Disruption and Innovation - Change as the new “Status Quo”

Some industries are finding change as difficult as keeping up with innovation 

It is hard to imagine Madonna going out of style in the late 1980s but as entropy carries us forward, Madonna must have seen her pending decline in music could only be reversed with a refocusing of her music, skill-sets set and approach to the marketplace. Madonna has since had a reasonable career as an actress, a highly successful (refocused) music career and a successful career in business. The twice married mother of 4 has currently a net worth of $520 million, which is a testament to Madonna’s call to action when faced with decline. By her actions, it’s not hard to see that she embraced change as a good thing and got ahead of the curve in a dynamic marketplace.

So if an Madonna can do it, can’t we all? I think so! That said, not everybody agrees, which is why we have what is often referred to as ‘the agents of change and the guardians of the status quo’. Needless to say, a happy balance of change and stability fit into every company and product lifecycle that exists in the increasingly hyperconnected world we live in.

The fact is that we are now in a hyperconnected age and to quote Marc Andreessen “Software is eating the world”. Companies, industries and society has a whole has had to come to terms with the new information era and deal with disruption as the new norm. What has become glaringly clear (in addition to positive changes society wide) is that some companies and indeed industries are better at dealing with change and innovation than others. What makes one better at change then the other is varied, but in general terms, the more successful change agents as companies tend to be:

Less dogmatic and thus less resistant to change. Instead of looking for ways to stop or stall change, they look for ways to embrace it.

More dynamic in terms of how one approaches problems with the marketplace. The glass is always half full and not half empty ergo priority is placed in innovating a way out of a problem that creates a better outcome instead of finding a way to restore the prior state to the problem. Thinking outside of the box is seen as a cherish virtue, not a despised vice.

Organisationally flexible to the point where organisational structures are set to allow horizontal workflows in orga charts and project management to occur based on people, not transactions. Company culture underpins this point of people, process, technology, not the other way around in terms of priority.

Innovation as a process (IAAP) is a reality, not a powerpoint chart aspiration. The management practices, leadership practices, financial planning and analysis processes of the company are geared up for innovation noting X% of people’s time will be on new product generation in all areas of the business participating in project teams, idea generation platforms and process management. This “non chargeable” portion of employee time is spent generating new products and bringing them forward to market.

Competition defined by collaboration, not confrontation. A careful monitoring of competition and collaboration with suitable competitors on “common good” goals for community and/or society (e.g. Open Source Hackathons) along with a set of ethics that define not only company policy but capture company culture and employee beliefs. It’s important that the substance of integrity is not watered down by some cheap “certification” by disengaged team leaders on an annual survey that their employees have “integrity.”

People first. The new age of collaboration in the information era favours companies that value people first allowing for the emotional quotient (EQ) to succeed. The days of awareness are here with hyper connectivity generating more and more understanding of the world around us thus connecting with our humanity, which is becoming understood as an essential driver of successful change. If employees are made redundant, it is the last, not the first port of call in reducing costs and is never done by tweet.  

Cultural expectation is one of change and considered normal. The business practices of companies who are comfortable with change are geared up to not only survive it; they are geared up to thrive in it. The culture becomes comfortable with a cycle of innovation that sees cyclical projects arise disrupting their workflow and augmenting it with new innovations, which they contribute to for best possible outcome. They are in essence comfortable with a cycle of innovation/ disruption/ change/ understanding new working reality/ stable workflows/ innovation. This makes employees a driver of innovation, new product generation, high performance process structures and long term financial viability.

Innovation and disruption are often seen as threats, when infact they should be embraced fully taking the people who innovate into processes allowing a fusion to occur where like Madonna, something better is created as a result of embracing change that will not stop coming no matter how much we try to deny it. Even in the most rigid, dogmatic and vertical industries, change will reach its shores sooner or later and now is a great time to plan and effect change not only of R&D, but of the entire company making all functions innovative and connecting them by innovative connections as much as by functional lines. The outputs will herald change and flexibility along with a new sense of longevity thanks to the new version of the company, which is a powerhouse of process awareness, effective innovation and people oriented culture.  

Sources/Credits:

Pics;

www.colombiabankonline.com

www.magforwomen.com

https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1436377734980-0ee004df570b?ixlib=rb-0.3.5&q=80&fm=jpg&s=c3ebb8709eea2235a3151fd7f9e44da8

Credits:

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/ | Forbes for information on Madonna 2015

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111903480904576512250915629460 | Marc Andreessen “Software is eating the world”

Technology & Culture… A RSVP with Disaster or Greatness?

What a Technologist actually is.. and how approach matters for successful outcomes

We all love our iPhones, iPads, Computers and Laptops as do we love to work in an office that has multi coloured beanbags as the conference room for all “official” meetings. If software is eating the world, technology is its master transforming industries, cultures and even professions into something more relevant in today’s world.

