0 comments on “Great Individual Performance needs a Serendipitous Work Environment”

Great Individual Performance needs a Serendipitous Work Environment

We attach the label “great” to persons who achieved outlying performance in certain areas through their efforts and talents. Malcolm Gladwell has analyzed such stellar performance in his best-selling book “Outliers” (see Sources ). He found that three conditions explained a lot of an individual’s success.

The Three Conditions for Great Individual Performance

  1. Upbringing & Support: Few great persons would have been great without being raised in an education rich environment and without the support of others. Bill Gates, for example, had access to an advanced IBM computer at the age of 13, already in 1968, and his mother has been a director for IBM
  2. The 10.000 Hour rule: It takes about ten thousand hours of deliberate practice to become a world-class achiever in a particular area. Bill Gates was able to clock those 10.000 hours quite fast, due to his early exposure to computers in 1968
  3. Sheer circumstance, especially the type of selection process used to identify talent. Take elite Canadian hockey player as an example. They are disproportionally born in the first half of the calendar year, as the cut-off date to select players is the 31stof December.  Players are selected by pro teams at an early age, being born is a substantial physical advantage that turns into a career advantage just because some administrative organization set the cut-off date arbitrarily to the last day of the year.

Only the second factor, 10.000 hours of deliberate practice is fully actionable. By practicing hard, challenging ourselves every day, we might achieve greatness. That is a message that aligns well with meritocratic and protestant work ethics: It is a call to work hard.

Working hard does not help in Business

The problem is: Working hard does not always help. More exactly, the truth depends on the field where one aims to be great at. If you aim for a career in gaming, music, and sports, deliberate practice is the key to greatness. According to a 2014 study[1]deliberate practice is by far the most important factor, the factor with the strongest link between the input (deliberate practice) and career success.

But deliberate practice would not help you much less if you seek a career in education: The strength of the link between deliberate practice and success is just about a fifth of what is sports or music. Other things are just more important, presumably, the upbringing and support, which might explain why being poor is such a sticky social condition.

Plus, the relationship between deliberate practice and professional career success is even weaker. There is still this positive relationship, but it is weak, about 1/20thof the relationship in Sports and Music and one-quarter of the one between deliberate practice and Education.

Seek Advice and Show-up to a Place where Opportunity is

So, if working hard not help, are we helpless to influence our chances to become an outstanding achiever? We are not. Statistical analysis is instrumental in telling us something about average probabilities. But everyone human being is unique and can influence probabilities through actions. While changing personal performance or fortune is hard, it is by no means impossible. Working hard still counts for something, if not as much as one would think is “fair” – if judged from a moral point of view. Here is what can be done to influence the other two factors that Malcolm Gladwell come up with:

  • Upbringing & Support: It is never too late to ask for support by others, be that individuals or organizations. It requires courage and the humility to listen to advice and take it in. The ability to listen to advice is a mighty asset. How many people have you met that were impervious to any advice and went on ahead anyway? If you met that kind of people, chances are that, whatever they went after, it did not end well. Even if you are a contrarian and do your own thing anyway, knowing the challenge what you are up against is an advantage.
  • Opportunity is not as God-given as one might think. If you lock yourself up in your four walls, if you do not show up and engage with others, the number of opportunities you will discover is limited. In sociologist, self-help and spiritual literature, there is the notion of serendipity. According to the dictionary “Serendipity is the occurrence and development of events by chance in a beneficial way. A random event that happens in the absence of any obvious project, which is not relevant to any present need, or in which the cause is unknown.” Serendipity cannot be forced, but it can be helped by moving into an environment “that gives luck the chance to occur.” Moving into such an environment can be a conscious step: “Luck favors the prepared mind.”[2]

p491fig3

The 4 Layers of Serendipity

Improving yourself through deliberate practice alone is unlikely to increase personal effectiveness in a business career. It helps a bit, but it is not decisive.[3] One is tempted to conclude that hard work is not critical for the advancement of a career either. But that would be pushing Malcolm Gladwell’s findings too far. After all, he explores the condition that allowed top performers to prosper in any domain, not just in business. He wasn’t out to give career advice for the ordinary business professional.

Being Effective in Business

The more relevant question is: What makes a person effective in a business context? That is a question that HR professionals ponder a lot. In order to hire the optimal candidate, HR professionals need to forecast the candidate’s success inside the organization. That is an arduous task. Personal effectiveness is very hard to measure. An excellent effort to do this measurement and forecasting in an academically sound manner has been described by Lazlo Bock, a director of HR at Google, in his book “Work Rules.”[4]The complexity of this subject does not lend itself well to generalization. But what is clear from Bock’s work is that it is not a list of characteristics that is a good predictor of success, but the results of a series of structured tests. Work sample tests deliver the best results for structured tasks with few dependencies. Cognitive ability tests, psychological tests and structured interviews, varied by the type of job, are instrumental in predicting performance for any kind of job.

There is no list of character traits that make a great coworker. There is only a list of tests that ensure that the mental abilities that are needed to succeed in an organization are there. These tests give the data points, that can be used in an elaborate hiring process that manages to weigh the data with subjective inputs from reviewers in a disciplined process.

A hallmark of a proper hiring process is that the odds that a candidate will succeed in a given organization are maximized. The tests devised by HR center around skills and cognitive abilities, as HR can only ensure that the personal endowments that a new hire brings into an organization are what is needed. But these two endowments are just a fourth of what is required for a person to succeed in an organization once hired. Based on a slightly adapted model of Malcolm Gladwell’s model, outstanding performance in a business can be pictured to be a function of:

A. The Endowments

  • Skills
  • Cognitive ability

B. The Organization

  • The richness of opportunity & support that a business provides
  • Personal motivation – as a precursor to deliberate practice, to engage and thereby investing time and personal cognitive abilities fully in the organization

C. Randomness: Sheer Circumstance

Stated this way, each person arrives in an organization with given skills and cognitive ability. These, in turn, have been determined by Gladwell’s three factors: Upbringing & support, deliberate practice and chance. But once a person enters the organization, her or his performance level will be determined by the organization. Consciously designed or not, organizational design and management practices will determine the richness of opportunity and support. And organizational design and management practices determine the ways that employees can find their personal motivation and tie that to their service of the company.

The Serendipitous, Learning Company

A company designed in such a manner can increase the odds that things happen serendipitously, as it allows its members to grow. To grow skills, to sharpen cognitive ability, to find new sources of motivation.

