Four years ago I wrote a well-received paper entitled A Prescription for Business Innovation: Creating Technologies that Solve Basic Human Needs. I’ve updated it, broken it into three manageable pieces, and present the second part below. The first part, which reviewed the history of human innovation and technology, is here and the third part will follow next Tuesday.
Four: Innovation & Society: How Technologies Limit Freedom, Human Nature Confounds Innovation, and Consumer Decision Tools Doom Marketing Those of you with HR backgrounds are probably wondering why I have not spoken about non-individual, community aspects of civilization and why and how these arose if the innovative individual is perfectly able to do it all him- or herself. These issues are relevant because of the role of teams, organizations and other social constructs in the process of innovation. Let’s take another look at our proto-human, now equipped with the six basic types of manually powered machine (lever, wheel, screw, pulley, plane, and wedge — the latter in the form of flint-head arrows), plus other early innovations like controlled fire, animal domestication and crop cultivation. Like other creatures he’s adopted the family unit as a social convention, but now he’s experimenting with a more sophisticated social construct, the tribe. Question is, why? Is it Darwinian — Did humans that banded together have a higher likelihood of survival than loners? Or is it purely social — Do humans, like other creatures, have a basic need for social contact with others that goes beyond family? Whichever it is — a survival need or a social need, it required innovations to make it work, innovations like a code of laws and behaviours to prevent and resolve disputes between individuals, and shared language. At this point, in the view of some anthropologists, a tug-of-war began between our essential individual, autonomous nature and the perceived benefits of increasingly advanced, abstract and restrictive ‘technologies’ like division of labour, specialization, private and communal property, governments and other hierarchical social organizations, including the modern corporation. All these social ‘technologies’ limit individuals’ freedom, and much of our civilization has been about trying to find a delicate balance between individual ‘rights’ and the apparent benefits afforded by technologies that compromise them. This tug-of-war continues to play out today, in our suspicion of government, the existence of ‘militias’, libertarian movements, evolution of privacy laws, and struggles over property ownership. The battle is far from over, with slavery, one particularly extreme social construct favouring hierarchical efficiency over individual liberty, still practiced in many countries, and women, children and animals treated as property with no rights or freedoms whatsoever in many others. This tension also plays out in the modern corporation, itself a feudal social construct which is neither egalitarian nor democratic. Corporate efficiencies have produced technologies that have massively improved material wealth and (most believe) quality of life in the few centuries since they were invented. But these advantages have come with a huge cost of personal freedom — In many countries employees are virtual slaves of their employers, with no hope of realizing their full personal potential. In many companies promotion and remuneration have nothing to do with performance or competency. Here are some of the consequences for innovation of this individual/collective tension, in today’s companies:
If people are social by nature, why are corporations so unable to tap into this to leverage the power of teams to enhance innovation? The answer may be simple. In The Hidden Life of Dogs, author Elizabeth Marshall Thomas explains that most animals have an inherent desire to socialize with their peers, that seems totally unrelated to survival needs. In fact, dogs that wander from homes where they are well-fed and cared for appear to be looking for social contact with other dogs for its own sake, just as children like to hang out with others doing things they can do just as effectively alone. At the same time, both dogs and children often become extremely jealous, competitive, possessive and unsociable when these same fellow creatures impose on their personal ‘territory’: family, toys, food bowl, and members of the opposite sex. Perhaps this is a universal trait that we need to consider when designing innovation programs: Everyone loves to engage in social activities that are fun, challenging and unthreatening, but when the social activity impinges on individual ‘territory’ or property, or on scarce resources, social and collaborative behaviour ceases and confrontational, competitive behaviour takes over. But isn’t competitive behaviour exactly what business thrives on? Doesn’t the rush of adrenaline and testosterone in the quest for competitive advantage and ‘winning’ yield high productivity, sharpened customer focus, and more new ideas? I would argue that competition is at best a neutral factor in engendering innovation, and may in fact be detrimental. Most of the books on teamwork, such as The Wisdom of Teams, stress two essential preconditions to effective team behaviour:
There are other factors that affect a team’s success, of course, such as the competencies and access to knowledge of the team members, and the effectiveness of the processes by which the team works. What is important here is that nowhere is a competitive threat, competitive challenge or competition of any kind considered essential to team effectiveness. Even in sports, the best teams focus on what they do well (the attributes of their team’s excellence) and the achievement of specific objectives (like scoring points) rather than being distracted by competing with the other team, ‘winning’ and exploiting the other team’s weaknesses. Good teams usually take solace in having played well even in a losing cause, and are alarmed when they play badly but still manage to win. In fact, a major competitive tactic in business is to force one’s competitors to shift their focus to your agenda, to take their eye off their team’s goal to instead compete with you. Furthermore, many businesses are now reaching out to involve customers, alliance partners and even competitors in their problem-solving teams, because they help bring different points of view to the creative process, and because these external partners share both the defined problem and the sense of urgency with the internal team. In a world of accelerating change, no competitive advantage is sustainable — innovations and new technologies can almost instantly reinvent industries, products, services, and offerings, and eliminate any competitive advantage the old ones may have had. Despite massive and sustained oligopolistic efforts to prevent it, customers are beginning to wrest absolute control of business direction and success from almost every industry’s producers, management strategists and marketers, and now set the agenda and reward companies that respond to their needs and build new serving capability, not those that bash the competition, sue their customers, or create barriers to competitive offerings. The Bush regime’s corporatist agenda has been only a temporary setback in this inexorable trend. A side-note about branding: Many marketing people, lamenting over the passage of market control from producer to consumer, cite the increasing importance of branding as an organizational strategy, and of brand loyalty as a success factor. For this reason, they argue, aggressive, proactive marketing is not dead. They fail to appreciate that consumers, faced with the severe scarcity of (a) time to assess product alternatives and (b) objective comparative analysis like Consumer Reports, tend to use ‘brand’ as an unsatisfactory surrogate decision-making tool. If you as a consumer want to buy a car, or select a television program to watch, the ideal decision-making process would be:
In the case of a big-ticket selection like a car, you would probably invest significant time in making the final decision. In a small-ticket selection like a television program, the final decision could be greatly simplified or even fully automated, so your television would automatically go to the highest-ranked program in the two lists, and signal to you a ‘score’ showing the computed probability you will like it (since your ultimate decision may be not to watch anything). Tools like these exist today (Consumer Reports is an example of the former; the Recommendations Lists of Amazon.com are an example of the latter), but they are not yet very robust or reliable. In their absence, brands and brand loyalty are the surrogates: ‘I always buy Chrysler products’ or ‘I usually watch CSI on Thursday nights’ is your brain’s way of substituting brand for the more ideal tools noted above. Once these tools exist (and the Information Age is ripe for them), product brands will simply become community-identification brands (‘I drive Chrysler products because they reflect who I am and I want others to see that and associate with me, or not, because of that identification’). At this point, brand community-association becomes merely one more selection criterion of the analytical tool. With the advent of the near-perfect consumer information these tools provide, traditional marketing has no remaining role, and the knowledge-driven transition of power from producer to consumer is complete. Five: The Structure & Culture of Innovative Organizations: Business Gets Feminine and Consumers Seize Power from Producers
The real contention over this new organizational culture is whether it is efficient enough to justify a new organizational structure to support it, or whether instead some kind of balance between hierarchical and autonomous structures is needed. Is it empowering, or is it naÔve, to believe that if an organization sets specific strategies and goals and then ‘gets out of the way’, the employees will effectively figure out the best way to achieve them? Can the tools, the infrastructure of technologies, knowledge-bases and equipment, needed to achieve organizational and project objectives, be left up to project teams to develop as needed and ad hoc, or must they be rationalized and inventoried and efficiently ‘managed’? Who controls the purse-strings, and approves allocation of budgets and resources for each project — can project teams really do this themselves or do these resources also need to be centrally ‘managed’? These issues are important to the future of business innovation. We must decide whether an organization saddled with the structures and controls of an old ‘management’ style can hope to be sufficiently agile, responsive to customers, creative and focused on new product development, to survive when that survival depends on strategic improvisation and continuous innovation. There are two huge and contradictory trends occurring in organizational structure today: globalization and fragmentation. Globalization is occurring because small organizations cannot achieve the scale and resource capacity needed to be viable, and fragmentation, the spinning off and incubation of small, narrowly focused ‘best of class’ companies, is occurring because large organizations are too unwieldy, inefficient and inflexible to be innovative and respond to customers’ rapidly evolving needs. So we have today the worst of both worlds: large, fat, unresponsive global companies and emaciated unscalable small ones. Furthermore, because of today’s concentration of money and power in the hands of increasing global corporate giants, this system is in disequilibrium, with dysfunctional non value-added consequences such as these:
The recent macro-economic review by Credit Suisse First Boston, echoing the prognostications voiced by many economists at recent economic summits, foresees the evolution of today’s corporate structures into three new, prevailing types of enterprise, which could fix the above dysfunctions (since different economists use different names for these, I’ve used my own):
The Global Utilities would be either publicly owned or tightly regulated, operated on a not-for-profit basis. They would be measured on efficiency. The Producers and Innovators would be entrepreneurial partnerships, very project focused. Producers would be measured on agility, quality and customization, and Innovators on creativity, quality and quality-of-life improvement. All three types of enterprise would be measured additionally, of course, on customer satisfaction. None would be hierarchical, and few would spend an entire career with a single organization. I have argued elsewhere that, in fact, with today’s technologies there is no need for any of us to have to work more than a few hours a week to provide a high level of well-being for everyone anyway — the fact that we do work so unnecessarily hard and long is a function of the sustained myths of our modern Western culture and the extravagant and unsustainable wastefulness of our civilization. Those with an entrepreneurial bent would form, or join, one or more Producer or Innovator enterprises over their working life. Those with a productivity bent would gravitate towards the Global Utilities. Many others would be self-employed, providing niche advisory services to all three types of enterprise. You may think this is a very idealistic view of how ‘organizations should be reorganized’, but it is also a very logical one, and one that could easily be achieved today because of growing dissatisfaction with the dysfunctionality of today’s organizational structures, and the ability, thanks to the Internet and other powerful new ‘organizing’ infrastructure technologies, to bring this ‘reorganization of organizations’ about. Only a poverty of imagination, opposition from elite vested interests, and the inequitable distribution of power and resources, all of them well within human capability to rectify, are preventing us from realizing this potentially liberating, perhaps even Earth-saving, reorganization. In fact, this customer-driven revolution is already happening, quickly, quietly, and non-violently, its first manifestation being what Shoshana Zuboff in her best-seller calls The Support Economy: Why Corporations Are Failing Individuals and The Next Episode of Capitalism. What does all this mean for today’s company looking to jump-start its innovation programs and processes, and today’s individual looking to participate in making his or her own, or his or her employer’s, enterprise more innovative? From the discussion above we can add six principles of innovation strategy to the eight principles developed earlier:
Attributes of ‘Female’ versus ‘Male’ Organization Structures So now we have fourteen principles to guide us in creating innovative organizations. Next Tuesday: In the final part of this paper, a prescription that draws on these principles, that organizations can use to evolve themselves into innovative companies. It will also explain the new 8-step Innovation Process diagram at the top of this post. |
Navigation
Collapsniks
Albert Bates (US)
Andrew Nikiforuk (CA)
Brutus (US)
Carolyn Baker (US)*
Catherine Ingram (US)
Chris Hedges (US)
Dahr Jamail (US)
Dean Spillane-Walker (US)*
Derrick Jensen (US)
Dougald & Paul (IE/SE)*
Erik Michaels (US)
Gail Tverberg (US)
Guy McPherson (US)
Honest Sorcerer
Janaia & Robin (US)*
Jem Bendell (UK)
Mari Werner
Michael Dowd (US)*
Nate Hagens (US)
Paul Heft (US)*
Post Carbon Inst. (US)
Resilience (US)
Richard Heinberg (US)
Robert Jensen (US)
Roy Scranton (US)
Sam Mitchell (US)
Tim Morgan (UK)
Tim Watkins (UK)
Umair Haque (UK)
William Rees (CA)
XrayMike (AU)
Radical Non-Duality
Tony Parsons
Jim Newman
Tim Cliss
Andreas Müller
Kenneth Madden
Emerson Lim
Nancy Neithercut
Rosemarijn Roes
Frank McCaughey
Clare Cherikoff
Ere Parek, Izzy Cloke, Zabi AmaniEssential Reading
Archive by Category
My Bio, Contact Info, Signature Posts
About the Author (2023)
My Circles
E-mail me
--- My Best 200 Posts, 2003-22 by category, from newest to oldest ---
Collapse Watch:
Hope — On the Balance of Probabilities
The Caste War for the Dregs
Recuperation, Accommodation, Resilience
How Do We Teach the Critical Skills
Collapse Not Apocalypse
Effective Activism
'Making Sense of the World' Reading List
Notes From the Rising Dark
What is Exponential Decay
Collapse: Slowly Then Suddenly
Slouching Towards Bethlehem
Making Sense of Who We Are
What Would Net-Zero Emissions Look Like?
Post Collapse with Michael Dowd (video)
Why Economic Collapse Will Precede Climate Collapse
Being Adaptable: A Reminder List
A Culture of Fear
What Will It Take?
