Archive for the ‘The new way’ Category
October 22nd, 2010 by Jane
Ricardo Semler took over his Dad’s Brazilian business, Semco, in the 80s. Semco now employs over 3,000 people in manufacturing, professional services and high-tech.
They increased their annual revenues from $35 million to $165 million between 1994 and 2001.
At its peak, there was a 17-month waiting list for the bi-weekly tour of Semco, as corporate leaders from all over the world clamored for a peek at their magic dust.
Semco has no org chart, no official structure, no business plan, no company strategy, no 3-year or 5-year plan, no mission statement, no standards or practices, no HR department, no job descriptions, no employee contracts, no compulsory meetings, no supervision or monitoring, no rules on where and when people work, not even a fixed CEO.
Their productivity and resilience are second-to-none and staff turnover is ridiculously low, despite the fact they don’t necessarily pay their staff super-high wages.
Why?
Their staff are treated as adults. Adults are capable of understanding the business and making decisions about how, when, why, where and what they do accordingly. If they don’t, there’s a far more fundamental problem. Semco staff aren’t shielded from bad news – they’re actively involved in the direction of the business and take responsibility, at every level. Anyone can participate in a board meeting and the CEO can be voted down by a factory floor worker.
They ask why. Continuous questioning often reveals what a massive amount of time we spend on business autopilot. Why do we wear suits? Why do we have to be here at 9am? Why do we need to come into the office? Why don’t we show clients our cashflow? Three whys normally rinse out dumb autopilot actions.
They manage less. Semco leaders more often than not choose to do nothing. Less is more when it comes to interfering and decision-making. Rather they rely on democracy and trust their people.
There are many other reasons why, but they’re more or less all to do with freedom, democracy, trust and transparency… and casting out age-old mindless rituals and beliefs that serve as barriers to progress. They also recognise that progress and success aren’t necessarily money-related.
It you haven’t read any of Ricardo Semler’s books, they’re worth a look. Check out The Seven-Day Weekend and Maverick.
Although some forward-thinking start-ups do fancy themselves as able to embrace bold values like Ricardo, it takes another sort of steadfast bravery for bigger organisations to drop the ego-massaging hierarchy and cast out deeply ingrained practices in favour of a role as trusting enabler.
As the workforce becomes more fragmented, demanding and self-guided, surely organisations’ only hope of keeping pace, innovating and having a life is to embrace values like these. Values that make the workplace more tolerable for mavericks, i.e. the folk that get stuff done.
August 31st, 2010 by Jane
Many of us are making decisions based on false assumptions every single day. In fact we’re underpinning our businesses, organisations, products and personal lives with false assumptions. We keep on doing things that have been proven wrong, that haven been proven not to work, despite mounting evidence that there’s a better way.
Our false assumptions are memes, i.e. viral cultural ideas we pass from human to human, brain to brain (you can read a bit more about memes in my previous post on replicators here). Sometimes we keep spreading memes that aren’t doing us any good, regardless of new information that should illuminate the fact they’re a load of crap.
For example research by MIT, LSE and loads of others confirmed several years ago that our assumption that people perform better when offered a greater financial incentive is wrong. In fact hard evidence demonstrates that when you’re dealing with tasks that require even the most rudimentary cognitive ability, the higher the financial reward you offer the poorer the performance. Surprising, but true. It’s a fact.
Yet still we keep on doing the same old things based on false assumptions, despite the evidence that we’re actually damaging our businesses and our teams’ productivity.
The facts and evidence also tell us what does actually work. What really gets the most out of people and helps them reach peak performance, is autonomy. People like to feel they’re in control of their own destiny – that they’re self-guided; and they want to feel a sense of purpose and mastery. Check out Dan Pink’s commentary on this topic.
If you take these two thoughts – 1. that we’re basing our decisions on how things should be designed on false assumptions; and 2. that people want autonomy – it isn’t difficult to draw conclusions about why platforms like Linux have been so powerful.
The thing is, when we try to design things – technology platforms, mechanisms for rewarding staff, educational programmes – lots of false assumptions come into play. This is precisely why we’ve ditched waterfall development methods in favour of agile methods. It’s risky and expensive to lock yourself in a room for years on end with a massive budget and build something you assume people want; so instead we build a little bit, show the world, learn, tweak, release, learn, tweak, release.
One way to look at optimising how you go about designing your work, life and objects, in a more agile way, is to consider very basic scientific laws and principles.
