, nor is it the organization who’s brand adorns the building they work in. You might be a gate attendant, hired by a local contractor as the airline doesn’t have the time or resources to maintain a payroll in every port in which it operates. You might be a consultant working full time on an organization’s change program, destined to leave once the engagement if finished. Or you might be a free agent, working across multiple businesses at once (as I do), bringing a distinct and valuable skill set to the executives you work with as they solve some of the knottiest problems confronting their business. For many people, the organization they work for is no longer the same one which cuts their a paycheck.

Companies find themselves caught between the conflicting needs of working smarter while keeping costs down. Creating a competitive edge means finding the high-value skills required to out think the competition, and they’re willing to pay a premium for the privilege. At the same time, an increasingly competitive market is pushing revenues down, creating a financial void that will most likely consume the margins and mid level management of many organizations. The best solution to this problem, and possibly the only solution, is to set aside the goal of exclusively owning every skill the business needs, and instead focus on fractional or collective ownership pulled from a broader community of partners.

Deconstructing the studios after the golden age

During the golden years of Hollywood, from the late 1920s through to the 1950s, the film studios built huge, vertically integrated empires that controlled every facet of production. Everything from actors, sound stages and camera operators through marketing, distribution and the cinemas themselves were under the same tent. However, this high degree of control didn’t ensure success, and the years after then second world war saw increased competition from foreign films, the decline of cinema audiences, and attacks on the studio structure by government agencies, all which contributed to dropping revenues. By the early 1960s the studios were half what they had been during the glory days, thousands of formerly flourishing theaters had closed forever, and the industry was forced to find a new industry model.

In 1925 Warner Brothers, then a second-tier studio working out of Hollywood’s poverty row, acquired Vitagraph (including the backlot shown above), a leading production company from the silent era which had fallen victim to the rise of the monopolistic studio system. Another gamble in 1927, this time on sound in the Jazz Singer, catapulted Warner Brothers into the first-tier.
In 1925 Warner Brothers, then a second-tier studio working out of Hollywood’s poverty row, acquired Vitagraph (including the backlot shown above), a leading production company from the silent era which had fallen victim to the rise of the monopolistic studio system. Another gamble in 1927, this time on sound in the Jazz Singer, catapulted Warner Brothers into the first-tier.

The first blow came in 1948 after a long antitrust investigation when, in what became known as the Paramount decision, the U.S. court ruled for the divorce of production and exhibition, and the elimination of unfair booking practices. In a single stroke the studios were forced to divest themselves of roughly 1,400 cinemas and split their companies in two; one division handling production and distribution, the other grappling with the declining theatre business.

The antitrust investigation, however, was not the only problem the studios faced. Patronage had begun to decrease in the years after the second world war, a trend that was soon accelerating as suburbanization saw people cashing in their war bonds and buying homes in the suburbs. This changed the pattern of film demand, draining audiences from the first-run houses in town centers which showed high margin prestige pictures, as they were now too far from home for many people to bother with. Hollywood fought back, trying to tempt viewers first with color pictures, and later 3D and CinemaScope (though both of these proved too expensive to deploy at scale), until the industry finally settled on Panavision’s anamorphic color image as their tool of choice, but it was only in the late sixties when suburban malls and multi-screen multiplexes became common that the studios recovered some of their former audiences.

Throughout this transition period the studios had refused to sell their back catalogue to the television stations. The first feature film shown on U.S. television came from abroad, as U.K. studios such as Ealing and Rank, unable to break into the domestic U.S. theatrical exhibition market released their product to television stations desperate for longer format productions. It was only in 1954, when eccentric billionaire Howard Hughes sold RKO’s library to television, that film studios’ resolve buckled as the millions of dollars were made on the deal impressed even the most cynical boss. By 1955 the studios had plunged head long into producing films specifically for television.

Moving into television, however, was not enough to prop up the studios’ sagging finances. Their response was to shed their in-house production departments: the talent that had been kept on the books during the golden era had proved to be too expensive, and the studios began contracting independent producers as required to make features. Suddenly the grand marques of the golden age, such as MGM and Warner Brothers, found themselves competing on an equal footing with the smaller, theater-less studios, like Columbia or Universal.

