===========

“The world is not as simple as we like to make it out to be. The outlines are often vague and it’s the details that count.

Nothing is really truly black or white and bad can be a disguise for good or beauty … and vice versa without one necessarily excluding the other.

Someone can both love and betray the object of its love … without diminishing the reality of the true feelings and value. 

Life is an uncertain adventure in a diffuse landscape whose borders are constantly shifting where all frontiers are artificial where at any moment everything can either end only to begin again … or finish suddenly forever … like an unexpected blow from an axe.  Where the only absolute, coherent, indisputable and definitive reality … is death. We have such little time when you look at Life … a tiny lightning flash between two eternal nights.

Everything has to do with everything else.

Life is a succession of events that link with each other whether we want them to or not.”

Arturo Perez Revarte

==============

Vague sucks.

And, yet, I would argue the majority of people only really have some vague outline of how the world works, or how effective or ineffective a leader is, or even only have a vague outline of any specific relationship between cause & effect.

This vaguery exists because it takes a lot of work to parse the details, and the appropriate details, and the ‘right’ details to make the outlines less vague and more tangible.

Is this work valuable ? Sure.

Is this work necessary to increase some certainty in Life? Sure.

Do most people do this work? No.

The majority of people have shit to do <other than this type of work>. Generally speaking, that is neither good nor bad; it just is what it is. A lot of pseudo intellectuals and smartish pundits bitch & moan and gnash their teeth over this, but they would lead a significantly less stressful life if they just accepted it.

What this means is that in this ‘vague outline’ people inevitably create a vague/semi solid outline belief. From there they look around on occasion and question that outline. The questions raised either support the vague outline or raise doubts and inevitably some more questions. All the while this is happening more information barrages the vague outline. In this barrage is a confusing mix of real, fake and quasi truths. All these confusing things do in the people’s minds is, contrary to belief, not confuse, but rather make the person more dismissive of the incoming confusion and steadier in whatever vague outline they may have constructed.

Once again.

Generally speaking, this is neither good nor bad; it just is what it is. A lot of pseudo intellectuals and smartish pundits bitch & moan and gnash their teeth over this, but they would lead a significantly less stressful life if they just accepted it.

That said.

I will say that at some point the ‘questions I have about my vague outline’ gain some gravitas. This can happen several ways, but let me point out two:

• 1. The questions themselves coalesce into some easy to understand ‘blob’ from which people who have a vague outline decide “my vague outline is wrong <or sucks>.” Let’s say that this is the point at which the doubts and questions begin to outweigh the beliefs that created the vague outline.

• 2. Someone weaves a narrative using the doubts & questions into a relatively succinct, believable and non-hyperbolic driven framing of an outline which people look at, scratch their heads, go “hmmmmmmmmm …” and decide this new vague outline will replace the one they had in place. Oh. To be clear. This narrative must not only use the doubts & questions to dissolve the current vague outline, but must also offer an alternative vague outline <outlines need to be replaced not simply destroyed>.

The first never happens fast enough to people who just cannot understand how and why some people have decided to live with some vague outline <that just seems ‘not really a smart outline’ to them>.

The second is not as easy as it appears. It isn’t as easy because problems are rarely as clear as we would like them to be and a narrative never lives without the context of all the barrage of real, fake and quasi truths impacting and denting and solidifying a vague outline that already exists. And, to reprise the end of point 2, someone weaves a great narrative to destroy, but forgets to offer an alternative.

Simplistically, this is the story that everything has to do with everything else.

I imagine I have two points today.

First.

We humans have come to accept a certain amount of uncertainty with regard to our lives and our decisions. This uncertainty is also built into the vague outlines we tend to construct for ourselves. What this means is that the construct of our beliefs and thoughts and ideas may be certain to us and, yet, its silhouette accommodates some uncertainty.

I began today by unequivocally stating that vague sucks. And I believe 99% of people would agree that it sucks. But in today’s world the majority of people have enough shit to do that they slot their thinking thoughts time. In one slot they place unequivocal certainty type thoughts. In another slot they place the “I will always be uncertain about this shit and thank God there is someone else at some higher pay grade than I who can be certain about it.” And, lastly, we slot all the shit in which we have formed some vague outline which accommodates a certain degree of uncertainty.

My point here is we tend to make this a binary discussion where the reality lies in a more complex mix of vagueness & clarity, certainty & uncertainty.

Second.

Certainty, in and of itself, has degrees; it is not a simple black or white binary.

People can have vague outlines AND have questions with regard to their outlines and, yet, not want to ditch the outline. “How can you still believe that?” may be one of the most misguided and unenlightened questions that has ever existed.  It completely misses the point in that it assumes ignorance, stupidity or some negative trait in order to hold on to some vague outline regardless of doubts.

A vague outline is a choice.

No more and no less.

We question choices all the time and, yet, remain with the original choice despite some fairly extensive doubts. I say this because, that said, it is silly to point out doubts and questions as a reason to ditch a vague outline. My easiest example is Trump. His followers have a vague outline of what they like and believe about him. We scrutinize them for doubts and questions and when they share them we immediately pounce and suggest “then how can you still believe in your vague outline!?!” <usually said with a slight overall disbelief & wonder>.

Within their lives of doing shit that is important to them they created a vague outline of who and what Trump is, or isn’t, and … well … uncertainty was built into their certainty. The moment they will begin to disbelieve their vague outline is when the uncertainty overpowers the certainty. Until then we should stop acting confused that someone believes what they believe.

Anyway.

I love the quote I opened with even though I hate vague. The truth is that we all live with some vague outlines albeit your vague outline may actually be one of my non-vague outlines, and vice versa. And when they are in conflict then, well, there is conflict.

All that said, while vague sucks there is a reason we do it and this reason is not stupid, nor unenlightened nor ignorant.

It is just damn practical to have some vague outlines.

Life is an uncertain adventure in a diffuse landscape whose borders are constantly shifting.

I am certainly not suggesting a citizenry with ill-informed vague outlines creates a healthy society. But informed versus ill-informed is a topic for another day. For today I am suggesting the majority of people navigate Life and the complexities of the world mostly using vague outlines.

Look. Life is restless. Our vague outlines are necessary to accommodate some of its restlessness. Not recognizing that is either naive or foolish. I would also point out that if you are frustrated by someone’s vague outlines, the onus is upon you to bold the outline on whatever issue you want them to see so that, well, they can clearly see the outline of what really “is.” Just remember. There is a massive difference between vague and vague outlines. Ponder.

=========

“To be in a state of self-control, a person must know: what he/she is supposed to do, what he [or she] is actually doing, what choices he/she has to improve results wherever necessary. If any of these three conditions are not met, a person cannot be held responsible.”

JM Juran

============

“As automation and artificial intelligence increasingly replace algorithmic and analytical tasks, the economy of The Conceptual Age will favour workers adept in areas that favour creativity, empathy and meaning (‘human’ concepts that are otherwise difficult to replicate by machine).”

Dr Jason Fox

=========

There is a lot of bullshit being written about “The 4^th Industrial Revolution” tying it to technology, renewed business moral awareness, inequality, automation, whatever. I wrote this, and that last sentence, in 2018 and still believe it. I hate labels and I hate trying to attach change to anything specific when it is more likely a confluence of factors.  I will say whatever is happening feels like a seismic shift in business ideology. That said. Whenever I scribble something about the Future of Business I keep coming back to Dr Jason Fox’s Conceptual Age idea he discussed with Mike Walsh in a podcast.

It seems to be the axis mundi for, well, everything we talk about. Purpose, distributed leadership organizational models, data/digital, thinking, innovation, etc.

Well crafted conceptual thinking.

In about 2010 I first wrote about something called “deconstruction thinking” wherein I suggested the future business model will reflect more of a “do, deconstruct & re-do” mentality. At the core of a successful deconstruction thinking model is the ability to think conceptually or in terms of concepts not rigid constructs. It was kind of a bastardized  mosh pit of scenario planning, ‘teal’, Toffler ‘polymalleable organizations’ and a desire to see effectiveness emphasized over efficiency.

I believe at the core of any future success is the coalescing of prioritized fragments into a conceptual whole in a timely fashion. This will demand not only critical thinking, but also the ability to envision how that thinking can exist in a future state.

Simplistically, concepts are about networked value creation which can occur structurally or transactionally.

Structural conceptual thinking, implemented as networked value creation, is not that difficult and has been done for decades.

Transactional conceptual thinking, combined with the actual networked value creation, is hard – very difficult. It’s about envisioning opportunities/issues, envisioning resources/ideas/abilities and envisioning how to put it into action. In other words, its difficult.

I continue to believe the future of business (in any industry) will lie in the hands of people who can not only envision THE work (present & future) as concepts in combination with the ability to articulate it in ways that make it tangible enough to be understood and acted upon (this, generally, is an idea Dr. Jason Fox has discussed).

This will demand one to embrace paradox & contradictions and dismiss either/or choices as too simplistic in a more complex conceptual world of thinking. No one should confuse this with speed or ‘faster world.’ It’s not. It is simply about moving parts of which some move fast, some tectonically slow and the majority somewhere in between.

It will take a combination of accessing ‘black box’ output (which demands some level of trust & learning) and judgement and embracing a conceptual framework of synthesizing paradoxical tensions.

The new decision making Concept world, one enabled by technology and the ‘black boxes’ of knowledge computers offer in terms of knowledge, is ultimately a deconstructive thinking world. A world in which it is understood that a stimulus can create desired, and sometimes undesired, responses, and consequences, and success is often more based on reacting & adapting to an initial stimulus than perfecting the initial stimulus. This demands conceptual thinking both to construct a plan of action as well as being able to ‘deconstruct’ and adapt as plans get implemented.