What is needed is an organization that is designed in a way to harness the power of growing individual capabilities. Not just a design to harness the individual capabilities that one has at a given point in time. Rather a design that recognizes the potential of human growth.

___

This is what I think. What do you think?

Suggested Reading

Sources

[1]Case Western Reserve University’s assistant professor of psychology Brooke N. MacNamara and colleagues have subsequently performed a comprehensive review of 9,331 research papers about practice relating to acquiring skills. They focused specifically on 88 papers that collected and recorded data about practice times. In their paper, they note regarding the 10,000-hour rule that “This view is a frequent topic of popular-science writing,” but “we conducted a meta-analysis It found that deliberate practice explained 26% of the variance in performance for games, 21% for music, 18% for sports, 4% for education, and less than 1% for professions. We conclude that deliberate practice is important, but not as important as has been argued.”

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797614535810

[2]https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur

[3]Shockingly, the most important factor for professional greatness, to advance your career and yourself might be the company you joined. A company that provides you with opportunities to learn, grow and advance.

[4]Bock, Lazlo “Work Rules,” see Sources

 

0 comments on “My CV of Failures”

My CV of Failures

Unless we try, we do not learn. But if we try, we will fail from time to time. I tried a few things in my business life which did not work out. Things that are never mentioned in any official setting. Here are what I consider to be my biggest blunders.

My CV of failures

  • 2000/2001 Not sustaining the Startup I co-founded for longer than a year
    We wanted to build a cloud solution for managing B2B contracts (Links2U.com) on marketplaces. Then the 2001 dot.com bubble burst. We were forced to earn money doing services and not building the product.  But I guess the dot.com bubble is not really to blame: Our business idea was a bit too early & a bit too academic
  • 2008/200Not being promoted to Vice President at Capgemini: Despite all my success in managing projects – my skill and interest in sales have been found wanting. I guess these observations are still correct.
  • 2011 Not getting a Culture of Experimentation going: Who is to blame for today’s sales? Always the weather! I wanted to move beyond that and use experimentation and statistics to help to guide our efforts to run our European Store network. But the methods I used didn’t stick across the organizational silos – all reverted more or less back to the status quo ante after a year. There were always other things to take care of.
  • 2014 Costly negotiation with Microsoft: In negotiating an important group-wide contract on Office365 I failed to invest enough time in building my next best alternative. The skillful negotiators on the other side saw through the veils I employed to obscure that fact. We overpaid.

Failures are embarrassing…

We all have been groomed for faultless performance. That is what schools, universities, and businesses aim for. We have, consciously or not, transferred the basic performance ethics of the machine to the human social sphere: If only everyone would do the assigned job without any fault, the organization would enjoy success. Cogs in a machine doing their jobs.

Therefore we hide failures instead of learning from them. We might reflect on failure silently but rarely choose to talk about them with other people in the organization.  For the sake of keeping our outward appearance shiny and clean, we miss out on a great learning opportunity.

..but vulnerability is a must in high-performance organizations

We fear to be vulnerable. But Vulnerability is one of the core features of truly agile, innovative, liberated organizations.  One can only truly engage with others, if it is safe to speak up and if ego is not in the way of a better solution.

Looking back, one can argue that I did not fail enough: I should have tried more often and aimed higher. I could respond to that: I did try often and aimed high, but I just had success more often than I failed. Alas, that would be a lie. Careers in traditional businesses are made more by avoiding failure than by seeking success:

A failure makes a powerful narrative that may destroy careers. A success is often not more than a statistic.

So the better, time-tested career tactic is to not try too much.

Battles not picked

A second, lesser class of failure could be those times where I might have picked a battle but did not. These are more numerous.

  • Not pushing the envelope in a major global implementation. Instead, I choose to support it but husbanded my energy.
  • Not facing up to a company crisis and help to turn around the company at all costs. Instead, I choose to cut losses and leave.
  • Not transforming a company into a fast, real-time driven business with a masterful supply chain. I weighed benefits, costs, and risks and walked away from this vision. I still deem it feasible, but not in every circumstance.
  • Not driving google cloud adoption all over the company. Instead, I choose to focus on customer demands, which might have been short-sighted.

Success lies in the skill of knowing which battle to fight, and which to avoid. I might have been clever to avoid those battles. Or not. One will never know until one tries.

Failures are Silent Evidence

I think that people should not only be described by the things they have done and succeeded. Failure is an integral part of what a person is. Failures are silent evidence. Being open about it, without “humblebragging”, might be beneficial for everyone around.

Are you willing to be vulnerable?

___

This blog is about finding better ways to manage organizations in this more and more digital age.

Sources

0 comments on “Can Agile, Liberated Organizations Succeed in Overturning the Status Quo?”

Can Agile, Liberated Organizations Succeed in Overturning the Status Quo?

To be an idealist is a great asset to the world as it takes a non-conformist to change the world. But the graveyard is full of – mostly young – idealists whose ideas fell victim to the harsh realities of the status quo they were (naively) trying to change.

The whole Agile Movement is an idealistic movement. A movement of smart people who want to change the way people collaborate into a more liberated, engaging and fundamentally more humane way. In this effort, the Agile Movement has much better chances to succeed than many other idealistic endeavors, as it appeals to the profit motive that is so predominant in today’s business world. The obvious success of Silicon Valley and those liberated ways of working provide companies with a justification to try those high minded agile management practices. In other words: The profit motive is a strong reason to embrace Agile.

But still, the odds are steep, and the fight will be one for generations. Let me explain why.

Being a Great Company is Optional

Peter Drucker listed the three things that a company really needs to be great.

knauli.png

A company can only exist if it serves a customer need by supplying a product.  This is mandatory. In contrast to this, having a great company culture is helpful but not required to build products, good economic results or to simply survive as a company in the long run:

  • A company may survive quite comfortably for a long time if the competition is as badly organized as it is
  • A great culture improves the odds of building a great product, but you might end up with a great product just by chance even with a mediocre culture
  • The law of high numbers is at work here – provided that many try, some will get lucky

According to economic theory, competition will come in the long run and uproot the underperforming companies, simply because there is a profit to be made. This might be what is happening today in the digital revolution, but this process takes time.