For instance, consider for a moment how far our human capabilities for designing amazing, functional structures extends. Yep, we’ve designed some pretty cool stuff. But think for a moment, what’s the best designer of all? Look around you. I’d argue that it’s very clear the best designer of all is evolution itself. We only need to look at the complexity and unexpectedness of nature to see that evolution is the ultimate designer.
In fact, organisations, markets, economics, the open source movement – they’re not just like evolutionary systems – they are evolutionary systems. We tend to think of evolution the way we were taught at (linear) school… that it’s just a biology thing; when in fact it’s the most powerful recipe for finding innovative solutions to complex problems.
As philosopher Dan Dennett said, evolution is ‘design out of chaos without the aid of mind’. It’s the act of creating a design without a designer. So long as there’s variation, selection and replication – just like the creation and spreading of human memes – you get evolution. So long as there’s variation – like staff with different abilities; selection – a process of choosing the ‘fittest’ talent; and replication – replicating the good stuff they do… you get evolution. You get the optimum way of doing things, without you having to know in advance exactly what that’ll look like.
So, you might be thinking that’s all very well, but how do you harness evolution to get things done in a better way?
Well, the first thing you need to do is stop trying to be the designer. Stop assuming you know which design will work. There’s no way you could’ve drawn a design for Linux or even Wikipedia that was an accurate picture of how it actually turned out. When you assume you’re the designer and you’ll come up with a design that’ll work, you end up spending loads of money, taking loads of time and by the time you unleash your design on the world, it’s outdated and you discover many of your assumptions were wrong and you’re screwed (ask Microsoft).
Companies who fall in love with their designs and cling onto them despite evidence they don’t work will die. Companies who embrace evolutionary principles will thrive. That’s the reason why so many start-ups find success in such unexpected places. Look at Paypal – they started as a PalmPilot app.
The really hard part is dealing with large organisation, with deeply embedded management hierarchies and industrial revolution legacy thinking.
The good news is that the answer lies within. Management doesn’t have to come up with a crazy new design. It’s much easier than that. They just need to create an environment where the optimum design will evolve; and the way to do that is to get out of the way.
Big companies are chocful of hundreds, thousands of brains. The answers lie in there somewhere. The trouble is, traditional top-down communication and top down hierarchical management can’t extract them. These hundreds, thousands of people are desperate to self-guide, to work autonomously, to contribute great innovative leaps – just like MIT and LSE and numerous innovative companies have proved. They just need the ability to work together and to break out of the old siloed routines.
This sounds scarily like losing control to many organisations. And relinquishing control is exactly what it is. But it needn’t be scary. To remove the fear, all that’s required is a universal understanding of some basic rules… and a splash of trust. As John Whitney, a professor at Columbia Business School said, ‘More than half of a traditional organisation’s activities, including the use of time clocks that monitor workers and marketing campaigns designer to win back disappointed customers, are needed only because of mistrust’.
If everyone understands the rules and they aren’t too prohibitive and don’t hamper evolution and autonomy, it’s a recipe for success. By enabling everyone in an organisation to connect with everyone else if they need to, spreading this sort of understanding is easier than ever.
These days it’s startlingly cheap and easy to enable everyone in an organisation to connect with everyone else if they need to.
Simply by questioning assumptions – and by putting basic collaboration tools and systems in place – and by creating a culture of experimentation, of iteration – create, share, test, tweak, create, share, test, tweak – innovations will evolve naturally, teams will be happy and we have a way forward that’s altogether more fulfilling and more aligned with not only the outside world, but our fundamental human nature.
July 7th, 2010 by Jane
Following my last post a few folk asked me to expand on how to enable two-way comms.
To cut a long story short, if you’re a big company with loads of people wanting to talk, the only way to get scale is to empower your staff to talk to customers. Companies who’ve been around for a long time often can’t see a way to make this happen – or it’s already happening in pockets under the radar and they don’t know how to control it. The important point to remember is the same mentality and methods that’ll lead to success on the outside are those you need to apply internally first. The rest will follow.
Begin by asking yourself whether your staff are able to connect with one-another really easily. Can they find and converse with colleagues in different countries, offices, departments, at all levels? Or is communication and messaging top-down and one-way? Top-down one-way communications are distinctly unreliable. One weak link in the chain and the message gets lost; and no feedback means no improvement.
Multi-directional networked communications, on the other hand – enabled via enterprise social networking platforms, forums, wikis or other collaboration tools – equip you with armies of influencers to spread the word on your behalf.
If you fail to empower your internal advocates, you’re making life very hard and expensive for yourself.