I would argue that over time the black box thinking <the intangible and vague ‘knowing’> becomes more tangible as well as we gain more faith in certain black box thinking applications. Given that belief I would also argue that Concepts, which outlines are vaguer in the beginning, gain substance & tangibleness over time.

I would also point out there is an inherent ‘human’ aspect to this idea.

Even with all the technology noise there is a persistently human future of work looming over the entire conversation. Computers are just not capable of empathy, curiosity & imagination which are the cornerstones to effectiveness. If I were to label the next age I would steal Jason Fox’s “Conceptual Age” more than just Human, or Technology, or IOT or even digital.

Oddly, the biggest challenge to thinking conceptually is NOT ability, but rather efficiency.

What do i mean by that?

The paradox is that business has a need for quality information more than ever, yet, quality information, in the form of data or minds, is readily available if we can sift through what is available. Therefore, theoretically, concepts exist they simply need to be crafted. Which leads me to what Dr. Jason Fox said:  “I worry about the curse of efficiency.” Once again, paradoxically, the conceptual age is all about the effective use of time. That may sound very similar to efficiency and therein lies the greatest enemy of the Conceptual Age.

How people view time. Efficient time or effective time or a greater “efficacy of time.”

The world has, does and will revolve around ideas. Technology will simply distribute, analyze and amplify ideas. In this case, concepts. This may paradoxically seem both time efficient and time inefficient. In other words, we will get the pieces of the concept faster and faster and, yet, coalescing the appropriate pieces into a meaningful concept will take longer & longer.

Will we be patient enough for the Conceptual Age? Regardless. I continue to believe there is a bigger idea found in just the idea of The Conceptual Age. One which captures the nexus of technology & humans & meaning.

What may help us in our Time war is that, conceptually, concept thinking is motivating. Its action in thinking. Instead of linear problem solving it is more like gathering disparate puzzle pieces and arranging them into a cohesive, or coherent, shape. We may be motivated to concept (think) slower.

The challenge to the Conceptual Age (beyond time).

Concepts, at their core, embrace tension or a paradox (not a dilemma). While a dilemma forces an either/or a paradox, and a concept, synergizes all components of tension into an idea/action/product/plan.

The trouble is when organizations are faced with these competing demands, they often tend to choose one or the other, compromise between them, or attempt to reconcile them. This happens for many reasons, but I would suggest the overriding reason is that business people constantly attempt to simplify a complex reality. Most of us embrace it because, well, people have a general tendency to see the world in black and white terms, which is a false dichotomy (Scandinavian Journal of Management).

Even trickier (worse) when you consider what John Dewey said: “there is no such thing as a final settlement because every settlement introduces the conditions of some degree of a new unsettling.” Concepts are never settled. They are always evolving.

————–

“Sureness will always elude you. The detective will always circle around what he wants, never seeing it whole.  We do not go on despite this. We go on because of it.”

Sara Gran

—————

The Conceptual Age.

The best way I can visualize the Conceptual Age is by leveraging the Swiss Cheese Model , but for concepts and not crisis/accidents.

The Swiss Cheese model highlights accidents occur when hazards align. In my mind, conversely, the optimal concepts can be found when an alignment of ‘organizational depth moving pieces ‘(aspects of business are constantly in motion but at different speeds – fast, medium fast, medium slow, slow & unmoving) is recognized , articulated and acted upon.

Conceptual thinking comes in all sizes (venti, tall, grande), but I will suggest the largest value segments:

Structural

Or

Transactional

———————

Pillars

Or

Opportunistic

The ability to discern these concepts in a timely, actionable framework AND be able to articulate in a way to assemble resources to take advantage may turn out to be the most valuable human resource a business may have. I call it ‘resource’ because it is quite possible in the future this is a human/technology combination. Technology assessing, sifting thru, “information cues” (this does not have to just be data) and highlighting probabilities as they arise with human judgment/assessment of organizational capabilities (mustering resources is accessing mental resources as well as tangible resources). In other words, articulating the varying concepts, defining the definitions, affect the way competing demands are described and how the resulting tensions are dealt with.

Lastly.

The effect on ‘knowledge workers’ and managers. Whenever we speak of ‘thinking conceptually’ there is a belief this is for the ‘intellectual elite’ (the eggheads). It is not. It will affect everyone and it should, if properly embraced, affect everyone in a business.

1. I disagree with many future of work experts. I don’t believe managers will become obsolete in world of automation/AI. Managers are the connective tissue in organizations. In fact. I see managers as integral to any transformation from efficiency to effectiveness. I actually see them as the cornerstone of the Conceptual Age.
2. All jobs will be reshaped by technology and all jobs will play a role in the Conceptual Age (Mike Walsh: design work).
   

In the end.

The Conceptual Age has emerged from not only the emergence of technology in business, but also the challenges to conventional wisdom from science, philosophy and knowledge. I would suggest people, mindful of the of the overarching issues with business (lack of moral leadership, hierarchy control limitations, diminished meaning and engagement in tasks and work) and aided by the easy movement of ideas created by technology, in a larger narrative, the Conceptual Age is seeking a new understanding of a human-centric world. The Conceptual Age will be a cornucopia of ideas, some of them contradictory, but will be defined by reason, conceptual thinking and, inevitably, how those concepts inspire progress.

I do believe The Conceptual Age is going to be an equal opportunity employer. And I think Concepts are the products with the highest value in the future. To me, this is the future of business. Ponder.

===

originally written Fall of 2018

=====

“If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up people together to collect wood and don’t assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea.”

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

============

“The problem today is not lack of proper resources, but lack of proper distribution.”

Mahatma Gandhi

==============

We gussy up organizational discussions with teams, networks, communities, but, at the core of every business organization is “distribution” — distribution of people, resources, ideas, skills, talent, energy, time, etc.

Unfortunately, hierarchy isn’t particularly conducive to effective, let alone efficient, distribution of any of these things. Most organizations don’t ‘distribute’ these things, they allocate them. The organic distribution of anything is an anathema to a business.

That said.

Here’s what I’m thinking.

Can technology, specifically algorithms, instead of forcing team collaboration (or ‘network teams’) extract skills/talents so friction is decreased and potential (company and individual) be optimized?

First. Extracting is a derivative of cross functional.

Cross functional teams is not a new idea. Toffler called it “poly malleable” organizations in 1970.

The issue is the idea is excellent in concept, a bitch in practice. Business has become contortion artists in applying “collaboration” in organizations (kind of their answer to cross functional and malleable).

Personally, when individuals interact in groups, I do not believe long-term commitment is necessary to build a real team, therefore, extracting talents can be situational and be quite effective.

“Collaboration is a cultural construct, but also a coordinative one.”

Mike Walsh

However. Just as collaboration needs to be consciously coordinated, so would extracting talents & skills. My thought is rather than have some person (who may, or may not be, effective at assessing submerged, non obvious, skills & talents) coordinate, why not have algorithms monitor activity & behavior and pluck out submerged potential as needed?

Second. Technology as a force for positive ‘human’ progress.

The pace of technological progress is accelerating, bringing significant opportunities to create value providing opportunities to reinvent the way we live, work, and organize.

Far too often, when speaking of people, we speak of this acceleration in bad terms – loss of focus, distraction, non productivity – while, with organizations/business we tend to speak of it in glowing terms – faster revenue growth, improve profit margins & innovation.  There is no reason technology cannot accelerate people potential if not optimize an organization by having technology augment people.

Harnessing algorithmic capabilities, computing capacity and data should enable human competencies (beyond their obvious role) and a new generation of system level innovation & productivity.

Third. People are not wholes, but rather a sum of parts.

Sum of parts? Let’s call it ‘the potential within Fragmentary interests’. I was tempted to discuss this as “distribution revolution of interest and knowledge.” It’s a deeper dimension to Drucker’s knowledge worker in that each knowledge worker contains fragments of knowledge – some fragments bigger, and more well developed than others, but fragments. Therefore potential doesn’t reside in optimizing one skill or fragment of knowledge but rather optimizing the fragmented interests residing in each individual.

—–

“The key to individual parts coming together to create an emergent whole is coordination, and that means a sharing of information between parts in the system.”

Gideon Rosenblatt

—–

Now. interestingly the technology exists (in some form) and it called ‘Digital twin’.

Therefore we would be seeking to optimize our digital twin. I will note this thought may also be a derivative of ‘semantic web’ but I am focused on algorithms with this idea.

fourth. Meaningfulness distribution

I hesitate to suggest distributing meaningfulness (it sounds to productivity purposeful) but at the core of this thought is what I stated in Distribution Revolution  that all transactions are dependent upon distribution. And while it may sound harsh a business makes transactions with its employees – one of which is quite possibly “I will give you opportunities to optimize your potential & you will find meaningfulness in the process.”

Regardless. Transaction aside, is there a way to better enable meaning in traditional organizations – which tends to distance people from any meaning in work.

Meaning. No one defines meaning better than Alain de Botton (The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work): “meaning is simply ‘making someone or something better.’” it is all about contributing to helping in some way (in small, grande or venti dimension).

I would argue that when humans are at the center of the molecule of all business activity, all connections gain value (even with digital & work) and the person gains intrinsic self-value because, well, everything augments them & their potential. That is scaling potential & meaningfulness.

“Your business is only as strong as your least scalable component.”

