the stupidity quotient
To present to me an attempt of guessing what I want as value, is absurd. Yet google instant may become successful because in the B2M (business to mass) domain the stupidity quotient is high.
The stupidity quotient must always be considered, because it’s always present. In some industries (b2m) it’s so high you can safely base your strategy on it, in some industries it’s so low, that it’s a dangerous anomaly.
Perfect differentiation
Is it plausible that only one concept exists for each industry? Only one perfect concept that must be actualized? One for automotive, one for aerospace, one for telecommunication, one for IT, etc.
Or perhaps one for each basic function: one for transport, one for communication, one for making (manufacturing), one for design, one for service, etc?
Let’s assume this is actually possible. What would that mean?
It would mean that whoever could “capture” this perfect concept, aligned the company to it and treated it as the company’s purpose, would be able to truly differentiate themselves; even in industries where differentiation is nearly impossible.
What would a near perfect differentiation mean?
It would mean being right: treating people right (customers, employees, other stakeholders), communicating right, growing right, thinking right.
It would mean acting very different (being right is different!), since the context for action is different.
How would it work?
1. the concept would be articulated; the HOW is so interesting, it deserves more space than this
2. based on the articulated concept, the RIGHT strategy would be developed
3. based on the concept and the strategy, the company would be transformed (if it’s not a new company)
Everything we know and do is an alternative to this.
Failed integration
The question of integration is a pressing one both in the business and political domains. Integration efforts predominantly fail. One of the core problems behind these efforts is confusing integration with unification. This is worth having a quick look at.
Unification means that everybody’s forced to become the same.
Attempts of unification inevitably result either in revolution or cynicism and sabotage, depending on the temperament of the people involved and the prevailing conditions. Why? Because the foundation of unification is a lie, which suggests that we are all the same.
Since A will never equal B, this effort can not succeed.
The style element of the unification process is manipulation. The agents of unification operate with lies, and much more dangerously: half-truths. Opposition to the process results in brutal suppression, eliminating those who question the validity of the system. Since tyranny is frowned upon, the unification process is always sugarcoated, which means that its agents are almost always schizophrenic, psychopathic (see http://bit.ly/9vhd6j ) or at the very least they suffer in an identity crisis.
Unification does not tolerate leadership while it generously rewards bureaucrats. People in systems of unification never become more than what they are; in fact leadership roles often serve as excuses to become even less (involution).
In polar opposition to unification stands the concept of integration.
The integration process starts with differentiation; differentiation is encouraged, respected and valued. A=A, B=B. A should be as much A as possible: pure, uncorrupted A. When A tries to be B, it is decline: weakness that is based on false views and ultimately on intellectual inferiority.
The result of integration is unity. Unity is an actualized concept; a true concept that is based on principles and not on an individual’s fantasy. Integration is inevitably hierarchical; the person higher in the hierarchy incorporates the principles that provide the foundation for the concept to a larger degree than the person lower on the hierarchy. The style of interaction between them is respectful. Respect is never geared towards another individual but towards the principles represented by them. Naturally there is nothing to respect in an individual that doesn’t represent / manifest any principles.
In an integrated system there is no individualism. The roles people fulfill are bigger than the individuals, thus they provide an “upward pull”, a chance to become more.
Mix-up
While some leaders recognize the need for differentiation, they continue building organizations whose purpose demand unification. Their messages about diversity are received with suspicion and cynicism; rightfully so. Visions, missions and strategies remain pure abstractions since they are merely individualistic concepts that lack any trace of principle.
While the need maybe there, leaders are not in a position to create the right conditions or influence existing conditions favorably for integration.
It should be obvious that integration is necessary and it calls for radical change.
The breakthrough-paradox
I’ve spent a lot of time listening to great managers analyzing their mistakes. One of the patterns that emerged is what I like to call “breakthrough paradox”. I have heard many stories of failed efforts to solve this significant success factor; and I heard some success stories, too.
A simple definition of a breakthrough paradox is when goals are achieved despite the fact that crucial things are not in place to accomplish them. It always brings MASSIVE change.
Reaching critical mass quickly without (very often even with) outside financing is a breakthrough paradox for startups.
Building top performing management teams in emerging markets is a breakthrough paradox for investors.
Creating the right new concept for an organization facing a “strategic inflection point” and then aligning the organization to it, is a breakthrough-paradox; think about the print publishers’ dilemma.