In a few short years, technology has changed the world with software in a leading role making lives better and more things possible that were previously out of reach! As a Technologist, I find there are two types of technology user, the deeply skilled who believe in it and those who are happy to be an end user of technology.

So what makes up a Technologist and are they the backbone of the Technology Industry building a culture and a legacy for others to follow? The free dictionary defines a Technologist as a “Specialist in Technology”. I think a Technologist brings more to the world and thus argue a true Technologist can be described as follows:

Believer in the power of technology to do good in the world

Giver by personality disposition always looking to collaborate and discerningly help others who share a positive attitude to community and helping out

Community is paramount to successful outcomes as technology depends on people collaborating over processes to develop progressively effective technologies

Creativity is wrapped in technical aptitude and knowhow

Commitment is not an issue for the Technologist who is committed to doing great things in technology

Enthusiasm never fades for technology in the right circumstances. A good Technologist if in the wrong circumstances will move to the right circumstances so the exploration of technology may continue

Continuous learner is a hallmark of a good Technologist who never stops learning, innovating and producing effective Technology that paves the way forward for society

The list is longer but the above gives a more detailed description of a Technologist in my view. Business often does not recognise the cultural gap between Technologist and the rest of the business. In various ways, business tends to be disapproving of anybody who cannot focus on profitability and the other management metrics that makes the business a viable venture. This has a core logic to it BUT if a Technologist’s focus is diverted from the core business of great technology, then the related outputs will be correspondingly below par and ultimately detract from the viability of the business. It technology cannot be great, then it will not unlock value for the customer which feeds into the bottom line of the business.

So bearing in mind the above description of a Technologist, how can this description bridge the culture gap between business and technology?

My first thought lies in the wider business culture that underpins business practice, leadership style and acceptable “people behaviour” on a daily basis. There is one way to do great technology but many ways to do good to great business.  In business; ok is acceptable, in technology nothing less then great will do!

So picture a business culture that is hierarchical and a Technologist working there that defines himself by the above highlighted keywords of:

Believer - Giver - Community - Creativity - technical aptitude - knowhow Commitment  - Enthusiasm - Continuous learner

The very fact that the Technologist maybe at staffer level in the company hierarchy relegates him/her to insignificant status within the company and thus open to all kind of interference from other (taker) business peers, untalented (taker) technical peers, leaders, managers and higher that may want something done and expect EXACTLY what they ordered from the Technologist. To keep his or her job, the Technologist will ensure they will get EXACTLY what they asked for. The real result is a talented employee disengaging from the company, who by culture considers the employee contribution to be insignificant in nature. As said above, if they cannot find a collaborative culture to grow in, they will migrate to one. Some companies lose allot of Technological talent down to this fundamental misunderstanding.

Companies in such a case may try to create/engineer a consultative technology sub culture, which may work in the short term. However, it is not sustainable even with a great technology manager as by design; culture clash mitigation lies with the Technology manager, not on the organisational design around him/her. Politics will find a way to reverse any stability and gains in the name of progress. The answer for hierarchical companies lies in overarching change to refocus the company's organizational design to better protect its elements by functional segment (V functional silo). If operations and technology cannot interact as one, then design a model where they can interact as two bodies. If agile project management risks a culture clash, then augment agile with silo deliverables and more reporting managed by very good project managers who have good organisational understanding and management skills.

The bottom line is that Technology already has a defined adhocracy culture that works well with the above description of a Technologist and thus an ideal setting for us Technologists to thrive in. It’s never a good idea from experience to think an Adhocracy Sub-Culture is sustainable when nested in a Hierarchical Culture. Also, thinking of finding a happy medium between the two means moving the expectations, practices and behaviours from the top down to a new hybrid culture that will ultimately fail due to the Giver Taker model where natural givers become victims of natural takers especially in conflict. As with all workplace conflict, productivity suffers alongside the victims of the dispute.

In my opinion, companies who cannot move to an adhocracy and/or clan culture should think about divisionalisation (i.e. create a technology company and an adhocracy culture) or outsourcing.  A company who gets it right, will become a technology company, not because their commercial product range is necessarily Technological. They will become a Technology company because they have made a home for Technologists who will guide them through the Technological age that we now live, grow, innovate and compete in.

Sources/Credits:

Pics;

https://stocksnap.io/photo/POB2Y8A2NU

https://stocksnap.io/photo/75VJAZIQQL

https://stocksnap.io/photo/RLC58MRIX8

https://stocksnap.io/photo/ZMLBPIOGTD

Credits:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/technologist

http://artsfwd.org/4-types-org-culture/

http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/organization/givers_take_all_the_hidden_dimension_of_corporate_culture

Hire 2 Retire - Finding the Best or taking the Rest!