Mike Walsh

(part 1). I say that because we often say powerful forces are changing the business world but we rarely speak about how the powerful forces of people within an organization can radically change the business itself. Because of connectedness the loci of productivity and dynamism resides in movements in people, information and idea within a company. This is like a value chain which evolves based on the context of the need which reshapes to amplify the potential & knowledge of the team. Using algorithms thru the entire organization focuses skills, talents and people based on the situation at hand. These forces may morph in some unexpected ways and combining ideas & skills to create even greater impacts than we expected. And while we may discuss ‘greater impact’ in terms of productivity & return, the largest impact will be found in meaningfulness.

Think about it this way – company value chains become more knowledge-intensive and reliant on multi-skill labor.

Look.

(part 2). I think we are all beginning to realize we are all contributing to the blurring of life and work. Realizing that distractions and attention isn’t what is around us about what is within us.

At the same time realizing that festina lente matters. Not suggesting this is easy and we will not get it right but the more we practice it, the more an algorithm does it, the better we will all get at it.

But do we quit at the first failure?

People are rediscovering they matter in a business system that has talked about how people matter, but has actually done everything it can to squeeze out natural untidiness and compel conformity under the guise of efficiency. Yeah. people have always grumbled about this but hierarchy has naturally sucked the life out of believing real change, and empowerment, can occur. Now. as a recent article just stated “hierarchy is just a shape.” In general, I agree. But it does ignore that organization, construct, in and of itself, encourages stasis. But what if algorithms stimulated activity from within and discouraged stasis? That is my question.

With the concept outlined, let me highlight would I would see as four potential positive consequences:

Consequence 1: individual potential

Individual potential is always a tricky thing. Many times it is trial & error in an environment in which ‘stepping out of your specific responsibility zone’ is rarely encouraged and often high risk. This is unfortunate because if a system existed in which secondary, tertiary and even quaternary talent could be not only utilized but even exercised to become stronger, all individual skills improve.

Introverts tend to be hesitant to offer and extroverts tend to offer on the wrong things.

If an algorithm could tap into the potential mines of talent that exited on an ad hoc basis then every individual’s potential gets tapped. If that happens their productivity (mental or output) gets maximized.

Consequence 2: individual meaning

Here is the weird thing. Even though I am speaking of algorithms I am also speaking of community. Introverts or extroverts. Wallflowers or the bombastic. Getting everyone engaged is tricky. Yet. Everyone wants to be part of a community and everyone finds happiness part of a tribe/community. It is the getting in and getting engaged which is a very individual type decision. Work is no different. In fact. I could argue that work is not defined by some milestone attained or some project completion but rather “community is about a series of small choices and everyday actions.” Within those small interactions will be found that larger individual meaning.

Look.

Everyone wants to contribute. Everyone wants to do something to benefit others (“what I do has value to others”). Everyone wants to do both using whatever (all) skills available. Simplistically, if a business can trigger individual contribution it will enhance individual meaning.

Consequence 3: organizational potential

Strip away culture, shareholder value or whatever metric you want to discuss, business is dependent upon maximizing its resources. Think about it from a health perspective. If employees show up every day (no sick days), healthy and happy (health & happiness or linked), you maximize productivity on 2 dimensions – time productivity and individual responsibility productivity. Therefore, if you expand productivity beyond an individual’s responsibility and seek to tap into additional skills/abilities beyond their own specific responsibility you have the opportunity to expand organizational productivity in another dimension. Its possibly a different version of collaborative productivity. This one is collaboration not of people but of talent/ability fragments (via people). Its coalescing type collaboration. If you look at ability as resources it is possible an algorithm maximizes all organizational resources.

Consequence 4: organizational hiring

Assume consequence 1 thru 3 is true. You would no longer hire off a specific role but rather with an eye toward what combination of primary, secondary, tertiary & quaternary skills the leaving person has subtracted or, conversely, gaps the organization needs to fill if a role opens up.

Hire not for an individual role but rather organizational contribution made up of multiple roles.

Conclusion.

Oddly, my greatest defense of using algorithms to enhance organization potential may be found in the objective, the desired outcome, rather than in its more dubious companion – the algorithm itself.

The outcome?

As Don Cornelius said, ‘It is always a pleasure to find something that matters.’

What if algorithms helped find out what matters to people (skills) and optimized them?

What if all people were optimized (or, simply more & better utilized)?

What if all people skills were activated in a business?

The answers are obvious. More productivity. More individual meaning. And, arguably, more happy people and business.

Here is what I know.

Creativity is always what gives business, & brands, traction in the marketplace and is what insures businesses progress. If a business can maximize its creativity, it will always progress. Progress, rather than growth, should always be the objective a business.

Notice that nowhere in that paragraph did I mention meaningfulness, productivity, technology or purpose. I didn’t have to because if algorithms can tap into submerged skills people, and the organization, will inevitably be more creative in thinking & in solutions – which equals progress. And, bottom line, any algorithm that can do that is worth its weight in gold.

===========

“Making a product is just an activity, making a profit on a product is the achievement.”

Amit Kalantri

=====================

Author’s note:

I originally published this in 2018 and decided to repost given all the discussion about supply chain issues and inflation/inflated costs. While I believe it is fair to discuss inflation in a variety of ways, I believe it is business & economic malpractice to discuss inflated costs (to the consumer) without discussing how distribution issues effect costs. What I mean by that is even the smallest changes in distribution costs can make overall costs increase additively/multiplicative. Regardless. As I open this piece, “everything is about distribution.” Call it supply chain issues if you would like, but it is just good ole distribution.

=====

This is about distribution, therefore, it’s about technology, the internet & the transfer of goods & services.

Everything is about distribution. Everything.

Ideas.

Thoughts.

Attitudes.

Things.

Products.

Services.

Monies.

Material.

Data.

Information.

Think of each of these things as containers – containers to be shipped from one place to another. This is different than transactions. Transactions are the outcomes of distribution, i.e., I cannot make a transaction unless it can be distributed.

Now. While anyone can use this new Distribution Revolution world we live in you have to earn the income, revenue & profits, they don’t just come to you, i.e., simply accessing the construct doesn’t mean you will benefit from it. I believe that point is why much of the business world is struggling with what exactly technology is and whether it truly has offered any increased economic productivity. It gets discussed as “just another channel” or a social amplification tool or an efficiency creator or, well, the laundry list of labeling is massive. To me it would make much ore sense if we simply thought of it as a distribution infrastructure change from which people should start thinking about the repercussions to people, organizations & businesses.

Given this view, one would note the internet changed the world in a couple of ways that often don’t get discussed:

• Until the internet came along “everything is connected with everything” was more of a philosophical concept with strings of truth. Now, with the internet, it is truth which we need to conceptually, get a philosophical grip on it.
• Until the internet came along everything was physically distributed now many things can be virtually distributed.

Within this context of these two things, retail discussions, data distribution & digital transformations, are simply smaller battles within the larger Distribution Revolution. We discuss companies as disruptors or legacy businesses all the while neglecting the fact business is always about transactions of value & distribution enables the value items to exchange hands. Business is ultimately about transactions of value, and, distribution is all about enabling the value items (goods & services & payment/$) to change hands as efficiently to as many markets as possible.

Regardless.

Think about the internet as distributing containers – of information, monies, data, goods, services & transactions.

Original container revolution:

The container revolution started by giving businesses a way to distribute existing products faster and cheaper. Over time it allowed business to make and distribute new products and develop new business models. Containerization not only made shipping cheaper & faster it also completely changed the whole structure & mindset of distribution. In 1956 it cost $5.83 a ton to load loose cargo onto a ship in the United States – today it costs around 16 cents a ton (36x less expensive).

The new container revolution:

The internet is doing exactly the same thing. It gives people an alternative way to distribute existing products (physical and nonphysical) and enable businesses to create and distribute new products and develop new business models.

The Container revolution brought trade to previously out of the way places which before had been too costly to distribute. Similarly the internet has made it possible to not only distribute products & services but actual work (outsourcing). The internet can distribute in a variety of ways – physical logistics as well as digitally. This creates an entirely new industry for entrepreneurs to develop products & services which can be distributed anywhere at any time.

Think value on the move.

The essence of distribution is enabling value transactions to happen as cheaply and efficiently as possible beyond simply moving value from here to there, from seller to buyer, the internet actually provides opportunity to add value to the distribution process itself.

FYI. This can also be physical non internet products & services. For example, FedEx/UPS permits you to track your package via the internet. A logistics supplier who distributes nothing they actually create adds value to its own service simply thru distribution transparency.

All that said.

Digital is just a tactic within the revolution. Internet is the enabler of the revolution

What this distribution revolution has done is attack distribution in a variety of ways:

• Digitally unbundling value.

If distribution is value on the move it also means value can be unbundled (which has potential positives AND negatives).

Simplistically value, in the past, was created in a stacked layered way. Value was built layer by layer so that when assessed the value was seamlessly embedded in the total. The inherent strength of this methodology was value was constructed like a building in which parts were dependent on other parts.

In the new distribution revolution, the value is unbundled in a more linear way so that the individual parts can be maximized for its singular value. On a continuum both efficiency (time & investment) and effectiveness (ability to enhance value) can be manipulated on an ongoing basis, therefore, the value components can be constantly adapted to maximize the total value.

Productivity:

Theoretically, possibility of increased productivity occurs in 2 ways:

• Value gets driven up higher, in totality, by maximizing the individual parts with the highest value (this can be contextually different based on unique buying experiences). Productivity gets enhanced by more effective focus on things of highest value.
• Innovation opportunities are identified as discrete parts which can be pursued with the intent to either enhance structural (overall) value creation or intent to pursue a new transactional value creation opportunity (a ‘part’ of the value creation uncovers a new opportunity to produce something new)

• Localized relevance/personalization.