Successful post M&A integration is a breakthrough paradox (the formula is missing).
Obviously a breakthrough paradox is rarely solved and when it isn’t….there’s no breakthrough. Things continue the way they were and they eventually die off or sink (further) into mediocrity.
More and more managers are in a situation where a breakthrough paradox is expected of them. To achieve breakthrough paradox is a systemic challenge, so tons of things are necessary for success and the whole thing must be treated… as a whole!
Three basic factors must be given attention to:
1. Awareness. Sounds trivial, but it’s crucial. Everybody knows that “we have a problem”; this is not awareness. Awareness means that not only do we know that we must treat this situation OUTSIDE of the domain of normality (box, whatever), but we (or at the very least the top guy) actually step out of our reality; literally. Thinking, perceiving, interacting, etc. outside. Not only outside the normality of the organization of course, but outside of the “strategic environment” as well.
2. Orientation; towards transcendence. This is also obvious but crucial. Outside the box could be under the box, next to the box or above the box. If the guys in the management team think below the box, chances are they have absolutely no awareness even of their own situation . If the team steps out and stays next to the box, they won’t be able to bring in any necessary (vertical) perspective. This is what happens in most cases, when they bring in best practices from other industries. Transcendence means leaving the box below.
Note: opposite to common belief being oriented towards “transcendence” does not automatically mean losing sight of reality! The overwhelming majority of the so called creative types who are responsible for this perception are merely running circles around the box. The crazier ones venture somewhat farther, but still: they’re on the same level, lacking perspective and thus they are lacking the right view and resulting thinking!
3. Thinking.
In the box and below the box the dominant thinking pattern is “opposites”: either or; we and them. Zero sum games. Thinking is highly mechanical and fear sets in as soon as the boundaries are reached. This thinking is incapable of transcendence and when it succumbs to fear, it starts focusing on smaller and smaller pieces and practically disintegrates the organization.
Outside the box on the same level (on the same horizontal plane) the thinking pattern is “analogies”: The way it works there, works here too. This thinking is much more flexible than and superior to the “opposites” thinking pattern and may achieve great results; however this thinking is still based on available facts and as such it rarely transcends the domain of analysis.
Thinking that is capable of rising above currently perceived reality (normality) maybe called “unifying”. The unifying thinking pattern is the foundation for synthesis, which is of course the foundation of any kind of integration in any setting. This thinking is not mechanical, it’s more than flexible: it’s powerful: it doesn’t confuse “combination” with creativity, but actually creates.
What happens when the 3 basics are in place: you’re aware of what you’re facing, you have the perspective and the appropriate thinking, maybe you even have the concept that needs to be implemented. Chances are that by this time you are crystal clear that you are alone and you must go against the current. By this time you have the type of commitment that comes from an unwavering certainty that this MUST be done.
At this stage it’s advisable to look at your situation and make a decision:
- if you are in a position that allows you to do such massive change, go ahead and do it: you can’t not do it.
- if you are not in a position that allows you to do such massive change: put yourself in such a position; if it’s not possible in your current company find or buy another one and solve the breakthrough paradox!
Social networks’ effect on executive search
The CEO of a top search firm commented on the potential impact of social networks on the search business. He said that search business will diminish because social networks significantly reduce the advantages offered by intermediaries.
Hearing this comment another CEO said that this guy doesn’t believe in the core business of his company. The job boards didn’t eliminate search, linkedin will not eliminate it either.
I think this is short sighted on both sides. It’s not a question of belief or doubt! If I am a leader in an industry, I must be acutely aware of all trends and tendencies, look at all risks (potential and actual) and constantly evaluate and even create options.
Discussions about social networks’ effect on search are based on flawed thinking: there is no point!
Like in any other industry the perfect concept must be (re)defined as the purpose and in the same time, potential of the business. Then current reality must be understood as a component in the various patterns of unfolding towards or away from the concept and actions must be adjusted to ensure that we get as close to the concept as possible, instead of drifting away from it.
Social networks are part of the concept behind executive search; potentially always have been, recently they are actually part of it. Awareness of the concept is key to developing appropriate strategies, to align successfully to customers and if needed to take on a leadership role to align everybody, all stakeholders to the concept, often changing radically the whole game if necessary.
