A QUESTION OF BALANCE We talk often of the need for balance in the way that leaders and organisations approach change and innovation. Anne’s comments got me thinking about this issue over the last few days. We generally have a favourable view of the “balance” concept when we consider our everyday lives. We recognise the need to balance our professional and personal lives in order to be successful and fulfilled. And our understanding of different work styles has taught us that creating a balanced team - combining people with ‘big picture’ thinking with those who pay attention to detail - creates the best results. But how does this concept of balance translate to organisations and their strategy? On face value, we would assume that the principle is equally valid. Indeed, concepts such as the “balanced scorecard” would seek to embed the concept of balance into the way we design and manage our organisations. However, the research into organisation effectiveness suggests a slightly different view... When we examine organisations that have been strategically effective (strong market position, increased sales, profitability and the like), we see that they are often characterised by a strong strategic focus - ie we know what they stand for in the market. And they seem to have a clear style in the way they go about doing their business. Interestingly, focus is imbalance. It is the deliberate over-allocation of effort in one area that inevitably leads to a diminution of effort in another. So, for example. a strong innovative and creative culture will lead to some loss of attention to detail and control. And a high-energy, action oriented culture can sometimes result in a lack of consultation and teamwork. Clearly, organisations can’t afford to completely neglect some areas as they pursue a strong strategic focus in others, but it seems as if the notion of ‘balance’ may be somewhat more complicated in organisations than it is in individuals. More about this later... I’d be interested in your views. Post a Comment | Share Article CHALLENGING THE NORM(AN) Building the Future means Challenging the norm We know that conditions have really changed in the post GFC environment. Economists refer to this process of continuos change and turbulence as the “new normal”. Adaptation and innovation is required just to stand still, let alone to grow and thrive. Being innovative often means that we have to question - even challenge - conventional and established processes. But to follow this approach blindly (ie always challenging convention) can be as dangerous as refusing to change and always following convention. Its useful to explore this issue a bit more broadly. Scientists and researchers refer to existing approaches as theories or paradigms. These represent short-cuts (the brain refers to these as heuristics) to solving problems or addressing challenges we come across frequently. It means that we don’t have to adopt first-principles analysis and problem solving every time we encounter an situation. This way, we “save” our energy and resources to address unique issues or challenges that really require some original thought. So, existing theories and paradigms are useful in that they allow us to be creative and innovative in areas that really need it. But sometimes, the existing paradigm “blocks out” information and presents us with an incomplete picture of the situation. Usually the blocked information is represented by “outlier” data - ie data that no longer conforms to the “norm” of the theory. In general, conservative people tend to ignore outlier data too long and don’t question the validity of the theory. Similarly, more radical thinkers tend to overplay the value of the outlier data and will question the validity of the theory at the earliest signs of data that doesn’t conform to the theory. Both approaches are dangerous - that’s why I said that being challenging the norm all the time is as limiting as never challenging the norm. So, the key is to judge where your innovation and challenging the norm is best applied. I’m interested in your take as to when / where to challenge the norm.......... Post a Comment | Share Article HOW CAN I BE A FUTURE BUILDER? We spend a lot of time talking about the processes used in Future Building (like scenario planning and environmental scanning), but I was recently asked by a client “what do I have to do (or be) in order to become a Future Builder?” I have isolated four key characteristics that seem to characterise people who successfully practice Future Building. I’m sure there must be others, but these are the four that I find most significant: A growth and learning mindset: They seem to treat each day as a ‘school day’ and look for lessons to be learned. They readily seek new experiences because they know that they can learn new things from these experiences. And they accept the inherent uncertainly and discomfort that is created by being in a new situation, because they recognise that this is how they can broaden their repertoire of skills. Prefer people over data: Interestingly, I observed this by working with some really good market researchers! They obviously understand and respect the data they work with, but they also know that they will only truly gain new insights by immersing themselves in the situation they are researching. So, for example, they will go up close and interact with communities and markets so they can experience first-hand the behaviours and psychology of potential markets. Techniques such as ‘ethnographic research’ are becoming increasingly popular to generate breakthrough insights into markets and customers. Avoid risky bets: Future Builders do not appear to be high-risk operators. Instead, they adopt a fairly considered approach and seek to understand something before committing to it. Importantly, they are also not perfectionists who need to cover all the bases before acting. As Matt Church has highlighted, this is often a foil for procrastination and not wanting to subject your work to comment and feedback. They know that feedback is important in forming a well-informed view. Rational optimists: This seems somewhat contradictory, but Future Builder understand that rational optimism is not simply the opposite of pessimism. Instead, rational optimists have an understanding of the whole system of which they are part. They understand the possible leverage points and what can be achieved. It is a recognition of both strength and weakness; an interest in building the best as well as repairing the worst; and a concern for finding self fulfillment as well as serving the community. Rational optimists are realists, but their defining point of difference is that they don’t give up on themselves. So, this is where I’ve got up to. What do you think are the key characteristics of Future Builders? I’d be keen to hear your views. A