Local, or localized, connectiveness is a powerful aspect of providing value to distribution. People get absorbed, and sometimes overwhelmed, by the global scope of the distribution and localizing is an easy way to make it a little less overwhelming and more, well, personalized. Which leads me to personalization. To be recognized and acknowledged as a unique individual, or a distinct one, within a huge global distribution model, triggers one of the most basic human needs (recognition as an individual). Conversely, this is the underlying belief that while being acknowledged as an individual in a huge distribution world of anonymous impersonal interactions even a little nod to who you are, your identity, your specific needs, elevates basic distribution to personalized.

I would argue this is as far as you need to go (beyond maybe “you bought this so you may be interested in his” type personalization). The latter is acknowledgment you have had a relationship with that distribution but doesn’t overstep any ‘creepy’ boundaries.

Productivity:

We often conflate personalization with customization. Personalization, in general, creates a level of value to the functional & brand value. The productivity opportunity resides in the customization halo of personalization. In other words productivity can be enhanced if the productivity doesn’t simply ”chase” personalization but rather uses the personalization to assess either additional products or innovations which offer complementary products (which you can sell more of at a higher price).

• How does digital transformation fit in?

Digital transformation is a means to an end – an infrastructure decision. It should be viewed as “how can I distribute what needs to be distributed to either enable structural value creation (of what exists) or how it can create new value creation toward corporate vision.”

The value creation insures it meets business objectives and corporate culture (because, remember, digital transformation is dependent upon not mastery or implementation but rather culture – culture at scale means digital simply scales with culture).

In other words, unless you decide what you want to distribute and to whom and when, you cannot effectively implement digital transformation.

Productivity:

Digital transformation, implemented correctly. Offers two productivity opportunities:

• Transactional productivity (sell more of individual products)
• Structural productivity (cross selling of more products at a higher price – or higher profit margin)

• Where does the revolution go? New business models using New old products & services

We need to stop talking about Amazon and retail industry and focus on “how can this new distribution revolution be leveraged to meet our business objective (and what business do I want to create in which the objective can be met thru this distribution revolution>? There are few capacity issues/limitations associated with this distribution revolution so if the distribution helps you meet a viable business objective you know live in a ubiquitous world.

What I mean by this is there is an entire world of existing products & services which can become a new product or service simply by viewing it thru a distribution revolution lens.

Airbnb is simply a hostel-like concept enabled by tech

Uber was the eastern european transportation model but enabled by tech

Old ideas brought to life in a new way as information, value and transactions are exchanged.

Productivity:

There is nothing more profitable than selling more of something you already have and know how to produce efficiently. Theoretically businesses should be able to assess stagnant or dormant brands/products and evaluate whether a new way of distribution would reinvigorate sales & engagement.

Lastly.

• Not the customer Revolution, organizational revolution

I would encourage everyone to think of this Distribution revolution as having an organizational consequence (which will inherently affect customers but it is the deliverer of customer products/service which is impacted most). I would argue this is where the greatest productivity increases will appear.

The main reason we have not seen the expected economic results predicted with technology is lack of alignment between organizational design and technology benefits. One of the largest benefits of an information distribution revolution is the ‘knowledge worker’ (as defined by Alvin Toffler) can now have all the information necessary to make decisions wherever they sit with whatever title they may, or may not, have.

This is where the distribution revolution is easing its way into a distributed decision making & leadership business model. Distributed decision making inherently has economic benefits and increases productivity. The main proof point for this is “The Added Value of Buurtzorg Relative to Other Providers of Home Care: A Quantitative Analysis of Home Care in the Netherlands” (KPMG: Jan 2015).

————

Buurtzorg appears to transcend the usual trade-offs in health and social care: it is cost efficient and yet the ratio of nurses to clients is purposely kept low in the interest of care continuity; it generates a healthy surplus even though it employs a significantly larger than average number of highly-qualified staff remunerated at a higher than average level; it achieves higher than average employee productivity figures without centralised systems of employee control; it achieves higher than average quality of care at a cost level that is below the industry average.

————————

Now. This organizational design actually increases in productivity if more information, and relevant information, is distributed to employees.

This leads me to note simply removing hierarchy isn’t enough. Hierarchy has conditioned the everyday employee to not assume risk and middle management to be, well, anal. In addition current measurement models restrict decision making rather than enhance freedom necessary to make the best decisions at any given point in time. Frankly, most of us are conditioned to be passive and compliant. Successful self-managing companies have very clear structures but, culturally, are constructed with more of a belief in people taking responsibility & being accountable. Applying the Distribution revolution with a distributed decision making organizational model demands a mindset, leadership, culture and the human skills necessary to facilitate a much deeper level of productivity.

Productivity:

Organization change is a means to an end. Change for change sake is wasted energy. Therefore, the distribution revolution leading to organizational revolution needs to have productivity revolution consequences. Internet, to date, has not produced substantive economic growth.

I would argue that is because there has not been an alignment of business & how the internet distributes information, ideas, knowledge & things to date. Some businesses have utilized aspects of technology and distribution opportunities to make some successful economic forays into the marketplace. But I struggle to find a business that has aligned all aspects to maximize economic productivity, enhance value and, well, sell more at the highest price possible.

Conclusion.

Distribution is inherently about the transfer of goods & services. I have simply expanded the definition of ‘goods & services’ based on technology. I believe it is helpful to look at technology as a Distribution Revolution because, as I have been reminded over & over again, technology should be a means to increased economic productivity & enhanced value creation.

When viewed under that microscope it becomes more obvious there is a lack of alignment to best utilize the distribution of goods & services. We will not reap the larger economic benefits until we stop viewing technology as, well, technology and begin viewing it simply as a distribution model from which we align all phases in the distribution from creation to implementation.

=======================

Thanks to Joost Minnaar (Corporate Rebels) and Wiemer Snijders for some valuable thoughts as well as an older J. Walter Thompson white paper on technology.

==========

“We all have one foot in a fairytale, and the other in the abyss.”

—–

Paulo Coelho

==============

My anger at the world coils inside of me. It’s a directionless seething, there’s no name or face to aim at.”

————–

Claire Zorn

==============

Well. Life demands us to draw a lot of lines.

And more often than we would like to admit it demands we place one foot on one side of a line and the other foot on the other side of the line.

That may not sound … well … right.

Or maybe the best thing to do.

It may even sound like I am suggesting you ‘straddle the fence.’

Nope. This isn’t straddling, this is about being grounded or balancing oneself.

Balancing? If you don’t place one foot solidly on either side, you can be quite easily consumed by the extremes of Life which are, more often than not, found on only one side of a line.

If you don’t place one foot solidly on either side, you can be quite easily consumed by others who seek to consume what you may think you don’t really care that much about <but you should … and actually do when you care to think about it enough>.

If you don’t, you can be quite easily consumed.

I guess what I am saying is that Life demands you pragmatically be active in drawing some lines so that you have some sense of when you are getting too, well, “too”. It helps if you can have some sense of where to actually place your feet that is meaningful.

Maybe what I am saying is that many of us have no problem ‘making a stand’, but if you really aren’t sure where your line is then it is quite possible you aren’t really sure you are taking your stand in the right place.

Okay.

Maybe think of it this way.

It’s kind of like making sure you have things in perspective when you take a stand.

It’s kind of like demanding realistic hope.

It’s kind of like demanding some hopeful despair.

It’s kind of like demanding you believe in some fairytales and some abyss-like darkness.

It’s kind of like demanding lines for yourself so you can deal with the lines Life is going to demand of you.

Look.

I don’t really believe there are angry-only people. They just have so much anger within themselves that their line is drawn differently than others.

I don’t really believe there are dreamer-only people. They just have so much imagination within themselves that their line is drawn differently than others.

But here’s the deal.

You have to draw some lines.

There has to be some reality to ground some imagination.

There has to be some truth to ground some questioning.

There has to be some principles to ground some rebelliousness.

There has to be some fairytaleishness <I made up that word> to balance out some of the inevitable abyss.

You do have to have one foot somewhere other than where your other foot resides.

I know.

I know.

That sounds a little of whack from conventional wisdom because far more often you hear “both feet on the ground” and shit like that. But if you have two feet on the line … well … you have chosen to stand on a thin balance beam and will teeter your entire life. That is tiring & dangerous. But if you have two feet, one on each side, you have chosen a life of fairytales AND a life in the abyss.

All that said.

Yes.

There are times you draw a line and make a choice to shift both feet solidly onto one side. I would suggest this is a situational decision and not a “living Life” type decision. Situational like:

That is right and that is wrong.

That is good and that is bad.

That is normal and that is not normal.

Those are most likely the moments in which Life says “now, in this time and place, here is the line … on which side to you choose to stand?”

I would suggest sometimes we fuck this up by confusing a ‘Life one foot here & one foot there’ decision and a contextual situational decision. What I mean is that in that time and place you may try and keep your fairy tale foot in place and your abyss foot in place … and mistakenly take on a different type of decision demanding a different type of line.

That would be a bad decision.

The good decision?

In that time. in that place. In that moment. You shift your feet.

Sigh.

I never suggested lines were easy. Just that Life demands we draw a lot of lines. I would suggest that if you do not draw some lines you will find yourself lost in anger coiled within, or maybe constantly living a less than fairy tale life dreaming it all away, or stuck in some dark abyss seeing no way out.

Yeah … lines come in pretty handy at times. Pretty handy in managing Life. I can tell you <for sure> that lines can be pretty handy at helping you decide when something should end … and something should start.

 =================

“The belief that the commonplace is really worth looking at, and the courage to look at it with a minimum of theorizing”

John Szarkowski

================

This is about business culture collaboration in business, organizational structure and customer relationships. What do they all have in common? If you treat them in a transactional way, you will not only have limited value you will have fixed value.