Anything is possible
“Anything’s possible” is the motivational mantra of the post industrial age; it is a little vague. It’s obvious to everybody that in systems, including of course such never very well defined systems as social systems, the range of potentialities is limited.
“Anything’s possible” is a logical impossibility and yet it has obtained/was given sentimental value and it drives people all over the place; literally. People set out to “achieve”. Ironically what they want to achieve is highly predictable. A strangely understood quantitative freedom is typically the context in which achievements are evaluated (it’s mostly about financial freedom).
Much more important than this should be to increase awareness to the range of potentialities available to individuals, developing the power to actualize these potentials and create conditions that enable such efforts; this however is outside the range of potentialities for most.
Change
Essentially there are only two types of changes, representing two opposing ends of a large spectrum:
Inert change, the direction of which is downwards and controlled change, the direction of which is upwards.
Ironically, as they fall, organizations rationalize their lack of control with what they call change management.
There is no compromise, consensus or management in architecting and leading upward change.
“Tools” for architecting change are
- The concept, which serves as a platform of integration for strategy and leadership must be articulated. Such concept must be based on principles (not in the conventional sense).
- Strategy and organizational design
- Essential (vertical) leadership
Upward change essentially goes against the current (fights convictions), since the environment is falling. The challenges are tremendous and in this context terms like courage, integrity and loyalty regain their original, undistorted meaning.
Upward change is transformative especially when initiated in modern business organizations.
Upward change accomplishes what people experiencing inert change are only dreaming about: synthetic integration between actors of the given system and those of the environment (be it customers, stakeholders, whatever).
Specialization as religion
Specialization has become a globalized religion. Specialization is a prerequisite not only for survival but for existence! The perception that called it forth, shot it to ontological levels.
We live in a world of specialists with very particular style elements. This world is – by itself- an illusion. A higher vantage point must be actively represented by a different breed so that integration may become possible. Without integration there is only decline and disintegration; disintegration that is prevalent today but obvious only to a few: to the elite.
Specialization without context is simply not credible; it is of course more than credible among those specialists who can’t perceive the context: for them it is the only perceived reality.
There is a reality higher than the horizontal field of specialized areas. In lack of a perceived context the number of the fields of specialization is increasing and the areas of specialization are becoming ever smaller.
Specialists suffer in a constant identity crisis since their identity is almost purely quantitative. If they don’t align to principles of integration, their existence is absurd, since it is based on a contradiction: the more focused their specialization is the more incompetent they are in the embedding system/environment; what/who is the best is defined by pure quantity.
Once we transcend the horizontal plane of specialization,
- leadership consultants are not credible in questions of principles,
- brain surgeons are not credible when it comes to healing,
- people devising new abstractions in physics are not credible in questions of space, time and matter,
- branding technicians are not credible in questions of identity,
- bankers are not credible in economics,
- politicians have no credibility and sensibility to hierarchy and the state (probably since Metternich and Windischgraetz),
- economists are not credible in questions of wealth,
- artists lost their way to directly experience higher realities and turned their attention the opposite way, exhibiting dead animals in formaldehyde,
- philosophers are not credible regarding the Truth,
- psychologists are not credible in questions of consciousness and the root cause of behavior
- business can’t comprehend leadership and
- academia lost its credibility in the question of elitism
- so on and so forth.
The problem is not with specialization of course. The problem is with the lack of willingness to align vertically to the principles providing the foundation for integration. When – driven by arrogance on the one hand and ignorance on the other - representatives of a small area start to think of their particular areas in absolute terms, we know we have a grave problem.
When we recognize that we have reached a stage whereby the fundamentals of the whole system must be challenged and the foundations are accepted by the overwhelming majority as facts that nobody may challenge, we have to make principle based choices; such choices demand leadership.
Perception gap
The physicist doesn’t know much about biology, the chemist doesn’t know much about civil engineering, the mining engineer doesn’t know much about anthropology, the philosophers don’t know much about Sofia, etc., etc., etc.
It’s not difficult to see the analogies with the corporate world: the payroll specialist doesn’t know much about marketing, the branding guy doesn’t care much about finance, the finance folks don’t care too much about solutions sales, the IT guys often feel specifically hostile towards HR, and of course the HR people, dealing with the most important “asset”, are constantly fighting to elevate the function to a “strategic” level;
and here we go: the strategy question: for most, it has nothing to do with reality. “It’s worthless without execution”, “It’s not strategy, it’s the people that matter”, “management, management, management”, “It’s like metaphysics: who cares?”, “It’s just a way for consultants to make an obscene amount of money”, “What the hell is it anyways? Can you explain it in one sentence?” and the list goes on.
