Yesterday’s solutions are tomorrow’s problems. We can wait until it is a problem or we can manage an organization that is connected and constantly connected to where innovation is being created. Constant small change avoids or mitigates disruptive reorganization. Reorganizations are a huge risk forced by catastrophic short-sightedness or lack of connections: you missed the future until it happened to you.
A connected and collaborating business world is going to further undermine the weaknesses of tight hierarchically controlled organizations. A small highly paid group of executives isn’t going to be able to manage hyper advancements. Dominant players can’t shape and maintain the market as they once did. The age of creating your own reality is over, information moves too quickly to allow false reality to remain for any period of time. The Bush Administration learned this lesson over 8 years, the lone economic and military super power couldn’t control the world view.
The challenge today is managing hundreds of small improvements across an organization. What if instead of just an R&D team driving innovation you are receiving ideas from your suppliers and customers too? Now scale this to every facet of your business, from products to process to management. The first challenge is to get connected to all these sources to ensure you have access to all these potential innovations. The second challenge is leveraging this flood of innovation to maximize your benefit.
How do you set up and run the connected enterprise? How do you get all your people as connected as possible? How do you ensure that these connections are yielding value to your organization? How do you manage the massive influx of innovative ideas? You want to maximize innovation but avoid expensive mistakes. You need to act on ideas immediately and end failures just as fast. The organization needs resources to flow to the action. Enron and IBM have done this in two different ways. Enron ran its business by allowing individuals to create and pursue business opportunities and attract inside talent to support the effort. IBM does it when project teams are assembled to meet a customer’s project requirements. Talent is solicited as needed on a project. The individual contributes for as long as their expertise is required. After completing their task they are released to work on other projects. So a small group of customer project managers create a core group that is then augmented by talent pool from around the world to complete a specific customer project tasks. Size really helps in this situation. A worldwide talent base allows IBM to address any issue that arises on a specific project without locking in a consultant for an entire project. Projects aren’t “staffed”, they are recruited and released.
This is similar to the model used in academic research. Grad students select advisors. They are attracted to researchers doing interesting work in their field of study. Research professors are connected around the world to others in their specialty and tangential fields. None of the teams are forced, the advisor’s role is mentoring not authoritarian. Students are encouraged to duplicate the model with fellow researchers to expand their reach and input by expanding their own projects. Some teams find great success others fade away. The University is no worse for the wear. What might this look like in business?
Passion comes from people doing what they want to do, having a degree of control and pursuing interesting opportunities. Not everyone is pursuing a passion all the time but an organization that increase the opportunity to pursue passion will have more passionate people. Freedom is in itself a large component of passion. You can be assured that people under tight control do not love it. If that is the only way, passion is out. Can an organization survive in the future maintaining that kind of grind?