What’s more, there are so many brains in big organisations that the knowledge, ideas and answers are always in there somewhere. The challenge is joining them up – making connections and finding ways to bring more transparency – so inspiration, participation and new behaviours spread all the way through, with newfound velocity.
As well as repairing weak, unproductive cultures and removing barriers to forward motion, the key reason it’s vital to harness collective intelligence nowadays is the quickening pace of change in the outside world. Big bureaucratic structures make sense when no radical change is taking place, but it stands to reason that a fast-changing environment calls for greater agility. Likewise, hierarchy becomes inefficient when we need more info, more interaction, quicker decision-making and rapid action.
So help your teams talk to one-another in all directions. That’s it. Those who understand the ‘markets are conversations’ mantra and how to leverage networked communications will be in there somewhere and they’ll spread their understanding like wildfire.
Universal, embedded understanding renders (expensive) control measures (and blind panic) completely unnecessary.
May 25th, 2010 by Jane
Over 3 billion years ago, a remarkable accident occurred…
Molecules were created that could make copies of themselves.
Not that surprisingly really – probability-wise – given the zillions and squillions of instances of stuff swooshing around and colliding.
Essentially the earth’s first replicator was born. As Eric D. Beinhocker said in The Origin of Wealth, GOOD REPLICATORS GET REPLICATED. This is a thought worth pondering for a very long time. The implications are huge.
This golden rule was basically the point of Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene [1976], in which he explored how genes will get copied if they can, regardless of the consequences; and so long as you have variation, selection and heredity, you must get evolution, or ‘design out of chaos without the aid of mind’ (Dan Dennett). This is basic circular logic.
The really interesting thing that happened next was the birth of the second replicator on earth…
Us.
We humans copy information, or ‘memes’, from person to person, brain to brain. There’s variation and selection… it’s basically a design process. Just like genes, if memes can get copied they will – from hand gestures, to wearing earrings, to language, to toilets, to education. We’re all essentially propagating copying machines.
The thing is, we don’t just copy useful, beautiful, true things. That’s part of the reason our brains have grown so large. Rather than staying economical, concerned only with lighting fires, hunting, breeding; our brain capacity is extended to encompass other things, like Britney Spears, sudoku and advertising. In fact our brains have become mighty strange, hijacked by parasitic ideas, like religion (and like most parasites, we end up with a symbiotic relationship). Just as it isn’t our fault when our germs harm others who haven’t developed an immunity, we can’t be blamed for effectively wiping out others’ traditions by spreading our memes; and we can’t be surprised when those who aren’t immune to things we’re used to are very freaked out as a result.
This is something to bear in mind as we spread our teachings and technologies. Likewise, we should be aware of the evolution of technology and its parallels with genetics and mimetics. Good replicators get replicated; and the ‘fit’ is determined by the environment. So just as plants producing oxygen led to oxygen breathers like us prospering; you could say that we’re essentially destroying our current environment to make way for computers.
That may sound a little dramatic, but it’s worth considering whether the ‘fact’ that we invented the internet and other technologies is really true. Didn’t the internet evolve as a result of mimetics, i.e. the copying of cultural ideas from brain to brain over a period of time, whereby the best replicators get replicated?
At the same time, we can see how humans are evolving via technology. For example, before we could read and write, our memories performed much better. Nowadays that’s exacerbated by Google-mentality, skimming and quick kicks. We’re getting very good at developing technologies that remove functions from humans.
So what?
Well, the really interesting thought in all this is that we might be entering the era of the earth’s third replicator. In order to get what Susan Blackmore calls ‘temes’ (technological memes), you need the variation, the selection, the copying, all done outside of humans. Of course we’re starting to see that happen.
So maybe we didn’t create the internet for our own benefit. Maybe we’ve been looking at it all the wrong way. Instead, consider that ‘temes’ spread because they must. Just like the selfish gene.
If teme machines replicate, it won’t matter if the planet is unstable. They can thrive without us.
We are the old machines.
March 16th, 2010 by Jane
Loads of illuminating analogies have emerged in conversations with Andrew Missingham, but today there’s one in particular that popped up…
You may remember when the soap Brookside launched on Channel 4. The storylines were based around folk living in a close of houses. They had some trouble at the outset however, in that script writers realised they hadn’t created enough ‘stock devices’ – places where people could meet that would fuel the dramatic unfolding of events. Their answer was to put a postbox on the street, so residents would accidentally meet.
Given that the ability to innovate relies on diverse skillsets and knowledge banks coming together, this analogy is more relevant than ever. New knowledge uncovered by researchers, for example, needs to be matched with entrepreneurs who can interpret and understand the opportunities, then commercialise… in turn with the help of skilled troops, whether designers, developers, craftsmen etc.