QUESTION OF BALANCE We talk often of the need for balance in the way that leaders and organisations approach change and innovation. Anne’s comments got me thinking about this issue over the last few days. We generally have a favourable view of the “balance” concept when we consider our everyday lives. We recognise the need to balance our professional and personal lives in order to be successful and fulfilled. And our understanding of different work styles has taught us that creating a balanced team - combining people with ‘big picture’ thinking with those who pay attention to detail - creates the best results. But how does this concept of balance translate to organisations and their strategy? On face value, we would assume that the principle is equally valid. Indeed, concepts such as the “balanced scorecard” would seek to embed the concept of balance into the way we design and manage our organisations. However, the research into organisation effectiveness suggests a slightly different view... When we examine organisations that have been strategically effective (strong market position, increased sales, profitability and the like), we see that they are often characterised by a strong strategic focus - ie we know what they stand for in the market. And they seem to have a clear style in the way they go about doing their business. Interestingly, focus is imbalance. It is the deliberate over-allocation of effort in one area that inevitably leads to a diminution of effort in another. So, for example. a strong innovative and creative culture will lead to some loss of attention to detail and control. And a high-energy, action oriented culture can sometimes result in a lack of consultation and teamwork. Clearly, organisations can’t afford to completely neglect some areas as they pursue a strong strategic focus in others, but it seems as if the notion of ‘balance’ may be somewhat more complicated in organisations than it is in individuals. More about this later... I’d be interested in your views. Post a Comment | Share Article CHALLENGING THE NORM(AN) Building the Future means Challenging the norm We know that conditions have really changed in the post GFC environment. Economists refer to this process of continuos change and turbulence as the “new normal”. Adaptation and innovation is required just to stand still, let alone to grow and thrive. Being innovative often means that we have to question - even challenge - conventional and established processes. But to follow this approach blindly (ie always challenging convention) can be as dangerous as refusing to change and always following convention. Its useful to explore this issue a bit more broadly. Scientists and researchers refer to existing approaches as theories or paradigms. These represent short-cuts (the brain refers to these as heuristics) to solving problems or addressing challenges we come across frequently. It means that we don’t have to adopt first-principles analysis and problem solving every time we encounter an situation. This way, we “save” our energy and resources to address unique issues or challenges that really require some original thought. So, existing theories and paradigms are useful in that they allow us to be creative and innovative in areas that really need it. But sometimes, the existing paradigm “blocks out” information and presents us with an incomplete picture of the situation. Usually the blocked information is represented by “outlier” data - ie data that no longer conforms to the “norm” of the theory. In general, conservative people tend to ignore outlier data too long and don’t question the validity of the theory. Similarly, more radical thinkers tend to overplay the value of the outlier data and will question the validity of the theory at the earliest signs of data that doesn’t conform to the theory. Both approaches are dangerous - that’s why I said that being challenging the norm all the time is as limiting as never challenging the norm. So, the key is to judge where your innovation and challenging the norm is best applied. I’m interested in your take as to when / where to challenge the norm.......... Post a Comment | Share Article HOW CAN I BE A FUTURE BUILDER? We spend a lot of time talking about the processes used in Future Building (like scenario planning and environmental scanning), but I was recently asked by a client “what do I have to do (or be) in order to become a Future Builder?” I have isolated four key characteristics that seem to characterise people who successfully practice Future Building. I’m sure there must be others, but these are the four that I find most significant: A growth and learning mindset: They seem to treat each day as a ‘school day’ and look for lessons to be learned. They readily seek new experiences because they know that they can learn new things from these experiences. And they accept the inherent uncertainly and discomfort that is created by being in a new situation, because they recognise that this is how they can broaden their repertoire of skills. Prefer people over data: Interestingly, I observed this by working with some really good market researchers! They obviously understand and respect the data they work with, but they also know that they will only truly gain new insights by immersing themselves in the situation they are researching. So, for example, they will go up close and interact with communities and markets so they can experience first-hand the behaviours and psychology of potential markets. Techniques such as ‘ethnographic research’ are becoming increasingly popular to generate breakthrough insights into markets and customers. Avoid risky bets: Future Builders do not appear to be high-risk operators. Instead, they adopt a fairly considered approach and seek to understand something before committing to it. Importantly, they are also not perfectionists who need to cover all the bases before acting. As Matt Church has highlighted, this is often a foil for procrastination and not wanting to subject your work to comment and feedback. They know that feedback is important in forming a well-informed view. Rational optimists: This seems somewhat contradictory, but Future Builder understand that rational optimism is not simply the opposite of pessimism. Instead, rational optimists have an understanding of the whole system of which they are part. They understand the possible leverage points and what can be achieved. It is a recognition of both strength and weakness; an interest in building the best as well as repairing the worst; and a concern for finding self fulfillment as well as serving the community. Rational optimists are realists, but their defining point of difference is that they don’t give up on themselves. So, this is where I’ve got up to. What do you think are the key characteristics of Future Builders? I’d be keen to hear your views.
Follow me on