“Transactional relationships have a fixed value (i.e. the end goal) and an expiration date (i.e. when the end goal is achieved – or not). There is nothing beyond them. Change value for values and a transformation takes place because it adds a common, shared fluidity to them.”

David Amerland

This may sound obvious, but I would bet 90% of middle management exists in a transactional relationship world (albeit couched in structural, cultural verbiage). Heck. I would bet 75% of senior leadership thrives in a transactional relationship mindset.

We talk a good game on ‘soft skills’ and ‘the importance of culture’ and any number of non cause-effect measurable sales/revenue topics, but the reality is most of business is transactional – do this by then, what is ROI, KPI index, etc., i.e., simplistic cause-effect. Why? Its easier. Its ‘measurable’ (albeit sometimes dubiously measured). This is incredibly dangerous. Dangerous because in a complex business world an effect could be the result of multiple causes and an individual ‘cause’ can create multiple, often ripples, effects.

Here is the issue. A lesson I believe marketers, customer-centric, branders, organizational, etc. should ponder more often. While cause-effect is simpler, reality is much more fluid.

The former is finite value. The latter is infinite value.

I several thoughts:

Hopes and fears

Look. We promise according to our hopes; we perform according to our fears. This important from a finite AND infinite standpoint.

Somewhere along the way they began to see fears as assets and hopes as liabilities. That’s because, in a transactional world, fears drove measurable finite game type results and hopes seemed immeasurable in finite and too distant, transactionally, in the infinite

The fear of ‘death’ (failure) is the affirmation of the finite.

“From where you are you can hear their dreams. The dismays and despairs and flight and fall and big seas of their dreams.”

Dylan Thomas

Somewhere along the way business, addicted to measurement & short term results (the finiteness of business), fear became the organizational emotional energy. That is bad. That is transactional. That is a fixed value relationship with people and time. I will say fixed value is limiting and un-fixed value is limitless.

Collaboration

I’ve always argued forced collaboration was waste of time. Why? Because, in today’s business world, more often than not its transactional.

We have entered a new age. I could argue as business organizations modeling has entered into a new age (grudgingly so), collaboration has also. Unfortunately, business, as business does, has mostly failed to shift attitudes, and modes of, toward collaboration as their organizations have shifted. We continue to supply the same flawed remedies for a new disease.

The truth is that real collaboration creates opportunities to escape the constraints and perceived barriers to address complex issues and access expertise on a broad scale. Yes. Using technology, business can certainly re-imagine collaboration. But (and this is a big but) to create the conditions in which collaboration can occur a business has to shed a transactional relationship with collaboration. Yeah. I just said that. Yeah. I seriously doubt any business will embrace that.

The truth is that, as Hamel & Prahalad said (in Competing for the Future, 1994), management needs to shift as systems shifts – and business has failed miserably on this front. One of the consequences to this failure is a continuing failure in Collaboration.

The promise of collaboration, in a technology world, is that it can occur across functional teams within an organization or across organizations. To realize the promise of collaboration, leaders and collaborators alike, need to learn to think strategically and critically about the most appropriate ways to choose tools, adapt processes and work in virtual spaces. Part of that challenge is there is no formula in that the tools, and collaboration itself, changes how we work as well as we change how the tools work for us.

I will admit that components of collaboration should meet ‘finite game’ business needs (leaning toward a transactional need), but collaboration should be emergent, therefore, not transactional in and of itself, but rather opportunistically result driven.

Organizational structure

As Stowe Boyd said: ‘Designing culture’ that has taken hold in the short-circuited world of startup entrepreneurialism. It’s now a given – not subject to discussion or reflection – that

1. organizational culture is an object, a thing subject to design and crafting,
2. leadership should decide what the business culture ought to be,
3. and impose that idea on the organization like an architect designing and constructing an airport, a hospital, or a shopping mall.

I am making up this %, but I would bet 90% of business culture is grounded in a transactional web of connective tissue. There will be values & ethics & a bunch of vision/Purpose-like narrative, but productivity, or proof or performance, is what connects it all. For good or for bad, the default state of any business is ‘we produce or die.’ Yes. That is, at its core, a transactional relationship. Yes. That means business, by default, seeks a fixed value state (which seems kind of nuts when viewed). Organizational structure IS shifting, systems are shifting, but I would argue the transactional tissue is viewed as the glue by leadership. That, my friends, is like putting a governor on a potential Lamborghini engine. That, my friends, is nuts.

Lastly.

Customer relationships

Business has talked about ‘loyalty’ forever. The value of ongoing relationships. Yet. If you tear off all the pretty packaging almost every business views customer relationships through a transactional relationship lens. Its grounded in a “maximize each interaction” mentality. That, in and of itself, ensures a transactional fixed value. Just ponder.

In the end.

All successful organizations adapt by effectively deciding what is necessary to preserve and what should be let go. This is next to impossible to do if the business survives on ongoing transactional relationship mentality – thru culture, thru collaboration, thru structure, thru customer relationships. Period.

 =========

“Stagnation is self-abdication.”

―

Ryan Talbot

=============

“The moment we stand still, we begin to decay.”

―

Erich Fromm

==============

“If you’re stationary, you’ll die.”

—-

Gen. Mark Milley, Joint Chief of Staff

================

Ok. I tend to believe any reasonable business person recognizes stagnancy leads to inevitable death <although at the same time many reasonable business people also have an unhealthy relationship with tried & true systems & processes, mitigate risk taking to such an extreme level that change almost seems indiscernible and views any change as something that needs to be analyzed from every view imaginable before undertaking it>.

I thought about that when I scanned a fantastic article on WarontheRocks discussing the army strategy of the future. Within it was a phrase that caught my eye – “disciplined disobedience.”

It first and foremost reminded me that businesses can view stagnancy in a variety of ways in their attempt to “not change what works” while seeking “change what needs to be changed” <all of which simply means “something within your business is not dynamic and there are scraps of stagnancy slowing you down”>.

It secondly reminded me that back in august 2010 I wrote something called ‘discontinuity for successful company continuity’  in which I shared an organizational idea called “controlled autonomy” <others may call it a version of a self organized organization or a decentralized organization or a variety of ‘decentralized-like employee empowered’ terms> … and suggested that was the organization of the future.

—————————-

A continuous discontinuous organization?

Controlled autonomy.

Controlled in that there is a vision, a focus and a functional understanding of what is it we do well.

Autonomy in that outside the ‘control developers’ people can do different shit.

Controlled autonomy is certainly an organizational shift from the past.

But even IBM has looked at this concept.

A past IBM research report suggests that the best analogies for businesses in the future may no longer be the command structures of the military but the self-organizing networks found in nature: schools of fish, flocks of birds and swarms of insects.

Well.

I don’t know about the birds & bees thing but I do understand they are suggesting some decentralization (or autonomy at the employee level).

The struggle with this is that this agility I am discussing is a process where the leadership is not omnipotent.

And further struggle continues with autonomy (and the ensuing agility) as there will be enablers and blockers within the organization therefore the leadership must factor in internal organization limitations (and possibilities) when judging the best plan of action.

What that really means is that no matter how you slice it … organizations are ‘tense anxiety-driven’ structures.

Employees typically oppose new ideas because they perceive they are unworkable (and sometimes they are if the ivory tower doesn’t have their shit together) and bad for profits (or it appears to on the ground people they aren’t making as much money).

And yet we also know that employees always have a large stake in the future success of any organization. Some hesitancy is due to fear or laziness but it can also be due to good judgment.

This is where autonomy comes into play.

It’s not just about diverse views in planning (which obviously highlights opportunities and obstacles) but also some permission of diversity in on the ground decision making.

And autonomy in an organization helps address the truth that is there is a difference between ‘intended’ strategy at the corporate level and ‘realized’ strategy on the business level, i.e., what management wishes to occur, and what is in fact carried out.

That is also the dynamic portion of businesses that permits change to meet changing markets.

Sounds awful difficult to control? (or manage) Sure it is.

But that is why a leader should be paid the big bucks.

———————-

Uhm. I still believe that.

At the most simplistic level any business faces two basic demands — it must execute its current activities to survive today’s challenges and adapt those activities to survive tomorrow’s.

This means executing and adapting at exactly the same time. This also means, within your business, there is a constant competition for resources, money & time in order to meet executional demands and adaptation opportunities <therein lies a significant portion of the ‘tense-anxiety’ dynamic of a dynamic organization.

I am not making this up.

Peters and Waterman <In Search of Excellence> argued that organizations must simultaneously be “tight” in executing and “loose” in adapting. I believe they also pointed out that very few do both well.

I have had many discussions with many businesses trying to convince them that an organization can be very good at both executing and adapting and how to be good at both.

It seems that many business leaders sometimes forget that the organization can sometimes forget they can actually be an organization from an aligned ‘doing’ perspective <because we put such an emphasis n vision and strategy>.

What I mean is that most good businesses have naturally incorporated a sense of autonomy and over time the organizational alignment aspects fade into a subconscious background space and individual departments and groups coalesce around the autonomous aspects <it gives them a sense of pride, empowerment & self-actualization as part of the whole>.

Everyone should note that while this is an incredibly powerful engine in a company it can become challenging with employee turnover <because there has to be some plan to assimilate new people into a subconsciously acting organization>.

Look. I believe, and vocally espouse, great alignment in an organization more often than not is actually “purposeful fragmentation.” This is the type of alignment which permits the parts of the organization <departments, divisions, etc.> to maintain some autonomy yet always be grounded in what is ultimately important to the organization.