The Status Quo is far from abdicating

Agile or Liberated companies (as I prefer to call them) have great working cultures. They are, therefore, systematically more likely to achieve great results than companies running a command and control model. But is that enough to win against the status quo en masse? Here are some reasons why the command and control paradigm might still win:

su.png

  • More and more Start-ups are sold directly to corporate investors. Mostly, they become a part of the established way of doing business thereafter
  • Every generation, even the youngest, is still primed for command and control. The Education system is still built on conformity to hierarchical norms
  • The economy gets more and more geared towards monopolies or oligopolies. It is the very nature of the platform and digital economy that the winner takes all benefits (e.g. Amazon, Google, Facebook). By their very nature, the dominant strategy for monopolies and oligopolies is to exploit their customer, as this is a much safer way to compete than risky innovation
  • Income inequality and the rise of the new right in global politics (e.g. Trump, Brexit) and of autocratic leaders (Erdogan, Orban, Al-Sissi, Putin) will not leave economic structures of the companies unaffected. With the suppression of free speech in the political realm, facts becoming optional alternative facts and filter bubbles companies will not be able to hold a space for truthful and open speech, two core pillars of liberated companies in jeopardy
  • The prevailing mindset today is that of shareholder value, which is centered on making profits no matter what while still being legally compliant. With Liberation, managers got to pick up a trick: In order to achieve profits, it is better to approach the profit target indirectly,  obliquely: Do not go directly for the Sale or the cost cutting but manage by values. Sales and efficiency will follow.

In total: Not a pretty picture- the Imperial forces are strong, young padawan.

What can be Done?

The most often heard criticism of Liberated Companies is that it takes an enlightened benevolent dictator for it to succeed. A leader who holds the space for the values of the Agile Manifesto, for the 10 Habits of Liberated Companies and who allows people to implement Agile management practices.

laa

That kind of leader is hard to find. Plus, an organization running on liberal principles is inherently unstable, once its top leader changes (or changed her mind). This instability is even greater in Liberated Companies than in Command & Control Companies. Things like trust, open speech and individual autonomy and freedom to act are very fragile things, time-consuming to grow and very easily destroyed. In contrast to this, command and control organizations are much more stable: Everyone knows the rules, the direction might change with a new leader but the way work is done is almost never changing to a significant extent. People might need to learn a new trick to please their superior, yes. But not much more.

As long as there are private property rights, people remain entitled to run their companies (or delegate running their companies) the way they or the stock market wants. This won’t change over a foreseeable period.

Hold the space, young Padawan

Let me explain why I still think that liberation is worthwhile:

  • Every period of Liberation is likely to produce superior economic results
  • Everyone involved in a Liberated Organization picks up skills and mindsets, that will make it easier to work on a higher level for her at any point in time in the future
  • With every agile practice the DNA, the organizational memory of the Organization, evolves. A part of this DNA might become inactive for a time, but it can be reactivated

Meanwhile, we Corporate Rebels, Management 3.0 enthusiasts or Holacracy champions, need to work on achieving a tipping point. There definitely is momentum for Liberation within even the conventional business community, and the Liberation movement is getting at least nearer to a Tipping point:

  • There are more and more important multipliers embracing the values of Liberated Organizations, like for example Management Thinker Gary Hamel or Microsofts CEO Satya Nadella.
  • The staying power of the leading figures (e.g. Brian J. Robertson, Jurgen Appelo or Frederick Laloux) is strong and their number of energized followers is expanding
  • Liberated Organizations have all the hallmarks that deliver a deep sense of motivation to individuals: Innovation, Self-Fulfillment, Human Betterment and even Profits and Efficiency – what a package!

This package might feel too good to be true. But many inventions made people feel that way. Liberated Organizations are a social invention. Social inventions take more time than technical inventions to take root. But it might propel humans to new heights by enabling humanity to use our collective intelligence more systematically than ever before.

So young Padawan: Hold the space.  Embrace an Agile Mindset. Fill organizations with the 10 Habits of Liberated Organizations. Management Practice by Management Practice.

___

This what I think. What do you think?

Sources:

0 comments on “The 10 Habits of Liberated Organizations”

The 10 Habits of Liberated Organizations

I must confess. I am a Nerd. A special type of Nerd. I am a Nerd in Organizations. I am captivated by the way organizations work, by the ways humans arrange themselves to collaborate with one another.

Like every Nerd, I think that my thing, “Organizing”, is the most important thing in the world. Let me explain why.

Like so many boys I liked adventures. While playing, listening, reading, or just imagining there were so many adventures to be found, everywhere. The biggest ones to me were the stories of conquest and mortal peril: The Legions of Caesar, Pirates, Prussia, the Byzantine Empire, Genghis Khans Hordes, Japanese Senguko Jidai or the two world wars – all stories. Or the epic business stories of the East India Companies, Apple, Elon Musk, Richard Branson, etc.

That fascination stayed with me until now. It just metamorphosed from a boyish adoration of heroes to a quest to understand the inner workings of the organizations.  After all, most great people could not achieve anything without great organization and management.

That’s why I want to share with you what I call the “10 Habits of Organization”. It took me 48 years, a couple of hundred books and a lot of reflection to identify them.

10Habits

A word about naming: Please not that I alternatively rfer to the “10 Habits” as “10 Wonders”, too.

I. The Habit of True North

Screenshot 2018-03-12 10.13.06.pngSome think the power of a unifying vision lies in being a great motivator. I disagree. The motivational aspect of share vision is not what is really important in an organizational context. For organizations, the coordinating aspect of a vision has far greater usefulness.

Motivation is a fickle thing, as humans are fickle. Most of us can’t be Mother Theresa all the time. But if we fall on hard times and got to make difficult choices, a vision will help. Moreover, the vision will help us to predict how others in the organization will act.

There is the illusion that a monolithic vision of a company will suffice: The one sentence like Facebooks “connect the world” or Googles “organizing worlds information”. But it is much more important to break down the vision so that every unit has a purpose so that an organization becomes a purpose-driven organization:

The Habit of True North: A hierarchy of purpose helps to replace a hierarchy of coercion.

Yet most organizations neglect visions and thereby relegate themselves to “just another place to earn money.” A pity, as it prevents people from bringing out the best version of themselves.

Working on a vision is hard, and it needs to start at the top. It takes a disciplined visionary at the helm of the organization – a combination seldom found.

II. The Habit of Caring

Screenshot 2018-03-12 10.15.20.pngThe deeper we dig in us, the more we know that everything that matters is what we do for others. This is no sentimental sentence of a Gutmensch (do-gooder), this is an empirical fact according to worlds longest running study performed at Harvard University.

The Habit of Caring: Give people something to care of, and they will care.

Give everyone a clear line of sight to the customer – no matter if external or internal customers. Give each individual the chance to make someone else happy.