The television age proved to be an era of transition; the old studio system was supplanted by a more flexible model build around independent production. The grand marques struggled to attract hit films from independent producers, their losses pushing balance sheets deeply into the red. The lack of a large, rigid, vertically integrated studio structure which had been disadvantageous to the smaller, theater-less studios such as Columbia in the 1930s, proved to be the way to make millions in the new Hollywood system. The more fluid business environment which emerged with the television age favored a more fluid style of business. The successful studios focused on their core business – finding successful stories – knitting together special purpose vehicles from a community of partners to support production and distribution as needed, and then populating these vehicles from a network of free agents and specialist service providers to carry out the real work of creating and delivering the film. This approach was confirmed by Universal, which had been only marginally profitable during the golden age of the, however the company’s success after it was sold in 1952 to Decca Records resulted in it being bought by MCA talent agency and becoming a Hollywood powerhouse of television production.

Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed

Work has changed dramatically in the last few decades. Much like the studios in Hollywood, pressure on margins and timeframes is forcing companies to reevaluate which work they do themselves, and which they farm out to a growing ecosystem of suppliers and partners. Although it won’t be called outsourcing, companies in industries as diverse as automotive, banking, retail, and real estate are responding to the new recession mentality by focusing on their core competencies and value-add, driving them to consolidate, rationalize and externalize supporting functions to save money or free up management time, allowing them to focus on more pressing issues.

Capabilities close to the heart of business are increasingly being moved into the hands of external providers. A growing ecosystem of partners is delivering everything from go-to-market strategies through product development to manufacturing and fulfillment. WalMart, for example, recently handed responsibility for all of its in-store marketing programs to a third-party specialist. The monolithic businesses we previously worked for are starting to fragment, converting themselves into swarms of cooperating entities.

Companies have always relied, to some extent, on others to do some of their work for them: Phoenician merchants bought their ships from Phoenician shipbuilders, the railroad robber-barons of the 1800s bought their steel from Bethlehem (among others), and even Henry Ford, who was so intent on vertical integration that he tried to found a self governing city (Fordlândia) to grow his own rubber, paid other firms to construct the buildings required to house his company’s factories. What is different today is that companies have moved from buying goods and services from others, to passing responsibility for core business activities to external organizations. Marketing, sales, manufacturing, even the management and operation of a company’s end-to-end business processes are now up for grabs.

But what are the limits of this drive to externalize? It can be educational to sit for a moment, and consider which day-to-day roles your business really needs to own, the people who must be on the payroll, rather than those folk you would like to have on the payroll. These are the roles where the person filling them needs to be held to account, and potentially end up in jail if they don’t meet their responsibilities, responsibilities which you cannot pass to an external party.

Take the CFO for example (or the finance director, or equivalent in your geography). A CFO is the one those interesting roles that most public companies cannot do without. There’s a range of government and market regulations – regulations with quite strict penalties – which typically fall under the responsibility of the CFO. Recent legislation in passed response to the Enron disaster and global financial crisis, such as the Sarbanes–Oxley Act{{1}} in the U.S.A., has dramatically increased the scope of these regulations, along with the penalties. A company executive needs to attest that the company has met these regulations, and there might be a term in jail if they are later found out to have been less than completely honest.

[[1]]Sarbanes-Oxley Art described at Wikipedia.[[1]]

It’s hard to see how a part time or outsourced CFO could be made to work for a mid to large sized company. Government and market regulation often (if not always) requires that a natural person provide the attestation. There’s a simple reason behind this: they want to be able to seriously punish whomever provides the attestation if they try to mislead the government. Fines don’t work, as they’ll simply be factored into the price on the contact. (Some enterprising organization might even manage to ensure against such a fine, given half a chance.) What does work is throwing someone – the individual who signed on the dotted line – into jail. From the point of view of the individual, even if the regulation did allow for a part time employee or someone from outside the business to attest, it would be a brave person indeed who signed without balancing the associated risk with the trust and intimate knowledge that you can only get from working from inside as a full time employee.

Companies require a CFO (or equivalent) as they need someone who can be held accountable. A common piece of consultantware used to sort out organizational problems is a RACI matrix{{2}}: standing for Responsible, Accountable, Consulted and Informed. While many people many be responsible for carrying out the work required (or want to be consulted or informed on what will be done), in a smoothly running business or project there will only be one person held accountable for each deliverable or task required. If more than one person is held accountable then we open the door to finger pointing and excuses. The government understands this, which is why they require an individual, a natural person, to sign-off, and go to jail if they get it wrong.

