February 4, 2010
What Might Be
Earlier this week I attended a presentation by Roger Martin, the author of The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage. There is a great article about the book in Businessweek as it was one of their top recommentations for 2009.
The event was held at the new, and very cosmopolitan Ziba Design building on Ninth and Northrop in Portland. The crowd was large, hip, and enthusiastic.
As his thesis, Martin poses this question: “Why aren’t companies more innovative, especially since innovation is such a competitive advantage?” He investigated the obvious answers–that companies like what they already have or that they don’t have the resources–and he found they were not true. Companies really do want to be innovative.
So, what is impeding innovation? From his research, Martin concludes that it’s the subtle ways that people think that block changes in process and structure that lead to innovation.
Martin then outlined three ways that people think. The first is analytical thinking which looks at data from the past to predict the future. Its goal is a reliable outcome, but the limitation is that when you are looking to innovate you cannot use inductive or deductive reasoning to prove something new. In fact, Martin goes so far as to say “prove it” is the enemy of innovation.
Another way that people think is intuitive thinking, which has the goal of creating “what might be.” Its purpose is to know without explicit reasoning. This method of thinking has 100% validity, he said, because it lacks parameters.
The combination of both approaches is called abductive thinking, and its purpose is to integrate the past and future, and to combine reliability and validity. The intersection of analytical and intuitive thinking is where innovation occurs.
He argued that corporate life is dominated by analytical thinking, and that it has been pushed so far that it is counterproductive. He gave suggestions for intuitive thinkers to understand and empathize with analytical thinkers. He also challenged analytical thinkers to share reasoning and data, but not conclusions with intuitive thinkers.
If you change structure and process, then culture shifts occur. Cultural shifts lead to innovation.
As SLA looks to become Future Ready and posits “what might be,” we need use analytical and intuitive thinking to engender new processes and structures to support our members.
What’s your dominant way of thinking? Analytical, intuitive or abductive?
January 18, 2010
Are you driven?
Last night, the uniquely Portland bookstore “Powell’s City of Books” hosted author Daniel Pink, an engaging speaker and author of A Whole New Mind, Free Agent Nation, and The Adventures of Johnny Bunko.
I’d gained some real insight from Pink’s previous books and already purchased Drive—as the title is just so darn compelling. I’d also heard positive reports about this book from Jeff de Cagna at Principled Innovation.
So, what is it that DRIVES us? Of course, there are our biological drives: food, shelter, and finding a mate. And there are extrinsic drivers around rewards, such as our desire to obtain good things and avoid punishment—the carrot and stick.
But there are other intrinsic motivators and that’s really what this book is about. Yes, we need a paycheck, but we engage in work for a myriad of other reasons—because it’s interesting, to contribute to serving a larger purpose, and to engage in a community.
In engaging employees, most business models stop at the extrinsic carrot and stick rewards. But, Pink says, this model works well only in a narrow range of circumstances, when work is simple and mechanical. It is not effective when creative solutions are needed. Humans have a mix of motives and, after a saturation point, cannot be manipulated to increase their productivity with more carrot and less stick.
In fact, Pink’s research found that when work requires higher level cognitive skills, higher rewards and punishments actually lead to worse performance. (Now you see why the subtitle of the book is “The surprising truth about what motivates us.”) When a problem does not have a clear direct answer, extrinsic rewards are not effective. Once you pay people “enough,” they want to engage by thinking about the work, not the reward.
Pink describes three intrinsic drives that motivate us: autonomy, mastery, and purpose.
Autonomy is the drive to be self-directed. Many business models require people to comply, but autonomy looks instead at engagement. For example, call centers typically time employee calls, monitor all employee actions, and put workers in “hamster cage-like, soul-hollowing settings.” As a result, turnover can be as high as 100%. In contrast, the shoe company Zappos implemented a different model. They give call center employees two weeks training that concludes with an offer of $2000 if the newly minted employee wants to quit. Interesting! For those that stay, which is the vast majority, their instructions are simple: “You know what to do; when customers call in, do it.” So the operators are free to solve the customer’s problem in the most appropriate way—which increased customer satisfaction. In fact, Zappos received customer service ratings equal to the Ritz-Carlton.
Turning to mastery, Pink stated that as engagement is falling off at work, there is a rise in volunteering. People want to contribute. Open source software such as Linux, Apache, and Wikipedia are salient examples of this trend. People need interesting, challenging problems and will commit time and effort towards fulfilling this need.