Sure. I do believe there are things you want an organization to do fairly commonly and certainly can do if you ask the organization to swing into action. And I do believe it is imperative to get these things down and established as ‘rote behavior’ in the midst of an organizational shift/transformation. But organizations have a nasty habit of falling back on less-than-autonomy type leadership and thinking. This nasty habit occurs as we gain experience because our ‘rules & guidelines’ hierarchies fill up based on a larger collection of specific experiences and more feedback on what has and hasn’t worked.

Someone articulated the outcome of this as:

“our mental models grow into complex structures of categories, interlinked rules, and weightings. We become less likely to perceive experiences as totally new and instead try to relate them to previous ones, which we group into existing categories. As mental models become more complex over time, major rearrangements become more difficult.”

Basically, as an organization’s size and complexity increase its degrees of freedom & autonomy decrease. and while I just made a sweeping generalization I would point out something that Scott Page, University of Michigan, who studied why some organizations are complex and hierarchical while others are simple and flat concluded — organizations evolve in response to the problems they have to solve.

All of this leads me back to what the Army Chief of Staff said in the warontherocks article. Two thoughts for any business person who embraces the uncomfortable truth that stagnancy is the path to irrelevant death:

“If you’re stationary, you’ll die.”

Consolidated bases and logistics hubs will be untenable, presenting lucrative targets for an enemy with precision firepower. He noted we must “untether ourselves from this umbilical cord of logistics and supply that American forces have enjoyed for a very lengthy period of time.” Army units will have to move, set up, move, and move again — “maybe every two, three, four hours just to survive.” Fixed sites of any kind will be lethal magnets for destruction by enemies who will have a rich diet of targeting information — especially since smart phones will be even more ubiquitous. As he bluntly stated, “If you’re stationary, you’ll die.”

• Disobey Orders — Smartly

He called this “disciplined disobedience.” I believe this idea was floated by a past Army Chief of Staff back in the 1970’s but called “selective disobedience.” This suggests that disobeying orders can be justified to achieve the larger purpose of the mission.

[A] subordinate needs to understand that they have the freedom and they are empowered to disobey a specific order, a specified task, in order to accomplish a purpose. Now, that takes a lot of judgment … it can’t just be willy-nilly disobedience. This has got to be disciplined disobedience to achieve the higher purpose.

Milley added:

“disobedience, when done, must be done with trust and integrity, and you must be morally and ethically correct.”

A business competitive field has always been one of chaos and unpredictability <although we have always tried to communicate it as more static in SWOT analysis and crap like that>. And if you accept it is more chaotic and unpredictable it will become easier to understand why far too many organizations frequently lack reliable communications up and down the chain of command. As the Army recognizes, and businesses more often should, junior leaders may have to independently make quick decisions upon which battles may be decided and which may have strategic consequences.

In a controlled autonomy the leaders must become more comfortable with some ambiguity and accepting the fact that employees closer to the point of action/decision will be making unsupervised decisions to achieve the organization’s, and leader’s, intent. Simplistically, as the Army suggests is mission command — empowering leaders with the “why” of their task, but leaving the “how” to their imagination.

Well. Suffice it to say … while people like me love that thought & concept most business leaders are scared shitless of it. Frankly, most senior leaders <centralists by management nature> who seek to implement some autonomous aspects don’t set out to deceive anybody. In their heads they know that high degrees of involvement, participation, and autonomy are key elements in high organization performance. But in their hearts, they still crave orderliness, predictability, and control.

They get trapped in the wretched in-between because a central “plan” cannot dictate and bring order to a haphazard, chaotic, unpredictable, and rapidly changing business world – no matter how much we wish it would.

And. It gets more difficult.

With a continuing stress on “bottom line” or making margins as high as possible leaders fall into the financial analysis trap which encourages anything but autonomy.

Financial analysis can clearly show that consolidating and centralizing support services and functions saves money and increases efficiency <in huge PowerPoint graph slides in the conference room> therefore suggesting autonomy is less than efficient.

What doesn’t show up in these analysis are two things:

<1> consolidating & centralizing is most effective & efficient in servicing a static business (note: business is never static)

<2> the inherent alienation, helplessness, and lack of ability to connect with real time customer & market needs or organizational purpose that centralized bureaucracy often brings

I could argue for controlled autonomy for years. And I could begin with the simplest thought that efficiencies may save gobs of money but the processes to do so can be cost you the intangible people energy and passion engine within the organization <and then add in at least 5 additional powerful reasons you, as a business leader, need to suck it up and embrace some ambiguity>.

Controlled autonomy may not be the proper terminology <albeit it offers a more comfortable liminal space fr a lot of existing leadership> but I would encourage all business people to start using the Army as an example and start using “disciplined disobedience” as a management North Star.

=====================

“The great growling engine of change – technology.”

—-

Alvin Toffler

===================

While distributed leadership, or decentralized organizations, is crashing into the digital transformation discussion what is making me think the most is ‘freedom.’ Yes. At the core of both of these things is freedom. What do I mean? We can distribute decision-making, we can distribute data, but if, when distributed, people are not free to use than you either have not really distributed anything or you have not maximized your distribution (both are bad). I bring up ‘freedom’ because it is here that I find my struggle matches up with many people’s struggle: giving freedom and gaining freedom is scary. This matters because how you interpret and accept freedom is inextricably to the ultimate efficiency or effectiveness.

What really made me sit back & think about this was Niels Pflaeging/Silke Hermann’s new little handbook “OpenSpace Beta.” To me, at its core, it is about radical freedom. They may not say that nor any distributed leadership experts may not say that (they most typically discuss things thru ‘trust’), but it is all about freedom – giving & getting – and your attitude & beliefs with regard to.

I found myself debating with myself as I read the handbook.

I know “decentralized decision making within hierarchy” is an oxymoron. It is inherently impossible to decentralize in a hierarchy. You may distribute some decision making, but not decentralize & certainly not create a fully free, autonomous, organization. And, yet, I know that unfettered freedom is fraught with peril (and a significant # of people actually like a fairly well defined box in which to create & do.

I know my own behavior has had an uncomfortable relationship with giving, and gaining, freedom in self & managing others.

In my mind, effective ‘decentralization’ is most likely more like a matching service, i.e., “this autonomy matches this participant’s autonomy” rather than “freedom to do what you believe is right.”

That may sound like semantics, but it is important semantics.

Its almost like I am suggesting decentralization protocols so that people maximize the freedom they want – maybe call it “personalized distributed decisionmaking.”

By the way. This doesn’t suggest people cannot grow into their freedom, but rather most people used to a centralized hierarchy will be most successful in accepting freedom in phases. Ok. Maybe not phases, but rather stages of self learning (what am I capable of, what do I like, what am I comfortable with, what scare me, when & how I should seek some assistance). We cannot ignore that many people, even those who want this idea, will have to feel their way thru the maze of freedom.

Some people will argue analysis will help the autonomous links in relationships, but I disagree. Decentralization is hard, no metric will be able to capture this correctly. Therefore, rather than taking on a “if it cannot be measured, it cannot be improved” attitude, I will suggest success is dependent upon a large dose of “faith” in distributing freedom.

Now. This becomes an incredibly important discussion because recent research by Gary Hamel is showing exactly the opposite in the business world:

“Bureaucracy is growing not shrinking… the average respondent (of Hamel’s study) works in an organization that has more than 6 management layers. In large organizations front line employees are buried under 8 or more layers of management.” Joost Minnaar

This means less real freedom and more management oversight (no matter what anyone may say otherwise).

To me, this is a reaction to autonomy. Huh? Yeah. For every action there is a reaction. Organizations will inherently create more rules, protocols, institutional checkpoints (those can be layers) to balance out the freedom they give – freedom given, freedom corralled. It is foolish to ignore this. It is foolish to ignore the fact businesses like tidiness & freedom/autonomy feels very very untidy.

This “untidiness of autonomy” hit me as I read OpenSpace Beta because the organizational concept espouses the idea of gaining traction where the traction raises their hands and then leverage the opt-in people to create the change. I inherently love this idea and scares the hell out of me at the same time. It is an incredibly untidy idea. Businesses inherently like tidiness and evenness & this has an untidy organizational change aspect and inherently can create some ragged edges in the organization as some adopt and some do not.

So.

I asked Niels about it:

Me: “Does OpenSpace Beta espouse the idea of gaining traction where the traction raises its hand, and then leveraging opt-in?”

Niels: The answer is YES. Even though it sounds brutally simple putting it that way!  😉  If you look at it, we certainly assume, and I am sure that EVERYONE WANTS BETA. The desire is everywhere, but it is hard for people to believe that Beta is possible in their own organizations, and that everyone wants to get engaged in the transformation.  I believe the main obstacle to transformation of organizations, today, is that it is hard to believe that “all others in my organization are Y people” and that all others “want the change and can be part of the change“. In short: It is hard to believe that transformation is possible at all, that change is fast & easy – when done the right way. So, in a way, one should assume that “the traction is there”, and then create the context for the traction to take hold. How that works is not so simple – and that is why we need an inviting, opt-in approach.

Therein lies the challenge in thinking about this untidiness.

Believing that freedom is as good for you as it is for someone else.

Believing that others will use freedom as well as you do.

Believing everyone deserves freedom.

Yeah. That sounds like it could take some soul searching .. and it should. Business, for decades & thru hierarchy, has always been built around selective freedoms – maybe ‘controlled freedom.’ That’s not full autonomy, that’s controlled autonomy (which is where my head was at 8 years ago when I wrote about Controlled Autonomy ). I now rethink that thinking. Maybe it is simply my evolution of belief in freedom and people. Maybe I needed distributed leadership people to help me evolve in my thinking.

Regardless.

Stop signs.