III. The Habit of Teams

Screenshot 2018-03-12 10.16.07.pngPsychology and Neuronal science have shown again and again how fallible the individual human mind is. Every one of us is so blinded by his senses, prejudges, moods, attitudes and the very mechanics of his brain. There is no way around that, no matter how hard we try.

But if we engage in open, mindful exchange with others and allow us and others to reflect, the team can produce results that far and reliably outstrip the results that anyone alone can do.

We are, especially in the western world, so enamored with the narratives of the lonesome hero, that we tend to trust individuals more to do great things than we trust teams -despite all empirical evidence.

The Habit of Teams: Truely united teams are the nucleus of high performance

The conventional management hierarchy fails to produce high performing teams. It does so systematically, as autocratic structures foster fear and dependence – which are poisonous to a teams performance.

But wait: More Teams means more meetings, right? Most of us hate meetings: A waste of time. But we might fail to realize that all that tedious meetings are just a symptom of the failure to lay the foundations of successful teamwork. Some of those foundations are trust, deep relationships, shared missions and a structured meeting format which allows everyone to participate and open up – not just the talkative ones.

Indeed, good teams will have fewer meetings, as they do not require them: They achieve their coordination by more personal, shorter and more meaningful exchange.

IV. The Habit of People

Screenshot 2018-03-12 10.16.41.pngSince the eradication of slavery, the right of every adult to make her or his own decisions is right, front and center of our global culture. We trust individuals to make the right decisions every time, no matter if the individual takes up sky-diving or purchases a house for hundred thousand dollars, or opt for a facial tattoo. Go ahead, you are the master of your own fate!

But since the abolishment of the medieval menial service of farm hands, achieved in the industrial revolution, there remain basically two areas where humans are not trusted to make the right decisions. In the education system, and in companies people are subordinated to other persons. In exchange for regular pay, employees forego their right to make their own decisions.

This is, of course, an advance from slavery and menial labor, but still, people are not welcomed as adults in a company. With the signature of their work contracts, people enter organizations as kids, not as adults. Bosses can order people around like they are kids. And as kids employees try to please their parents, even if it means bending the truth.

Having a good “parent” in business is fantastic, but much rarer than in families. After all, the connecting tie is not one of blood but one based on an economic relationship between superior and subordinate. Cold hearted exploitation is often the result.

The Habit of People: Treat people like adults, and they will start to make adult decisions.

It’s not easy, but even in hierarchical organizations there are techniques to do that, see, e.g. 4 Steps to Release the Full Potential of Organizations.

V. The Habit of Freedom

Screenshot 2018-03-12 10.17.19.pngRules and Policies stifle innovation. They restrict the freedom to act so much, that organizations may fall into sclerosis by entangling everyone in the organization in a byzantine web of bureaucracy.

It is as simple as that: Most company rules punish everyone for the misbehavior of the few. The more rules there are, the more loopholes there are, the more apparatchiks will prosper, and the less entrepreneurial an organization will be- but an Enterprise without Entrepreneurs in it should be a contradiction in terms.

The Habit of Freedom: If you want your company to fly, don’t lock everyone up in secure boxes.

Do not make a mistake to equate a company with a minimal number of rules to an Anarchy: As long as there is discipline, grown trust and shared values, the organization will be functional and innovative. Not just functional, as most hierarchies are.

VI. The Habit of Seeing

Screenshot 2018-03-12 10.18.49.pngTake a step back and look at an organization. What do you see?

  • An Organization Chart showing a lot of boxes
  • People working in predefined jobs, doing their duty
  • Offices where people labor on their assigned tasks

This is all good and well for the industrial age, where work can be neatly parceled out to employees by all-knowing superiors. Efficiency dictated that the amount of information available to an employee is determined by what the employee needs to fulfill a job. To give more information was simply uneconomical.

The Habit of Seeing: Everything there is to know beats all you need to know.

Nowadays, in complex, ever-changing environments it’s more and more unclear what an employee needs to know to do a job. Even more important, research has shown time and again that good teamwork can only happen in an environment of mutual trust. Transparency, the pervasive availability of information to anyone, is creating trust, it is enabling decentralization of control and is enabling learning.

VII. The Habit of Learning

Screenshot 2018-03-12 10.18.02Learning is the only sustainable competitive advantage there is. By now, this piece of wisdom might feel rather stale. So many companies have tried to become a “learning” organization – and so many failed.

Robert Kegan, a Harvard psychologist, and organizational researcher argues that much of these failures can be attributed to our lack of understanding of learning:

  • Learning happens not before or after the action, but primarily during the action
  • If we put feedback loops into every day to day activities, in an environment built on trust and openness, people will learn
  • Managers have to master pedagogy (techniques how to teach) and have a curriculum (whats useful to learn) in mind

The Habit of Learning: Saturate an organization with opportunities to learn and it will learn

People will not learn because they should. Some will want to learn. Other simply can’t avoid learning if nested in an organization where learning opportunity is abundant and embedded in every activity that they do.

VIII. The Habit of Gardening

Screenshot 2018-03-12 10.19.18.pngDuring the last 100 or years, most managers have been thinking about themselves as problem solvers, with a heavy streak of day to day, “street-wise” (pragmatic), troubleshooting.

In a fast-moving, knowledge-driven economy, this self-view is fundamentally outdated. Now, decisions need to be made at the location of highest competence. They need to be made fast, on the spot. Therefore, a manager becomes both the designer of an organization and its caretaker and is less involved in the day to day actions.

In the words of Tim Brown, the CEO of IDEO (which arguably is worlds most innovative organization): A Manager needs to become a Gardner.

The Habit of Gardening: Tend to an organization: Seed, water and protect it- and it will blossom.

Well, that’s a huge shift. From an all-knowing, often micro-managing decision maker to a Gardner that steps aside and lets ideas, people and finally business performance blossom. Many Managers won’t be able to do this shift, despite all evidence that the age of the servant leader has begun.

But do not mistake this for a green utopia. A Gardner arranges his garden for a purpose, and he cuts back rigorously if need be.

IX. The Habit of Exploration

Screenshot 2018-03-12 10.20.48.pngIn today’s knowledge-driven economy, there is so much knowledge inside co-workers and so much data to be analyzed. Basically, making ever new hypothesis, trying out things, reflecting, revising the hypothesis and experimenting, again and again, becomes a core individual working technique rather than a high profile exercise of research teams.

Today, we are all explorers who try new things and are rewarded by our efforts. Just look at the way you are working on your smartphone. Chances are that the more you invest in getting to know its capabilities, the more personal utility you derive from the device. The quickest way to learn is to watch others and imitate their way of doing, for example, calling a taxi via uber or solving a tricky excel problem by finding a youtube tutorial.