[[2]]We could use of the many variants of the approach, such as RASCI, RACI-VS, CAIRO, or DACI, but RACI will suffice in this instance.[[2]]

A RACI matrix mapping the business roles in a process to the four RACI categories. While the outsourcers might be responsible for delivering some of the components, they don’t have a stake in the successful delivery of the finished aircraft.
A RACI matrix mapping the business roles in a process to the four RACI categories. While the outsourcers might be responsible for delivering some of the components, they don’t have a stake in the successful delivery of the finished aircraft.

These days if an outsourcing arrangement goes wrong, you will be held accountable by the business owners, regulators or the market itself, as it’s not just a bad batch of bottle tops that can be rejected, but one of your core business activities or assets will be missing in action, quite possibly bringing the entire enterprise to a halt. Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner, for example, is billions of dollars over budget and is already roughly three years late, with failed outsourcing arrangements taking much of the blame. Boeing was even forced during late 2009 to step in and take over the underperforming fuselage manufacturing plant of Vought Aircraft Industries, spending approximately one billion in cash and credit, after the plant and contributed to years of delays.

Boeing scurries to deliver the 787 on time after a number of delays, some of which were attributed to outsourcing production of nearly thirty percent of the 787‘s components.
Boeing scurries to deliver the 787 on time after a number of delays, some of which were attributed to outsourcing production of nearly thirty percent of the 787‘s components.

We can’t just pass off responsibility for a core business capability without some mechanism for holding suppliers accountable. Without the ability to throw an individual in jail, we’re reduced to crafting incentives and penalties (which is why Microsoft’s board cut Steve Ballmer’s bonus in half in 2010{{3}}, in response to his inability to improve Microsoft’s position in the mobile phone industry), and this means aligning their incentives (and penalties) with our own, treating the hand-off as a delegation of authority rather than the procurement of a good or service.

[[3]]Don Reisinger, (2010), Mobile woes slice Ballmer’s bonus in half, CNET[[3]]

Focusing externally

The shift from buying materials to delegating capabilities has opened up new possibilities for the organizations, the early adopters, who are willing to experiment with it. They’re reconfiguring their departments, much like the film studios, focusing on knitting together the capabilities, services and materials their business needs, ensuring clear lines of accountability from their own organization’s business drivers down into the incentives (and disincentives) reified in each supplier’s contract.

Rather than having a large team focused internally, intent on optimizing internal assets and processes, this new breed of company has flatter and smaller departments (sometimes with tiny teams, well down into the single digits) who are focused externally. They’re identifying the suppliers required and lining up accountabilities to suit, or they’re working directly with customers to solve their problems. The executives accountable for the organization’s performance look up and out, plotting where the next step should be, providing the team at the frontline with guidance, but otherwise leaving the team to their own devices when solving the problems confronting them. While around these new, leaner organizations a new community of suppliers is also evolving.

If we want to successfully delegate a capability to a supplier, then we need to ensure that are responsible and accountable for the performance of the capability
If we want to successfully delegate a capability to a supplier, then we need to ensure that are responsible and accountable for the performance of the capability

The old consultancies and outsourcers, organizations more concerned with operational flex and selling doomed transformation programs, are being forced to align their offerings with their customers’ business models{{4}}, taking responsibility and accountability for one or more of the customer’s cost-driven business activities. This might range from in-store marketing (as with the WalMart example) or staffing the gates at an airport, through category management to supporting the business’s end-to-end business process. The capabilities they provide will, in turn, be organized in a similar fashion to their clients, with small, flat teams containing an executive holding accountability for delivery, while also leading a team focused on the work at the coal face.

[[4]]Consulting doesn’t work. We need to reinvent it. @ PEG[[4]]

And in the middle of this we find the free agents, the skilled knowledge workers, that neither the clients nor the suppliers can afford to have on staff full time{{5}}. Much like the more experienced and valuable staff in the movie industry – the independent producers, writers, directors and actors who create the blockbusters – they’ll migrate between engagements, often working with multiple clients at once, having grown out of a specific technical discipline to adopt a more general perspective on the industry, becoming sun-shaped people{{6}}. Their unique world view will draw together the threads of an engagement, taking it from the mundane and making it into something special.

[[5]]North-south divide @ PEG[[5]]
[[6]]The sun-shaped individual @ PEG[[6]]

This model creates lighter and more agile organizations, organizations which are not burdened by the huge payrolls or massive investments associated with vertically integrated organizations. The old bureaucracies will have been blown apart, their baroque structures replaced with a network of smaller and more dynamic units. Whom you work for will be less import that what you work on and how you approach this work, and your career will be in your own hands.

Continued in World of Warcraft in the workplace.