This is where I come to stop signs. Even Freedom needs some stop signs. Roads are built so people can make their own choices where and when to go somewhere. But even in the most rural areas you will find a stop sign in the middle of nowhere. It’s not set up to curb your freedom, but rather to put a check & balance on your freedom.

I think businesses need stop signs, not layers in a hierarchy. OpenSpace Beta offers principles (which I 100% advocate), but I also believe distributed leadership & autonomy needs stop signs. I would offer some but I tend to believe each organization, each management team, each self-organized team, needs to design stop signs for their own freedom organizational map. Does this mean I am chickening out by no offering some solutions? Maybe. Maybe I am not ready to build the map & stop signs myself. Maybe I need to evolve even more before not only fully accepting OpenSpace but maybe it’s my more pragmatic belief that stop signs erected can be stop signs pulled down and that as each company erects their freedom infrastructure part of the process is, well, looking at their stop signs.

In conclusion.

I encourage everyone to at least think about distributed leadership. OpenSpace, to me, is radical distributed decision making and radical freedom. But, returning to how I opened this piece, it is most likely the most radical way to maximize digital transformation AND your organization. And in that sentence one sees the true rewards (even if scared of giving radical freedom).

Choose wisely. But always remember freedom is scary – giving it & having it – and dealing with that fear is the path to success.

——-

“I have come to realize that being trustworthy does not demand that I be rigidly consistent, but that I be dependably real.”

Carl Rogers

1. “A brand is nothing abstract, like some mysterious essence – it is simply the sum of ideas associated with it.”

2. “Over time, the brand becomes like a molecule. Built up of successive and connected ideas.”

3. “The way to manage brands is coherence, not consistency.”

4. “Brands, like stories, are supposed to have a point.”

John Grant: The Brand Innovation Manifesto

Creator of Brand Molecule Concept John Grant and his theory on The Brand Molecule Concept

————————————-

Brands have always resided in the minds of people. This means that a brand is actually about expectations <functional, emotional, aspirational> that reside in people’s heads associated with a product, service and company <note: includes the company, seller, itself as part of the equation>. The brand is simply an executive summary of the story each person, uniquely, has in their heads. In other words, a brand is actually owned by people, what they think and believe, not in some business ‘construct.’ To summarize: Business owns products & services offered via the often nebulous hands of culture the organization exudes.

Now. Knowing that and recognizing the dubious control they actually have over their ‘brand’, branding people came up with a variety of control-looking tools. Brand houses, pyramids, probably an octagon or 2, all created to make the business feel they had control, yet, all these constructs did was limit the freedom a brand idea would have (freedom = growth).

It actually turns out that many of the brand frameworks we have been putting in place have actually been hurting the creativity, found in diverse stories, performance. Yes. Consistency encourages ‘less variety of stories delivered more often’. I would suggest this is driven mostly by fear, i.e., overworking consistency implies being at the right place, at the right time, with a consistent message, all the time. It’s a belief that a missed opportunity is a lost opportunity. That is a false premise. Opportunities arise all the time and when they do, quality increases value of engagement more than consistency. It seems we idolize creativity, yet worship consistency. It seems this actually decreases the productivity potential of a brand.

 This is why ‘brand molecules’ is actually the most effective way to think about brands particularly in today’s world.

Brand House versus Brand Molecule.

While there are a variety of brand constructs the most utilized is the Brand House framework. It is a template which suggests foundations, pillars and North Star direction. Conceptually it is a fine place to begin, unfortunately, the majority of practioners use it as a rigid construct. This practice reflects a belief in consistency over coherence. Almost a slavish adherence to consistency. I would note that too much consistency not only makes one’s brand dull <in an industry where ‘interest’ is a main criteria to value, relevance, engagement & attention>, not only tends to dull whatever insights the business is grounded in, but also limits the depth & breadth of potential stories to tell.

Is coherence, dividing your brand communication into a range of ideas spread through different experiences and stories a smart move in order to maximize a brand?

I’ll begin with the inherent strength of a molecule versus a brand house.

Simplistically, any vision is not meant to be a one lane highway to a destination. It is meant to provide a North Star for people to get someplace anyway, by whatever means, they can get there <within an ethical framework & principles>. I would argue once you have developed a North Star for your brand all you should care about is accumulating ideas & dispensing ideas that create a mosaic of multicolored lily pad stepping stones toward that vision.

I would also note that making your brand monolothic you essentially create a more fragile brand, business and communications idea. In Taleb terms, multiple ideas moving toward a common goal actually creates some anti-fragile aspects through unevenness. I would also suggest unevenness is more natural than some faux ‘well rounded brand.’

Brand Molecules.

“It’s the totality of the impression that matter”

Stephen King (JWT ‘father of brand planning’)

Dividing your brand communication into a range of smaller ideas, distributed and shared with people creates this antifragility because it permits brands to take advantage of opportunistic engagement which fosters growth & progress in a dynamic brand. Brands are made up of stories (ideas) which can be told in a variety of ways in a variety of places so that customers and potential customers have an understanding of the meaning behind the brand.

Successful brand molecules emerge from an idea ‘atom’ or ‘a brand idea.’ The idea needs to be big & small at exactly the same time: big enough to permit people’s ideas to collect around it and small enough that the substance of it offers a core value proposition.

Let’s call this ‘Role and Substance’. For an idea to have some connectivity and ability to collect valuable ideas around it must have a solid core as well as an idea of what role the brand should play in the marketplace.

Substance:

Principles are principles.

• Who are I (as a company): character & vision
• What do I offer (functional value)
• How does someone benefit from what I offer
• Why should anyone believe

We should never lose sight that at the core of any ‘brand’ is some product or service which actually fulfills a user need. Without meeting a need a product/service is not anchored to any meaningful sustainable value positioning and simply floats around in a nebulous quasi-hollow perception battle in people’s minds. I would also note that over time reality will trump perception.

Role:

What is the role of the brand from a cultural perspective. Call it “the cultural logic behind the brand idea.” To be clear. This is not Purpose, supporting causes or even social responsibility. It is simply “what role does the brand play in people’s minds.”

It could be bigger like Outdoor Voices pushing a more inclusive view of exercise.

It could be what the brand does every time you interact with it like TopShop brings high fashion to the highstreet.

It could be quite functional like Amazon (AI/Tech/Services/Voice) making life easier “as if by magic”

This is not an Ideal or even a vision, it’s a view of how your brand ‘fits in’ to your target’s culture . This Cultural Logic, as noted in examples, can range from extremely functional to highly aspirational. But this ‘logic’ provides the coherence guardrails internally (organizational attitude, behaviors, innovations & vocabulary) as well as externally (tactics, programs, initiatives, engagement plans, etc.).

Cultural Logic can tap into a variety of ‘fitting in’ aspects (Grant):

• New Traditions: habit, rite, leadership
• Belief Systems: views on how ‘things should be’
• Time: efficiency, effectiveness, heightened sense of now, nostalgia
• Herd instincts: initiation, crowd, tribe, craze
• Connecting: socialising, cooperative, localised
• Luxury: concierge, exclusive, exotic
• Provocative: erotic, rebellious, radical
• Comfort: controllable, personalised, safe, cause

——

Here is an example using a hypothetical car selling software company:

———–

When placed into a cultural logic, brand molecules are made up of an ongoing string of ideas that interconnect with each other, will change over time as new ideas are introduced and old ones are discarded, creating flexibility for the brand (Grant). I would note the ‘cultural logic’ is imperative to avoid developing ideas that are disjointed and when implemented do not add any value to the brand.

I would be remiss if I did not note that the idea of ‘role in cultural logic’ is important in that it is within this thinking the guardrails are crafted. The truth is the Brand Molecule idea can run out of shape if not carefully handled by becoming a random set of thoughts drawn as though they are connected, when in truth they are not. With a vision of cultural role thinking & ideas can vary, yet remain focused on its ultimate destination.

Which leads us to how core ideas beget molecules.

Stories, experiences & ideas.

‘A brand is not about one consistent idea, but rather an ongoing string of innovations.’

John Grant

Grant suggests that marketing is separated into two alternative and competing approaches:

• brand image
• brand innovation.

Brand image is static, passive, about advertising, messaging, aspiration and the look & feel. Brand innovation is active, dynamic, connected with culture, iterative, experiential and about evolution.

A central tenet of brand molecule theory is therefore the experience and stories because it is through multiple experiences (and stories) in which people can contextually see, feel & view a brand.  Through these stories & experiences gain a deeper engagement with what could have been a static feeling brand image. This thought is an extension of Pine/Gilmore (The Experience Economy 1999) who contended that ‘companies stage an experience whenever they engage customers, connecting with them in a personal, memorable way.’

More businesses, particularly those in commodity-like markets where differentiation is often challenging, are now moving away from features and benefits marketing and targeting their attentions on creating experiences and stories for customers to associate the brand with which creates ‘cognitive stickiness.’ This in turn provides their customers with perceived benefits over and above the products and services which they purchase.

I would also note that it was Aaker in 2004 who suggested that this idea of innovation enhances a company’s credibility with its customers. Each new idea that is added to a brands’ molecule adds to a brand’s interest.

Brand image and Brand Innovation intersection. The brand must encompass all business activity under one identity so that it is easily recognizable through all forms of media, or, as Grant says: ‘branding becomes more like the frame around the picture, than the picture itself.’

The molecule, this combination of image & innovation begets the stories which bring the brand to life in the minds of people, and, “brands, like stories, are supposed to have a point.” The ‘point’ resides in its cultural logic – why does it exist, why will anyone benefit from being associated with this brand and how does it fit into someone’s life so I don’t have to persuade someone it has value.

Why you should believe in Brand Molecules.