How can a company engage our drive to purpose? Tom’s Shoes provides a relevant example as they give a way a pair of shoes to a child in need for every pair you buy. By doing this, they attract customers who feel good about giving and turn their customers into benefactors. To address purpose effectively, business models need to combine profit and purpose. People are not horses – we have the drive to make an impact on the world and a need to contribute.
Go read the book! Then, let’s talk a bit more about intrinsic rewards.
January 4, 2010
Phenomenal results
In a fit of New Year’s reflection, I’ve been wrestling with how to make a more positive impact, you know, on the world. I’ve been a vegetarian (technically, a pescetarian—the fish-eating kind) for thirty years, because that diet is lower on the food chain and therefore better for the earth. So, I’m committed. But, I’m also an American and Americans use 25% of the world’s resources.
Possibly like you, I’ve been taking a few tentative steps to see what more I can do in terms of sustainability, but I’m nervous about the the guilty feelings of living in an oil-dependent world and having to adopt a reduce, reduce, reduce mantra. But the more I read about it, the more I see sustainability as an opportunity—with an upside for leadership, creativity, collaboration, and the economy. The gut-wrenching downside of our carbon-hungry world is still there, especially if we don’t act. I’m determined to participate—not just in awareness but in action—toward being part of the solution.
Thomas Friedman’s Hot, Flat and Crowded states that “green is the new red, white and blue.” It’s a great turn of phrase that he uses to mean that the US has an opportunity to be a global leader in the green revolution. We CAN reduce the negative impact of our current culture. If we act, and start innovating, we can go a long way toward helping the US re-establish its leadership in the world.
To find out about local opportunities, I hooked up with Darcy Winslow, the principal of Design for Sustainable World Collective. She was previously the general manager of Sustainable Business Strategies for Nike, where I first met her. Darcy, in turn, pointed me to the Sustainable Enterprise Certificate at Willamette University that Anne Murray Allen directs.
And this is the stuff I really wanted to blog about! Anne and I talked about “creating a shared vision for people to enlist in.” Anne and two additional co-authors are working on a book about achieving phenomenal results. Phenomenal results—that’s what sustainability needs. Results that are “greater than the sum of our explanations.”
According to Anne, “we need to approach sustainability through first exploring how social well-being is created, supported and expanded.” Assessing and establishing social well-being precedes technological solutions. An increase in social well-being will lead to an increase in financial well-being.
Anne and I discussed how to gain momentum for the sustainable enterprise through the development of shared meaning and a shared point of view. People desire to belong and to contribute. In fact, the two feed on each other: the more people belong, the more they want to contribute; the more they contribute, the more they belong; etc. etc. Then, leadership emerges from contribution.
From that you have a collective wisdom that builds shared meaning that leads to coordinated action that moves mountains.
See what I mean about new opportunities in sustainability? This stuff is exciting!
December 21, 2009
Executing your goals
The 4 Disciplines of Execution
Back to fundamentals!
Need help accomplishing all of your wildly important goals because they are being choked out by your daily tasks?
Do you sometimes feel like you’re getting things done, but not making any progress on the important stuff?
I recommend this podcast for insights on executing your goals.
December 11, 2009
The name stays SLA
This week we learned that the membership voted to keep the Special Libraries Association name, rather than switch to the proposed “Association for Strategic Knowledge Professionals.” I was fairly clear that my preference was to change to the new name, so on some level, I’ll admit I’m disappointed.
Still, I accept the results of the vote and I’m ready to move on. While a name is important, it is only one layer of how we describe ourselves and how we represent ourselves to potential members, employers, and clients.
There were some positive aspects in the debate leading up to the decision. One of them was how robust the discussion was—and that it took place using such a wide variety of media. Our members weighed the pros and cons in person, on the mailing lists, through the association blogs, using Facebook, Twitter, Second Life, and more.
Furthermore, the membership voted. In most of our elections, about 25% of our membership votes. For this ballot, the turnout was an incredible 50%. There was amazing engagement on this issue–it really got to people.
My intuition is that members are ready for a change, but not the particular name change they were presented with. Fair enough. We will continue to develop our membership services in terms of value, impact, and benefits. I just hope some of the passion of the past election can find its way into members continuing to help steer us into an uncertain future.
I believe the Alignment Project will be the roadmap to our next steps. My copy of the Alignment Project, with all its scribbled comments, post-it notes, and dog-eared corners is really getting a work out. If you’re looking for an opportunity to make a difference within the Association, I urge you to print out your own copy and see if there is a place where you can plug yourself in.
Regardless of your personal take on the outcome—stay engaged! Participate and work with us to make SLA thrive. Our chapters, divisions, and association members need you!