Like it or not, we are all already explorers in today’s vast worlds of knowledge.

The Habit of Exploration: In a knowledge economy, everyone is an explorer.

The more everyone is stepping out of his daily work, explores, and brings home new nuggets of knowledge that are put to work in the local context, the better business performance will be.

X. The Habit of Practice

Screenshot 2018-03-12 10.21.11.pngThe new, modern organization is a journey, not a destination. The speed of the journey will be determined by the quality of the practice. Willy-nilly adoption of this or that practice won’t achieve anything. What is called for is:

  • Deliberate practice
  • Encouragement to experiment & tolerance for failure
  • Iterative ways of working in small increments, in forever self-correcting feedback loops

The Habit of Practice: Organization is a journey that will go nowhere without value driven discipline.

Moreover, an Engineer-like (or should I rather say “Gardner-like”?) self-restraint in doing one thing after another without losing sight of the big picture. There is no point in expecting everyone to perform at stellar champions league level all of a sudden. It takes practice, blood, sweat, and tears to built great organizations.

But the discipline does not lie in slavishly following a method. The discipline must be in following the agile mindset and the values described in the 10 Habits.

laa.png

How to start

Seldom an organization will be able to follow all Habits of Organization. I suggest starting with aquiring at least one habit, as the benefits are immediate. Just pick one, any of the ten will do.

Screenshot 2018-03-12 10.21.58.png

Experience shows that work on the other habits will follow in due course: Go forward and allow – for example – more transparency and trust will likely increase, enabling more delegation and more autonomy.

I will elaborate how to start liberating in a later post. For now, have a look at 4 Steps to Release the Full Potential of Organizations.

A Wonder to Awe the World

There are few things that are more worth aspring to then to liberate people. Still,  the way we organize work today is build on – often mindless- subordination. This is one of the last left-over of the feudal and industrial age.

I think it’s time to move past that, by using the tail-wind of the digital age: The Economic results of Liberated Organizations are simply superior.

It all comes down to this: It makes a huge difference weather you just show up at work or you really engage in it.

___

This is what I think. What do you think?

___

Special thanks to Sketch Note Artist Yasmin Cordes of Sketchworks. I met Yvonne last year at Re:Publica in Berlin and she ventured her help in visualizing the concept. A pleasure to work with you, Yvonne!

The Liberated Organizations Canvas – A workshop tool to sketch directions for aspiring builders of wonderful Organizations

liberatedCanvas.png

Sources:

 

 

 

0 comments on “Management Debt and Organizational Entropy”

Management Debt and Organizational Entropy

Do you know the fundamental value proposition of Organizational Research? This value proposition is the very reason why theoretical and empirical research in this field is done at all, why a record number of business books are published today, why magazines like Harvard Business Review exist:

hauschildt.png

A simple as it is, this statement stayed with me for all these years. How many organizations have you seen, that are “historically grown” or outright dysfunctional instead of being planned? How many managers did you ever meet who where just administering their areas, without ever conjuring up the willpower or taking the risk to better things, to even try to sketch out a better state for their organization? Chances are, you met a lot of those.

“A planned state of an organization is more effective than an unplanned one”: This statement is a call to action, that sends you on a never-ending mission to think ahead and try things. For me, it’s a call to have a mission, to be one step ahead. To continually hone your organization.

Granted, it’s not as bold as Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg “Move fast and break things” motto. It’s more down to earth. Coming from Jürgen Hauschildt, who has been a renowned professor within the German-speaking countries, it carries special weight for me. Mr. Hauschildt specialized in “Innovation Management,” wrote a highly successful book on that subject which is with its 6th edition still in distribution today. Mr. Hauschildt was a significant proponent of empirical organizational research. He accepted no truth, just because it was theoretically plausible, everything had to be tested with hypothesis, experiments, tests and statistical analysis until proven.

Of course, that’s just basic science. But as most business books, especially the successful ones, reflect opinions and narratives, but not empirical, data-driven scientific analysis, Mr. Hauschildt’s style of work is needed today as ever.

Yet, most managers fail to take a scientific perspective of an organization. Managers are pragmatists. They do not have time to be scientists.

For Managers “betterment-now” beats “optimum-never”.

That’s all right and fair. Here is the problem with this: Most Managers do not have a holistic view or understanding of their job. They think of betterment as to solve an immediate issue – but lacking a holistic perspective, sometimes even on their part of the organization-  they tend to come up with solutions that may have severe tradeoffs in areas where they are blindsided. 

The Blind Sides of Managment

When about Organizations, we tend to think about the, what Harvard Professor Robert Kegan calls, the Exterior of an Organization. But there is more to an organization which needs to be planned:

mffo.png

Quadrant 1: Exterior view of Organizations

This is what springs to mind when thinking about organizations. These are all the usual stuff we think of as managers and organizers. They are tangible, written or at least practiced rules and processes.

Quadrant 2: Exterior view of Individuals in an Organization

These are the responsibilities, roles, problems, and tasks that individuals in organizations are faced with. It is the individuals understanding of his role in an organization, her day to day job.

The individual’s view of a job is determined by Quadrant 1: All rules and processes defined have repercussions on individuals day to day work. Every intrusion that restricts the local autonomy to act impacts the way people view their job. Every purchasing guideline, every management approval, every assignment, every project, every HR regulation.

Quadrant 3: Interior view of Organizations

These are the nontangible, harder to see aspects of an organization. This Quadrant is usually described as the organizational culture, i.e., “the way we do things here.”

Organizational Culture is notoriously hard to change. According to Peter Drucker, “Culture eats Strategy for Breakfast.”

Screenshot 2018-01-04 08.45.34

(credits for this picture goes to Torben Rick)

Yet with everything, a manager organizes and regulates, culture is changed. At the same time, Culture restricts what regulation from Quadrant 1 is being made and determines what regulation will be successful.

Quadrant 4: The “Psychology” Quadrant

The Interior view of Individuals, that’s the trickiest quadrant of them all. It’s the things that like beliefs, values, fears, and vulnerabilities that are hidden in everyone. It’s psychology, it’s neuronal science, i.e., the way the brain works.

Everything an individual does, in any quadrant of the organization, is governed by Quadrant 4. Yet managers often neglect the impacts of their actions on the psychology of people.

Historically Managers are Administrators, not Psychologists.

Why do Managers need to learn about their blind spots?