Barriers to entering this innovation ecosystem are lower than ever – and the very reason for the existence of Scramblr is to lower them even further.
The question I’m asking myself today, is ‘What are our postboxes?’
March 1st, 2010 by Jane
Many companies still hold a deep-seated fear of two-way conversations with their customers. The idea of enabling direction interaction with individuals seems like a massive can of worms. How can we trust our employees to speak on behalf of the company? Aren’t we inviting trouble? Couldn’t it damage our reputation? How can we control the conversations? How can we eradicate the negatives? Do we really need to be taking this risk anyway? Is it worth it?
The answer is yes. It is worth it. In fact you don’t have a choice, unless you want to drift progressively further from your customers. What’s more, the conversations are already happening and there’s nothing you can do about it. 90% of consumers online trust recommendations from people they know and 70% trust opinions of unknown users, so either stick your fingers in your ears shouting ‘la la la’ while your revenues dwindle; or join in and embrace the chatter as an unprecedented opportunity for growth – a platform for gaining revelatory insight and feedback in real time and for amplifying the voice of an army of promoters… your most effective and cost-efficient salesforce.
At the end of the day, it’s basic common sense that any business needs to be where its customers are. In the UK, a 2008 Nielsen survey showed 97% of the UK’s population were shopping online (Japan 97%, Germany 97%, USA 94%, South Korea 99%). As for mobile… well, eBay just did $500m through their mobile app.
Protecting reputation and retaining control isn’t what’s important. What’s important is driving profitability through innovation. Success is achievable by relinquishing control in the confidence that you have the infrastructure, strategy and toolkit in place to listen and respond to the conversation. None of those things are hard to come by [email me if you'd like to discuss: jane@resonanceblog.com].
February 11th, 2010 by Jane
This article by planning director Richard Madden from Kitcatt Nohr Alexander Shaw brings up an excellent example of social media in action, circa 1900 – that of the Michelin brothers Édouard and André and their quest to build their car and bicycle tyre brand… by recognising that people were more passionate about food than tyres (shock horror).
As Richard says, ‘[The Michelin Guide] was genuinely useful, it invited participation, it was given away free at petrol stations, and readers were invited to provide corrections and suggestions. They were even encouraged to leave the guide in view when visiting restaurants to guarantee good service.’
One of the post comments states another good example: The Tour de France – a bike race started by a newspaper to get people talking and generate content.
Citing great pre-internet social media feats serves as a reminder that our toolkits – currently equipped with Twitter, Facebook, Slideshare, YouTube and rest – are not the point. They’re simply transient vehicles for a timeless human desire to converse about interesting stuff.
Too often our social media strategies – or the token pinch in the mix that proves you’re ‘doing social media’ – starts with a menu of tools first and thoughts on what you could say second. This is sort of missing the point.
Albeit a cliche these days, the point of social media is to have conversations – or more accurately to remove barriers to having conversations. The great thing about the tools is that they enable participation in a two-way exchange, on a micro level. Two-way involves listening; and not just for the sake of it, but to build a network of influential promoters – your most (cost) effective sales team.
The challenge is as it has always been. It’s something the Michelins cracked and it’s very very simple:
Be useful and interesting.
January 20th, 2010 by Jane
Yesterday me and a bunch of other mentors went along to the IPA to eat breakfast and talk about SCA’s Wiki initiative. It’s the first time any industry has collaborated online in the creation of a curriculum.
A bit more about SCA:
- 50 students, 300 teacher/mentors
- 15 scholarships places in 2010. 25 scholarship places a year by 2013
- Pathways to become a copywriter, art director or ‘Ideapreneur’
- Every year, 10 of our cohort will each win £10,000 start-up funding to launch a business whilst at the School
- Qualification accredited by University of Arts London Awarding Body
- Governors include Lord Bell, Sir John Hegarty and Rory Sutherland
If you’d like to get involved, contribute and sign up as a mentor you can do so here.
December 6th, 2009 by Jane
Nice one slideshare!
“Hey ResonanceBlog!
Your presentation Complexity & Humanity 2.0 has been selected amongst the ‘Top Presentations of the Day’ on the SlideShare homepage.
Our editorial team would like to thank you for this awesome presentation, that has been chosen from amongst the thousands that are uploaded to SlideShare everday.
Congratulations! Have a Great Day!
- The SlideShare team
p.s. Why not blog/twitter this and let the world know about the masterpiece you have created?”

December 5th, 2009 by Jane
Recent Comments