How a company hires is something we all should pay more attention to…

If you are like me and most others out there, a company showing interest in you is a flattering experience… let’s be honest, we love it! Nothing wrong with that, but it should not blind us to what a company is saying by its approach and process of hiring new talent.

On the company side, how you approach new talent does say allot about you and what you expect them to be in your employ. It is a challenge to get it right but difficulty should not stop any company from trying to reach that hallowed state of becoming effective in employee engagement, which stems from hiring the right people in the right jobs.

For candidate and employer, the first thing I would say is “convenience is your enemy”. I have as a hiring manager made the mistake of overlooking deficits in employees because of convenience. My ‘easy street‘ time leaving the office early/on time has been offset on 2 particular occasions with these new hires proving disruptive and disastrous over 12 years of people management experience. Needless to say, my lesson is learnt, but at a price. Convenience is not your friend, it is your enemy! Never sacrifice standards for convenience, stick to your standards even if performance suffers in the short term. If your boss looks disapproving, let him know how a bad hire will come back to haunt him as performance excellence starts with maintenance of standards in hiring, which affects everything the team does from that point onwards.

As a candidate, I have seen employers over a number of interviews show a preference for control rather than for competence. The focus on acceptance of “what is” does not affect me as the employee, it affects the the company who effectively sacrifices competitiveness in back office for the appearance of competence and efficiency. If that truly was a the case, I would have not have being needed in my prior career and they would not have to spent money on hiring somebody like me (in theory). Be mindful as a candidate of what you are actually being asked to do and what environment you are being asked to do it in. If independent thought is not tolerated, then don’t tolerate its suppression, shake their hand and move on. There is an employer out there who will use your passion and skill to better their business and bring you with them on the journey. Keep on looking and you will find them. Don’t sell short and deny your happiness, find your place in this world with those who are of like mind! I guarantee they are out there!  

In terms of how to do it right, let’s remember companies can get it right and then stray from the path. Twitter have been the latest in the Social Media world to get it right and then go wrong! So if you are hiring or looking for a job, here are some points to consider:

Approach - What am I as a person looking or a company hiring? What does my approach say about me? Do I care about a quality hire or not? Is my approach direct or indirect? What does this say about me? If I employ 3rd parties to hire for me, do I really know how I am been portrayed and do I really know what is being turned away? Am I happy that my approach is an optimized approach to hiring talent suitable for the company or being hired by a company?? I can tell you from experience, great talent will and has walked away from sloppy, half hearted recruiting efforts by HR folks who should know better. As a hiring manager, I have had roles open far longer than they should because of a well connected HR Manager who thought he knew better when he didn’t. His silo mentality and arrogance along with my overworked apathy cost the company dearly in finding new hires in a timely manner. It is very easy for this to happen so keeping a solid focus on the above questions will at least flag an issue in approach, which can cost you good hires. It is an easily avoided scenario if you are aware of it.

Culture - Is the employee profile defined and a good fit for the company culture. Are company HR practices being deployed effectively supporting development of a coherent organisational structure that supports the company’s business development and growth trajectory? Are non financial risk indicators being deployed in the hiring process through things like self governing processes of aptitude testing, checking of details and competence based interviewing?? Also, is the personality profile of the candidate being checked for suitability to the company culture and role? Is the company and candidate sure that as an employee, the candidate can identify and belong to the company, joined at the hip with company culture through shared values? Can the candidate be engaged in a meaningful manner whilst in the employ of the company? You would be shocked at how many cannot become engaged due to simple incompatibility with the company’s practices and culture. e.g. Type X personality who likes to be micromanaged in a Type Y company, which measures performance on outcomes that have minimum supervision and expectations of self direction and motivation. The clash is as obvious as it is avoidable.

There are more elements to creating an effective hire to retire process but as you can see, the essence is in being true to yourself! If you know what you are, then you can find out what you want! As employer and employee, the goal is to find common ground between skill and passion that gives purpose to one’s role and life. Do it right, and the benefits for company and employee will resonate over the years in a beautiful and mutually supportive relationship that never goes out of style!

Sources/Credits

Pics;

www.jtmichaels.com

www.moneycrashers.com

www.grandparents.com

http://negativespace.co/

Credits;

Measuring Success… Taking the “Twitter” Challenge!

If at first, you don’t succeed… DON’T lower your standards!

They say “when you surround yourself with like minded people, you can do great things!” Often, we think of this in a startup context, but whether you have 2 employees or 200,000, this saying is equally as important for any company to enjoy continuing success and longevity.

Too often, the quarterly culture sets in and the mindset is over focused on “pleasing investors” with management lenses fixated a high level of revenue growth when the real casualty can be a longer term view of the company and its ability to grow and/or even survive past the short term tenure of serving senior executives and/or the next earnings call.