Management’s goal is to achieve optimal outcomes “in the transformation of resources into utility,” a definition used by Management thinker Fredmund Malik.

For knowledge work, that “transformation of resources into utility” can only be optimized, if managers are able to plan ahead for the next state of an organization – not on just Quadrant 1, but on all four quadrants. The individual’s state of mind might not have been critical in a command and control coal shoveling steel mill, but it sure is of central importance in today’s knowledge economy.

All the hard facts, the rules, and regulations set in Quadrant 1 determine all other Quadrants, but most the Individual, Micro level of an organization.

mffo2.png

Of course, all Quadrants are somewhat interdependent. Still, Quadrant 1 is much more easily changed by a rational process, as everything in it can be much better controlled and measured. The Organizational level sets the frame for each individual, where else the individual is much less powerful to change the collective, notably the lower she is on the corporate ladder.

Blindsided managers let their organizations incur Managerial Debt by choosing ways of working that appear to work on an exterior level, but destroy the interior side of the organization (by undermining trust, disengaging people, treating them like children etc.):

  • Managerial Debt accrues over time: Disengagement of workers will cause products, service and finally profits to degrade over time.
  • Like accrued interests, bad managerial solutions will cause new bad managerial solutions to spring up over time
  • Unaddressed management debt increases organizational entropy overtime: Energy that is lost to the void: Filling out reports that no one needs. Doing Approvals that no one approving understands. Never working on fundamental issues but only on patching up the mistakes of the flawed organizational system

Managers need to become Engineers of all Dimensions of Human Work Environments

In this VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous), knowledge-driven and the ever more digital world, Managers need to become just that: Engineers of human work environments.

Robert Kegan, calls this mission to built a “Deliberately Developmental Organization,” a Learning Organization. Shockingly, a learning organization needs the manager to become a teacher or Unversity decan who does two things:

  1. Set a curriculum of what is to be learned
  2. Engage in Pedagogy (the science of learning) to optimize the rate of learning

Now Managers need to get a better understanding of psychology and pedagogy, too. An even major challenge. But a challenge that can not be ignored in our times. Times, where the Agile Mindset and Agile Management Practices appear to be the way forward for organizations.

That’s a challenge that Jürgen Hauschildt,  would have eagerly taken up.

That’s what I think. What do you think?

__
Sources:

 

0 comments on “Going Native: The Best Way to Link Traditional​ Companies and Start-ups”

Going Native: The Best Way to Link Traditional​ Companies and Start-ups

From a corporate perspective, the Startup world is chaotic, hard to understand, seemingly irrational and even irresponsible. Similar feelings come into play if just a unit inside a Company adopts Agile working principles, for example, an IT Unit adopting SCRUM as its project method.

It is here that the paradigm of Control & Predict meets the paradigm of Autonomy & Evolutionary Purpose. There are bound to be misunderstandings, crisis, conflicts, drama, and frustration in this interface between the traditional corporate world and the Start-up World.

Yet many Companies are rather inept dealing with this interface. A typical reaction is to assign a single point of contact (SPOC) by each supporting unit, such as IT, Logistics, Purchasing, Accounting or Legal to take care of any issue raised by the Startup. The well-meant message to the Startup is: “Do not worry. We will take care of your issues”. And so the trouble starts – boys and girls working for the startup usually:

  • Don’t know which question to ask. There are there for a mission, but the intricacies of e.g., corporate IT, Legal finesse or accounting laws are not their area of expertise nor their primary concerns. All their focus is to get a product with a viable business proposition off the ground
  • Don’t know how to formulate question, so that the experts in the supporting unit can understand it
  • Are not sure who should ask a question. In such a fluid way of working as a Start-up environment demands, responsibility can hardly be pinpointed to single person
  • Have other concerns. Yes, there might be this or that – for example – legal quirk with this or that decision, but this is often a secondary concern. Too many decisions need to be taken at a moments notice
  • Change their questions fast. Even if a question is formulated, with all the experimentation going on, there is no guarantee that the question will not be outdated tomorrow
  • Need answers real fast. A hierarchy, where there is an awareness that answers are nothing else than commitments, and commitments costs resources, needs a lot of time to come up with an answer. After all, the hierarchy is built for reliability and efficiency – not for speed and effectiveness

Giving these problems, the single point of contact model is doomed to fail.

Going Native

So what is the alternative to the SPOC model? It is not waiting for issues to be raised by someone in the Startup but integrating some co-workers deep in the Startup. Thereby those co-workers, which might be described as liaison officers, agents or advisors, stay  in the full context of the Start-up and are able:

  • to scout for issues with all their knowledge
  • to solve issues by directly addressing real or potential issues with their support unit
  • to work relive the tensions between the Supporting Unit and the Start-up

Int.png

Costs

The support unit has to dedicate the liaisons, which can be hard given that the liaisons will be the more effective, the more knowledgeable, the higher their social skills and the better their existing network is.

The Start-up has to accept an increase in their number of co-workers. If multiple supporting units do send liaisons, the number of persons to be integrated can be quite large. But Start-ups need to be close-knit teams where communication is plenty and relations are close and meaningful.

Therefore the liaisons should be integrated not into any single team of the start-up. In the open space facilities so typical of start-ups, the liaisons should have their own table. But they have the permission to change their desk to this or that team table from time to time, just like the situation demands it.

It is the liaison’s job to make themselves useful to the start-up, to seek meaningful work where the start-up team might not be able to identify it and be instrumental in solving it.

Conclusion: Time to move, HQ!

I think that going native is a very good option – after all, the agile way start-ups are working, with lots of experimentation and engagement, lights a way for the corporate world to change.

It is the corporate units that got to integrate into the new world of working- not vice versa.

“Going Native” allows this. It is challenging for the leadership of the support unit to be faced with this new way of working, that provides so much autonomy and decision making authority to the liaisons. But this is exactly what needs to be learned to survive in the digital age.

This is what I think. What do you think?

___

Sources:

  • Kotter, John “Accelerate” 2014 – gives a good hunch what it takes to lead a conventional, command and control organization (first “operating system”) and simultaneously a second agile one (second operating system)

Special thanks to Holger Balderhaar for making me rethink my position on Kotter’s 2nd Operating system.

 

0 comments on “Silicon Valley Clowns and their Fanboys”

Silicon Valley Clowns and their Fanboys

After absorbing the N’th podcast/video/article of some random guy who used to work in Silicon Valley bragging about disruption and boldness, I couldn’t stand the platitudes anymore. I couldn’t help but be making a checklist on how to recognize a Silicon Valley Clown:

scc.png

I guess you can add to this list.