 While I believe brand molecules is the best way to think about having a substantive brand I’d like to close with some thoughts for you to ponder to get you to agree Brand Molecules is the way to look at brands:

No universal brand theory :

——-

What’s going on?

Hundreds of models have tried to explain how to win the battle for consumer attention in a saturated market. What none of these models wants to admit was noted by the communications expert Klaus Bernsau in 2005: ‘although everyone is talking about brands, there is still no universal and accepted brand theory.”

“The Change Book: 50 models to explain how things happen”: Krogerus/Tschappeler

—–

I share this so no one suggests I must use some ‘tried & true’ framework over a Brand Molecule.

 the myth of building a brand

The entire concept of building a brand is fraught with peril. In fact. It’s a myth. Somewhere along the way ‘having a brand’ got confused with ‘building a brand.’ People build brands; businesses do things to stimulate the right construction.

Look. Here is a marketing truth. You don’t build a brand <that is the Myth>. You build a meaningful product or service <or a company that creates those types of things> and share its stories.

cultural relevance: Nomads.

On occasion culture shifts intertwine with business thinking shifts. Nomadicity & Brand molecules is one of those times. Remember. What is the role in culture becomes the most important question with regard to brand molecules. That said. Other people may ground that discussion in a number of things, I ground it in one basic cultural context: We are all nomads now. <link here   >

This does not mean “mobile first” nor does it suggest “I are more disconnected socially than ever before. This simply suggests a more transient relationship with things, people, relationships and even brands. Its not a difficult concept to grasp that an experience centered in a home structure versus experiences gained in fragments, wholes and halfisms outside the home structure is, Ill, different.

Referring back to “I are all nomads” as a cultural context, nomadity has at its core collective experience made up by stories, symbols, social structures, organizational structures, systems, rituals and routines. These elements underpin the assumptions of the brand molecule. While origins of the molecule can be formulated by the company, it is socially mediated and inherently builds up successive and associated ideas via the fact I actually have a Nomad life experience.

There is no such thing as a Brand Purpose.

Purpose, while a great well needed topic, is getting in the way of the purpose of business itself (note the difference between a capital P and a small p).

I don’t disagree Purpose isn’t a valuable topic for any business, in fact, I encourage it. That said.

• Research does NOT show businesses with a Purpose <source: Shotton “The Choice Factory”>
• Research shows while younger people SAY Purpose is important, what they actually DO, in purchase, is highlight “meeting my needs” significantly more important
• If a company/business does not have a Purpose, a brand cannot have one. In addition. A company’s “Purpose” needs to be 100% aligned from ‘words to actions’ before any brand dare speaking about it.

In conclusion.

Brand molecules as collections of ideas. Individuals are a collection of thoughts, attitudes & belief constantly being asked to face each of those things contextually moment to moment. At exactly the same time “crowd wisdom” morphs as a reflection of individuals in a democratic fashion <HBR found that “the wisdom of crowds is more robust than previously thought — it can even withstand the groupthink of similar-minded people. But there’s one important caveat: In order for the wisdom of crowds to retain its accuracy for making predictions, every member of the group must be given an equal voice, without any one person dominating.”>. About the only way a brand can navigate this world is not through consistency, but coherency. Not through some solid unmoving construct, but rather through a molecule collecting ideas.

Look. I have always wondered why the world has been so manically focused on stark simplicity avoiding all the richness and nuance that characterize brands & why we worshiped ‘one word’ descriptions or elevator speeches when we should be cultivating active, multi-dimensional, experiential brands with a variety of stories.

====

“… find ways to delegate authority, get information directly from the front lines, and make decisions based on a real-time understanding of what’s happening on the ground. Instead of the old approach of “making a plan and sticking to it,” which led to centralized strategic planning around fixed time horizons, we believe in “setting a direction and testing to it,” treating the whole organization as a team that is experimenting its way to success.”

–

Stanford

====

As a follow up on construction/deconstruction thinking Part 1 I will address its impact on the actual structure & operations of businesses.

First. I tend to believe everyone in business understands that the traditional structural organization is changing. And it is doing so painfully and expensively <at a cost>.  The change is most typically associated with the transformation associated with infrastructure and technology.

Second. This organizational structural change is tied to the wrong thing. Currently it is being tied to changes as dictated by technology and it SHOULD be tied to thinking construct. The good news is that, regardless of the reason, … the change will be a long arduous shift in the business world as part of a long transition in how business thinks about itself and the best model for conducting a successful business. The bad news is that the businesses that do not adapt are unlikely to survive in the longer term.

This comes down to one basic thought as I discuss the new business model for businesses – however great the costs of this construct change the costs of not changing is much higher.

Anyway.

I described this new business model and thinking back in august 2010 as a more agile organization culture, controlled autonomy, the company has an ability to blend into the marketplace <versus rigid institutions unable to flex>.

Today’s more rigid ‘construction model’, most typically embodied in a hierarchy, is already outdated. And even by ‘updating’ thru accommodating technology what is being built is more a Frankenstein <let’s insert new thinking & new technology within existing company model constructed to enable a different way of thinking/doing> rather than a concept built from scratch <and having a plan of how we ‘get from here to there’>. The future deconstruction model, let’s say it’s a hybrid of a ‘controlled autonomy’ model, is being built in ‘fits & starts’ in today’s business world.

To be clear.

In my eyes the new model incorporates both autonomy & control, therefore, is not a flat organization nor is it purely ‘instinctually based’ <which someone could conclude from my Deconstruction 1 post>.

Autonomy in any organization is a combination of control <as in guidelines, principles and systemic behavior> and trust <in that people are intrinsically interested in making a contribution and learning>. This more agile organization essentially believes, and trusts, employees want to do well and to do good things therefore incorporating a strong value/integrity base into the everyday behavioral attitude.

By the way, this freaks out an older management generation <who tend to believe everyone is out for themselves and throughout their business lives have fostered a ‘kill or be killed’ mentality>. But the smarter more adaptable management have used this ‘ethical core’ philosophy as a way to move from input-driven work models to structures which focus more on evaluating outcomes and acting upon outcomes.

This reflects a shift in an organization culture driven by systemic behavior driven values and guiding principles.

Inevitably this permits more autonomy, better strategic tactics and more fluid responses to customer input … without compromising the culture of the business. This Deconstruction Business Model is more  a … well … porous business model.

It is free thinking, adaptable <constantly shifting resources toward opportunities and away from non-opportunities>, emergent, diverse & interpretive based … where the organizational actions rhythm is created by external stimuli … not internally.

Conversely … a Construction Business Model is all about the system. All about rigid systems with space built within for ‘innovation and flexibility.’ In actuality in today’s world the systems cramp and are confined <or confining>. The construction model dictates the organizational rhythm and hopes it can match the behavior patterns of the outside world.

In effect a Construction Model was developed with the intent for ‘predictability’ with the overall approach intended to stabilize demand and make it more predictable. Internally it focused on ensuring managers at all levels had enough information to manage their part of the business. It is basically a centralized administration/management and decentralized operations where the ‘center’ measures, monitors and directs.

Most companies still do this <albeit they argue they have ‘empowered the customer face units’>.

What makes the Construction Model even worse for agility & adaptability is that the Center maintains the setting and control of budgets and ultimately measures performance against this. If the market, and the world, were stable and reasonably predictable this could <notice I say ‘could’ > work but with unstable and often shifting markets <increasing & decreasing quickly> this model is not only inefficient … it is ineffective.

<note: this could possibly explain why so many existing larger businesses struggle>

On the other hand. The Deconstruction Model is all about the people and utilizing their minds and reactive attitude <regardless of their particular skills>. This means the Deconstruction Model is naturally adaptive as it is more built upon ‘see & do’ <I see information and respond this way>.

The conflict between these two extremely disparate models is in process. Pretty much all existing successful businesses with any heritage <company Life> face deep challenges because of this conflict. And most businesses are not handling the conflict well. They are being reconstructed with technology, and technology attributes, driving the reconstruction.in other words … the ‘system’ hasn’t changed but the tools within are being updated.

This is ass backwards.

The model should be constructed with the people and necessary thinking in mind and THEN offer the tools necessary to make that organization successful.

Ok. Getting back to the people aspect. The Deconstruction business Model is driven by its people where the employees guide the strategic choices, or the tactical strategy, rather than strategic tactics that need to be made in real time.

This premise also drives older management crazy. How can something be effective without strategy first and foremost?

Well. Research certainly suggests if you were to choose between organizational culture and ‘strategy’ with ‘creating a productive and profitable organization’ … organizational culture is significantly more effective than any amount of strategy <note: even Drucker has suggested this>. This bears out even more so in turbulent business environments.

=

Businesses with engaged work forces outperform those without by a significant margin. And when employees are enabled and energized, as well as engaged, profit margins are three times as high as those of companies with low levels of engagement.

=

To conclude. My thinking on new business modeling represents a fairly significant disruption to the way most businesses operate today.

I imagine it feels even more disruptive because so many older business people are hoping business goes ‘back to the way it was’ <or some version of it> in terms of economic conditions <believing once economic conditions improve habits will return to old ways of doing & buying things>. This old school thought process misses the real issue in that the base business model is changing <not consumer behavior or habits> … changing to meet the strengths and ways of conducting business & Life of a new young generation.

The people who are missing this are most likely the same ones who bought into the “customer is king/queen” thought process and that “the customer is always right.”

The Deconstruction Business Model works because it builds upon a culture where the employee is always right <being fed the most up to date information, have the ability to strategically adapt more nimbly, work within company integrity/values construct> therefore the customer isn’t always given what they asked for … but rather … what they really need.

=====

Originally published December 2013