A Future Without Us
Dean Walker Interview (video)
The Mushroom at the End of the World
What Would It Take To Live Sustainably?
The New Political Map (Poster)
Beyond Belief
Complexity and Collapse
Requiem for a Species
Civilization Disease
What a Desolated Earth Looks Like
If We Had a Better Story...
Giving Up on Environmentalism
The Hard Part is Finding People Who Care
Going Vegan
The Dark & Gathering Sameness of the World
The End of Philosophy
A Short History of Progress
The Boiling Frog
Our Culture / Ourselves:
A CoVid-19 Recap
What It Means to be Human
A Culture Built on Wrong Models
Understanding Conservatives
Our Unique Capacity for Hatred
Not Meant to Govern Each Other
The Humanist Trap
Credulous
Amazing What People Get Used To
My Reluctant Misanthropy
The Dawn of Everything
Species Shame
Why Misinformation Doesn't Work
The Lab-Leak Hypothesis
The Right to Die
CoVid-19: Go for Zero
Pollard's Laws
On Caste
The Process of Self-Organization
The Tragic Spread of Misinformation
A Better Way to Work
The Needs of the Moment
Ask Yourself This
What to Believe Now?
Rogue Primate
Conversation & Silence
The Language of Our Eyes
True Story
May I Ask a Question?
Cultural Acedia: When We Can No Longer Care
Useless Advice
Several Short Sentences About Learning
Why I Don't Want to Hear Your Story
A Harvest of Myths
The Qualities of a Great Story
The Trouble With Stories
A Model of Identity & Community
Not Ready to Do What's Needed
A Culture of Dependence
So What's Next
Ten Things to Do When You're Feeling Hopeless
No Use to the World Broken
Living in Another World
Does Language Restrict What We Can Think?
The Value of Conversation Manifesto Nobody Knows Anything
If I Only Had 37 Days
The Only Life We Know
A Long Way Down
No Noble Savages
Figments of Reality
Too Far Ahead
Learning From Nature
The Rogue Animal
How the World Really Works:
Making Sense of Scents
An Age of Wonder
The Truth About Ukraine
Navigating Complexity
The Supply Chain Problem
The Promise of Dialogue
Too Dumb to Take Care of Ourselves
Extinction Capitalism
Homeless
Republicans Slide Into Fascism
All the Things I Was Wrong About
Several Short Sentences About Sharks
How Change Happens
What's the Best Possible Outcome?
The Perpetual Growth Machine
We Make Zero
How Long We've Been Around (graphic)
If You Wanted to Sabotage the Elections
Collective Intelligence & Complexity
Ten Things I Wish I'd Learned Earlier
The Problem With Systems
Against Hope (Video)
The Admission of Necessary Ignorance
Several Short Sentences About Jellyfish
Loren Eiseley, in Verse
A Synopsis of 'Finding the Sweet Spot'
Learning from Indigenous Cultures
The Gift Economy
The Job of the Media
The Wal-Mart Dilemma
The Illusion of the Separate Self, and Free Will:
No Free Will, No Freedom
The Other Side of 'No Me'
This Body Takes Me For a Walk
The Only One Who Really Knew Me
No Free Will — Fightin' Words
The Paradox of the Self
A Radical Non-Duality FAQ
What We Think We Know
Bark Bark Bark Bark Bark Bark Bark
Healing From Ourselves
The Entanglement Hypothesis
Nothing Needs to Happen
Nothing to Say About This
What I Wanted to Believe
A Continuous Reassemblage of Meaning
No Choice But to Misbehave
What's Apparently Happening
A Different Kind of Animal
Happy Now?
This Creature
Did Early Humans Have Selves?