Twitter recently decided to clean house and unceremoniously laid off 8% of its workforce in a cost cutting measure. Some previously valued members of the team were laid off by tweet. As a developer, would you work for a guy who can lay you go by tweet? #NoThanks ! Twitter’s misfortune grew from the bad PR they got for their poor handling of the lay offs with a “poor earnings” quarterly call, which saw Twitter stock drop 20% on the markets. The fixation on pleasing investors apparently lead to overfocus on costs. Even with this cost reduction focus, Twitter still took a huge market hit on their below expectation revenue numbers. The reasons why didn’t matter apparently so how does this resonate for sustainability at Twitter?

Creating value requires a different mindset to the austere process of cutting costs, which is what Twitter must now be challenged with. How can Twitter raise revenue levels whilst at the same time be reasonably cost conscious? It seems like a big project proposal is on the way but what is actually lacking is a connection. I submit it’s not a matter of cost, it’s a matter of structure and resources. In short, if you want to grow, you need to harness the power of your people and connect them to innovation!

So, taking the ‘Twitter Challenge’, can your company realign itself to organisational structures, business practices and a company culture that has the following features:

Horizontal Workflows in organisational charts that formally allows cross functional communication, workflows and temporary dotted line reporting relationships to happen with view to (value creating) cross functional projects.

A documented process of employee innovation that provides a structure to generate, harness and return (employee) new product ideas into a proposal to project workflow building esprit de corps amongst participants.

A company culture that is flexible such as a clan or adhocracy culture. Such a provision will come from flexible two way communication, active management engagement with employees and systemic project resourcing for vetted new product ideas along with organisational refinement and continuous improvement projects. The new cultural norm should be change. It’s an exciting thought when it is structured, process driven and recognised by management as a key value attribute in their organisations success. To set project resourcing in context in a company, every job should be 4 parts function and 1 part project

Trust, managing collaboratively. If you want your employees to invest in you, you need to invest in them. Good employee health plans and 401ks are not enough. Involve employees in creating a sustainable future for your company and you will not only gain their trust, you will gain their engagement, commitment and expertise as they commit to a common longer term success. In such a context, you are asking them to live upto their potential, not to the limits placed upon them by their job description. Collaborative leadership turns “you” and “I” into “we!”

Investors. managing expectations.  Senior Management need to draw a line in the sand for some investors can be obnoxiously hawkish about short term results. Some fund managers make millions on shorting stock every day so if asked to take a chance that doesn’t satisfy a hawkish approach to profitability, they will either dump stock covering any losses on other deals in their portfolio or become very aggressive in their demands. Tim Cook of Apple addressed this issue when some investors became very aggressive on Apple’s position regarding investing in climate change and green technologies. His answer was clear:  “If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock.” Apple stock held because despite aggressive demands, management was competent and confident enough to stand on their own two feet and speak their minds. Investor relations should be focused on finding the right kind of investor to invest in the company’s vision for the short, medium and longer term future. It’s a meeting of minds not on revenue numbers, but on how a company will operate and what vision will take a company to many times its current size. Revenue can be relatively mapped to a longer term plan that covers all areas of importance.

So that is the high level “Twitter” challenge. It’s a daunting one for a company of any size to do. However, if you have and/or value the right people, you are ahead before you start. Here are some pointers on attracting and managing “the right people”:

Define your basic employee: What attributes does every employee need to have and how do you check for them pre interview, during the interview process and during employment?

Define your vision, culture and practices: What company structures will your employees have to engage in and will they be engaged by collaborative leadership delivering a strong vision for the future that has good employee participation in its formation?

Engage your employees: Are your employees engaged by management proactively practicing consultative leadership?

Provision and distribute an employee innovation workflow: Senior level management should announce, support and policy provision for employee time on projects, sessions brainstorming new ideas and management of the innovation process pipeline (proposal to project) with teams bringing projects from inception to market. Involve your employees in your company’s future and they will involve you in theirs!

The Twitter challenge if taken will challenge leadership to set aside a conventional notion that if a company cuts costs, it will be successful. This is a misnomer distributed by companies who got lucky to date and should not shroud the truth. The consistent creation of value is the only way to remain relevant, competitive and solvent into the future. Take care of your people by making them the drivers of new value creation and they will take care of your business transforming it into a sustainable enterprise that is more reactive to market forces. They will see it transformed into an organisationally flexible company that can react to, rather than consistently absorb market movements.

Sources/Credits:

Pics;

www.usatoday.com

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/03/tim-cook-climate-change-sceptics-ditch-apple-shares

www.forbes.com

www.mercurynews.com

www.thenextweb.com

           

Credits

http://time.com/3839011/twitter-earnings-results/

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/03/tim-cook-climate-change-sceptics-ditch-apple-shares