What really annoys me about this kind of talking are three points:

A. Just because you have worked in the Valley doesn’t prove anything

Remember: Most Start-ups fail and there is not always learning involved. Not seldom, it is just silly. In our days there is a lot of money around that wants to be spent in hope for the next unicorn.

And if you worked for some poster company (Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Tesla, etc.): Congrats, you have been a corporate robot, like so many of us. Does this make you an expert on innovation? I do not think so.

B. Snake oil traders selling to the Hinterland

It’s all Sales. Skim through the table above and look for a pattern: Name dropping, impressive insider wording, the time spent traveling and networking. There is just one job where you can do these things consistently: Sales.

There is nothing wrong with being a Salesperson. The danger is that that kind of persons usually become the trusted advisor to CEO’s, in roles like Chief Digital Officer, Chief Innovation Manager, etc. So you got a Sales guy trying to orchestrate all the aspects of a thing as complex as digitalization AND a resource-rich but fundamentally disoriented CEO listening to him.

Good luck with that!

C. Focussing on the Obvious while remaining Oblivious to Deep Challenges

Everyone knows that digitalization will fundamentally transform businesses. It is just that the term “fundamentally transform” is often interpreted in a very narrow sense -like this:

  • Building up new streams of revenue by investing in start-ups
  • Old Business Models die, new ones that involve more Technology and Data come up
  • All this happens real fast in an uncertain environment, so I better get my organization agile

That’s a consensus view, right? The trouble is, the transformation is much deeper than this.

  • With an ever-accelerating rate of change, the race to build up new start-ups faster than the old business dies is doomed from the start: If maturing start-ups experience the same organizational sclerosis than traditional companies, these “throwaway companies” cost too much investment for a shorter and shorter pay-back period
  • Digital Technology and high rate of changes make every front-line worker to a Knowledge Worker. Hand on Heart: The overwhelming number of companies and managers never did a good job managing knowledge workers
  • All this agile and lean entrepreneurial stuff will not work, without trust, transparency and finally the acceptance of vulnerability of humans. Without that – my dear Cowboy CDO/CEO-  people will never open up. Without open communication, groups of people can never be innovative, and the pace of learning will be dismal

Face the deep challenges… or else

So the deep challenges are

  1. Building companies that last and avoid instititional sclerosis
  2. Learning to see everyone as Knowledge Worker
  3. Step away from the Cowboy Style of Leadership and becoming a Servant Leader

That’s why I believe organizations need to move towards more Self-Management. To rely on the fickle whims of an autocrat, which any manager with the hire and firepower is, is fundamentally not good enough to let people open up and be innovative.

So the hierarchy has got to retreat. It does not need to disappear, it just needs to fade more into the background.  There needs to be more checks and balances on hierarchical power.

Is that the silver bullet, the hierarchy needs to take a back seat? As always, it’s just one element.

But it might just be the one that requires the most time and is the hardest to pull off, as it requires such a broad mind shift in managers and people. A mind shift that goes against the command and control we all learned in school and experience in the business.

On the other hand: Ugh, that’s tough. Maybe you should just continue wasting your time with your Silicon Valley Clown, you (CEO) fanboy.

___

Sources: 

Here are some legacy posts which you might find helpful:

What kind of Organization do modern Companies aspire to be? – how companies like Amazon or Netflix do it

The Startup Way by Eric Ries – Book review – how not to do it

The World’s Leading Hedgefund is Relying on Key Principles of Self-Managed Organizations – how an arch-capitalist is embracing vulnerability

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 comments on “A new Ideology of Management – part II”

A new Ideology of Management – part II

The leap towards a new set of normative beliefs and values, a new Ideology of Management, that is in stark contrast to existing management practices requires much faith and conviction to initiate and sustain. Who has taken this leap? Under which circumstances? What is the fine print of the transformation?

Who has taken the leap towards Digital Management?

A lot of companies already have:

  • Nearly all well-known Digital champions such as Amazon, Google, Facebook, Uber, Airbnb, LinkedIn, Zappos, Netflix, Snap, Etsy, GitHub
  • Classic companies transforming into Digital ones: Wegmans (Grocery), Buurtzorg (Health Care Services), FAVI (Automotive Supplier), Morning Star (Food Processing), Patagonia (Apparel)
  • Classic companies transforming pockets of their Organizations into Digital Organizations: Otto.de (B2C), Disney (e.g. Pixar)

In addition to that, I worked with or talked to Organizations who started their digital transformations with their IT units. IT units appear to be a natural place to start, as the pain caused by the tedious way IT services are provided today appears to be the very bottleneck of all attempts to digitize companies.

But there are companies taking the Digital Management Approach further, some to all departments, including Manufacturing, HR, Sales and even Accounting. Here is a list of the most aggressive form of Digital Management, called “Holacracy”.  I watch this movement since 2015 and it is really gaining traction in organizations and the minds of progressive leaders.

There are many forms of Digital Mangement out there, but all organizations show the uniting feature of a move away from hierarchy and to more autonomous, trusted teams.

“If everyone had to think outside the box, maybe it was the box that needed fixing”

– Malcolm Gladwell, What the Dog Saw 

Where is a good place to start the transformation towards Digital Management?

Digital Management is a term used by me and is defined in my last posts. Other people label this new way to manage and organize “Team of Teams” (Stanley McChrystal) or “Holacracy” or “the Amazon way” or the “Google Model”. Whatever the name, the main characteristics shared are all the same.

While the principles can really be applied to any organization, benefits and needs seem to be greatest in knowledge-driven organizations or those parts of organizations which are knowledge driven.

IT units fall into that knowledge-driven category. It is really an ideal candidate to start this new organizational model, given

  • the need to change often tedious IT Operations is existing in always all companies
  • that any “digital transformation” initiative places an oversized sign pointing towards IT and reading “RESTRUCTURE ME”.
  • that modern software architecture and processes like DevOps or Continous Delivery are urgently required in order for companies to keep pace with the changes in the marketplace

The fine print: Q&A

The major outlines of the Digital Management approach can be found in the last post A New Ideology for Management in the Digital Age. Here is the fine print:

qa2.png

Digital Management is not a Pony Farm

This Blog, ManagementDigital has a business take on things. There are obviously bigger implications for people and society as a whole if people experience work not a “wrench in a machine” but as a creative person.

I choose to leave this humanistic perspective to others, like the Holacracy crowd, which strikes me as a big esoteric. I think that a “Heal the world” perspective will fail to convince the profit-seeking executives of this world.