Nothing On Offer Here
Even Simpler and More Hopeless Than That
Glimpses
How Our Bodies Sense the World
Fragments
What Happens in Vagus
We Have No Choice
Never Comfortable in the Skin of Self
Letting Go of the Story of Me
All There Is, Is This
A Theory of No Mind
Creative Works:
Mindful Wanderings (Reflections) (Archive)
A Prayer to No One
Frogs' Hollow (Short Story)
We Do What We Do (Poem)
Negative Assertions (Poem)
Reminder (Short Story)
A Canadian Sorry (Satire)
Under No Illusions (Short Story)
The Ever-Stranger (Poem)
The Fortune Teller (Short Story)
Non-Duality Dude (Play)
Your Self: An Owner's Manual (Satire)
All the Things I Thought I Knew (Short Story)
On the Shoulders of Giants (Short Story)
Improv (Poem)
Calling the Cage Freedom (Short Story)
Rune (Poem)
Only This (Poem)
The Other Extinction (Short Story)
Invisible (Poem)
Disruption (Short Story)
A Thought-Less Experiment (Poem)
Speaking Grosbeak (Short Story)
The Only Way There (Short Story)
The Wild Man (Short Story)
Flywheel (Short Story)
The Opposite of Presence (Satire)
How to Make Love Last (Poem)
The Horses' Bodies (Poem)
Enough (Lament)
Distracted (Short Story)
Worse, Still (Poem)
Conjurer (Satire)
A Conversation (Short Story)
Farewell to Albion (Poem)
My Other Sites
As a freelancer who used to work for a variety of companies ranging from multinationals to small dozen-worker shops, I can only say “Right on.” A lot of this seems like more people need to hear it. I know there’s a number of bosses I’d like to take some of my simple tools–namely wedges and pulleys–to.
Just having a quick read while I am drinking in first impressions of Berlin.I hate to sound like a one-string guitar, but I lay much of the blame for rigidity, inflexibility and maladaptive behaviour in the corporate world on the doorstep of the design and implementation tools still in use that date from the ´50´s, i.e. the fundamental assumptions and language contained in job evaluation and compensation strategy/practices.If one looks at the language of JE (the factors, etc) and then looks at how work is organized and flows in a flexible, adaptaive, rel#silient organiy#zation, there is little resemblance between the two. if one believes that language creates reality, most HR people and senior managers have been using work design, job design and therefrom-derived people management processes that have changed little from the late ´50´s – yes, even in environments where project work and team structure are in place.These deep ´rules´are decidedly unglamorous – not like strategy maps or balanced scorecards, etc, but they are pretty deeply embedded, even if unconsciously, in most peoples´mental models of jobs and work in ana organiy#zational setting.And, as it is unglamorous and hard thinking work, and also involves the dynamics of personal change and personal responsibility to grow towards responsible, flexible high functioning work groups, few people bother diving deep into this issue.it gets glossed over withthe continuing ´fad off the month´types of responses. For example, has anyone heard much of ´engagement´ or ´execution´ these days. My guess is that these terms are so last quarter.
I think your theories are strongly influenced by collectivist thinking, utopian wishing and darwarian mythology. You make a number of assertions that I doubt would stand the test of rigorous research, such as the value of flat organizational structures over hierarchal, and “female” creativity over “male,” and innovation cannot take place in large organizations, or with a strong top-down imperative. I think there’s a lot of hoping here, but little to base a business model on. Do you have research to back these assertions?
Howard – there is a considerable amount of data in psychological and physiological studies to support the concept that a critical mass of adults in western society split among two states of consciousness which in turn are split along gender; if our perception of reality is based upon our consciousness, then there are two major groups that think and operate differently. (See “Changes of Mind” by Dr. Jenny Wade, for example). That’s just the tip of the iceberg; I’m sure Dave’s got plenty of resources on this.Dave — this brings to mind Theories X, Y and Z in management, where Ouchi’s Z may potentially be the point at which we integrate X and Y to move beyond their limitations. ??
Howard/Rayne: As I explain in the 3rd part (my April 27 post), my comments are based in part on my own experience advising over 100 small-to-medium sized business over the years, and in part on ‘indirect research’ — the findings of the writers I list in the bibliography at the end of the 3rd part. If you’ve ever written for the major business journals, you probably know that ‘rigorous research’ is largely the selective accumulation after the fact of cases and quotes that support your instinctive opinion. A lot of ‘rigorous research’ is borderline fraud. Though i confess I would gather further, and more current, instances and approach my hypotheses with an open mind when doing so, if I were to be asked (and paid) to put this 3-part article in a professional journal.Rayne: As you would probably expect, I think of theory X & Y as the business analogues of the conservative-liberal philosophical dichotomy. In short, Theory Y works if you’re a partner, and if you have to have a hierarchy you’ll probably find you have to resort to Theory X, not because people are lazy, but because hierarchies turn people off (i.e. 90% of all business problems are caused by senior management). Being a male, I think of Theory Z as something that only works in a collaborative culture like the Japanese. But it’s quite possible that, given half a chance, Western women could, and would, make it work very well. Women certainly have a much better track record as entrepreneurs, and it’s not just because they’re more conservative in spending money — it’s mainly because they’re better listeners, pay attention better, and can accommodate different points of view more successfully and faster than most men.