Plus there is simply not enough evidence for less autocratic organizations to turn the workplace to a more human place. There are at least as many companies with an aggressive, meritocratic culture based on strength than socially responsible companies, The most aggressive ones are probably Uber, followed by Tesla and Amazon. Hugely successful, nonhierarchical companies with explicit Digital management structures – but with abrasive, in Uber’s case even abusive company cultures.

After all, a companies organization of work is something other than a companies culture.

__

Hope you liked this post!

Additional Resources on Digital Management

All sources for this Blog

A german speaking podcast for this blog is available.

 

Digital Transformation is a more encompassing term for all initiatives to revamp a company in order to succeed in the Digital Age. It encompasses Business Strategy, Business Models, Product Design, Customer Focus, Data Intelligence, Market Positioning and new (Digital) Management Models.

 

 

 

 

0 comments on “Bring it on! The 2016+ Challenge”

Bring it on! The 2016+ Challenge

2016 was a very special year in so many aspects. Trump, Brexit, Terror, Wars & Refugee’s, the resurgence of authoritarian leaders, Zero Interest Economics, the beginning of the post-factual age etc. All these effects and causes contribute to high levels of uncertainty. Despite most economic and social indicators, pointing upwards with record low or reduced unemployment in many countries, the feeling of uncertainty prevails – in an almost post-factual manner. The media seems to be the message, finally.

1 comment on “Hiring like a Pro: Lessons from Google”

Hiring like a Pro: Lessons from Google

How would HR look like if bright engineers where to design it from scratch? Google scrutinized every conventional business wisdom and came up with  a data driven, tested and continuously improved new way to hire.

Hiring is the most important management skill – by far

Hiring is the key skill of a manager. There is consent on that in management literature – from academics like Peter Drucker to practitioners like Steve Jobs or Eric Schmidt. Yet conventional hiring processes do not reflect this urgency.

Conventional hiring seeks to get someone “good enough” for a job, balancing the needs of the position and the funds available. In contrast, Googles approach is to look for persons that “will grow”: A candidate does not need to be sufficiently qualified –  just yet. But he certainly needs to show the potential to grow even beyond the job that is currently on offer.

In order to achieve this, the whole hiring process has been dissected and revamped:

google hiring.jpg

Do not trust a manager – use a committee

Googles approach is derived from the academic outlook of their founders. In Universities, recruitment is not done by the “superior”, but by a committee. Universities need to commit to their faculty members for a long time, as results of academic work are really visible only in the long term. So extra care is taken in the selection process. Goggle has brought this “extra care” to the business world by putting committees instead of individuals in the drivers seat of the hiring decision.

A decision for a co-worker should be influenced by the persons a candidates will work with. Most day to day interactions will be done inside the team – not with the manager that the candidate will work for. Committees are a way to…

a. eliminate personal biases of the manager

b. of any other individual in the committee, i.e. co-workers, HR representative and peers

b. to enforce rigor into the process, the discipline to stick to high standards.

But committees are not enough. Watch this scene from Moneyball, a 2011 film based on the real, overwhelming success of the Oakland Athletics Baseball Team in 2002/2003, where a committee tries to pick new players for the season.

Committees are prone to conventional biases, as individuals are. They need data and a process to deliver optimal value.

Use Data to eliminate biases

In order to eliminate biases data about the candidate data needs to be gathered:

  • Tests are used wherever possible: Work sample tests, Cognitive (IQ) tests, Conscientiousness Tests. Test have a higher correlation to a successful future of the candidate than any other predictors, including the CV
  • Past performance of other, former candidates are scrutinized for correlations with educational background, upbringing, activities etc.
  • KPI’s are defined and graphically presented in order to compare average and median values for the actual and past candidate population as well as the google employee population (by organizational unit or function)
  • Interviewers performance itself is measured on input factors (how many interviews performed, on-time start of interviews, number of re-schedulings) and output factors (candidate performance rankings after 6 and 12 month). This allows continual optimization of the hiring process itself

For every candidate decision data is made available to all committee members in the form of briefing packages. This briefing material is not unlike executive briefing packs in detail, accuracy and cleanliness.

Takes this cue from “Moneyball”: It takes a lot of data gathering, a lot of number crunching and a lot of pre-reading from everyone involved in the process.

Is this efficient?

Hiring to high standards is extremely  frustrating: Just filling a position is much more simple than trying to recruit a person that “will grow” even beyond the position. It is time consuming, there is a high churn rate of rejected candidates. The result of the most of the careful work of a 4 to 5 person committee is to say “no” to a candidate at the end. What a waste!

Each employee needs to spend 1,5 (e.g. a member of a committee without interview duties) to 10 hours (an interviewer in high demand because of her interviewing skills) per week on hiring. That is 3% to an extreme 20% of overall working time. Is this efficient?

Lazlo Bock (see sources) makes the point that all the time spend in hiring is rewarded by the future contribution of the employee. And for those that this lofty statement is not enough he comes up with this: Google is spending much less on external training than other companies. Internal training by employees for employees is highly encouraged.

The final balance is not clear, as individual contributions are subject to so many influencing factors. As Google is mostly hiring extremely bright engineers who train other bright engineers, the probability is that this process is effective as well as efficient.

Amazon’s hiring processes show similarities with Googles Processes in many aspects. Amazon employs a group of senior interviewers that have the final word in every hiring discussion. This group is called “Bar Raisers” and consists of valued employees who hold this role in addition to their other obligations.

For other, more conventional companies, the verdict might be different and involve more of a judgement call of how important people actually are to the companies type of business. In every industry managers declare “people” as being key to success. But having excellent people is worth nothing, if they do not have the autonomy to do anything else than their daily toil.

Good people matter – if the organization provides a framework of space and time for them to blossom.

Google’s management framework is geared towards providing this freedom – see last post.

What to do in conventional companies?

Beside Google and the odd Baseball team, who else is emphasizing hiring so much?

  • The whole professional sports world has been the subject to data revolution since “Moneyball”, e.g. NBA, NFL and the various European Soccer Leagues
  • Most of Silicon Valley’s companies have a  very special take on the hiring process. Most share elements with Google, e.g. Amazon or Apple
  • Traditional companies, such as the Grocer Wegmans, are cited by Lazlo Bock as traditional companies having a strong focus on the hiring process and delivering excellent results- even in low margin businesses

A final word be said by a leader of a much less elitist organization than Google:

“You need to have a collaborative hiring process.”

Steve Jobs