It seems like the question of strategy polarizes. Strategy gets developed, then escalated across the organization, buy-in from staff is bought often with a great show with star performers; yet: all efforts to “align” or “integrate” strategy with operations (if any!), strategy with people, etc. consistently fail miserably. ALWAYS. It’s a fact of life, there is no exception.
It’s more interesting why this is than what field (strategy or operations) enjoys priority. The purpose of this post is simply to shed light on the hierarchy of priorities and draw awareness to what is important and in what order. Awareness is step zero towards eliminating perception gaps from the organization.
1. Principle based concept (the purpose) is the foundation of
2. both strategy and leadership.
3. Organization is centered around strategy and leadership
4. Operations with its specialized functions is based on the organization.
Awareness of this hierarchy ensures that the unfolding of the concept takes place in this order; Since awareness is highly fragmented, the realization/unfolding never happens linearly along this vertical. Various aspects of the concept may appear simultaneously, having seemingly nothing to do with each other (without actual integration), until somebody connects the dots, and starts an effort of integration.
This guy must be the CEO. If not, the CEO must talk to this guy! If not, it costs more both on the top line and the bottom line, than most people have the courage to believe.
Emergence of identities
Identities exist on three levels: potentially, virtually or actually.
At this stage we’re not talking about brand identities. Just identities.
On the level of potentialities these identities are pure concepts and they are independent of any particular individual.
As they emerge from potentiality to virtuality, which means they are still not “real” in the sense of actuality, a particular organization already begins on the level of actualities: among people. They start organizing according to the concept, based on their functions and roles, gradually lifting the concept to actuality.
More often than not the concept doesn’t emerge linearly. Sometimes the product/design aspect seems to be appearing first, sometimes the organization aspect, sometimes the communications aspect, the “cause” aspect, very often these appear simultaneously but without the participants being aware of it; organization may accelerate as people become aware of the already manifest aspects of the concept, which in a way draws them more consciously together…but almost nobody is aware of the concept itself. Since the focus is mostly on particular aspects of the concept, the concept seems to be emerging by itself.
Steve Jobs gave a good example of this, as he was explaining how he was interested in designing fonts way before the idea for personal computers entered his mind, without having any idea at the time what it’ll be good for; only years later did it become evident how the dots connected. The “mac community” already existed back then, it was just on the level of virtuality, nobody was able to connect the dots yet, not having the awareness of the concept that the then unnamed “tribe” was gravitating towards.
Back to the participants. If we simplify the roles and we speak only about users and creators, the more successfully the creators approach a particular aspect of the concept (design, product, communications, organization) , which is practically a platform that synthetically integrates the users and the creators, the more successful and powerful the emergence of other aspects of the concept will be.
From this point of view the question of who makes a brand successful, the users or the companies (organizations) behind it, is senseless. Both types of actors operate on the same platform: the particular “tribe” of users know what’s right, but their role is not to create; together with the creators, the users form an equal part of the concept. Neither of them owns the concept; both of them are just involved in bringing it to actuality. Quick note: from this perspective the point is not to see what the users want, but what the concept demands. In lack of abilities or capacity to understand/perceive the concept, users who are more aware will be helpful, of course.
The concept is never fully actual/real, since awareness is never perfect. Once there are conscious efforts for the “development” (I’d say unfolding) of particular aspects of the concept (at this point the terminology is company, brand, r&d, business development, etc.), the life cycle of the so called brand begins. Awareness of course is fragmented, and management is mostly clueless about what integrates finance, hr, marketing/branding, communication, technology, customers, competitors, partners, etc. Tons of alignment initiatives are under way, but at this point the actors are so unaware, so mechanical, so blind that they no longer have any awareness of any valuable aspect of the concept. Awareness is atomized and all initiatives are doomed to fail; success is achieved only, when the objective was short sighted from the start. Customers move on to some other “brand” that maybe closer to the original concept that brought them together in the first place…mostly unsuccessfully of course. This is how the decline begins.
The only remedy to stop the process of involution is the ritual. If we apply it to the brand, the ritual is the celebration of the original state of the brand as close to its birth, as awareness allows it. The role of leadership is to ensure that awareness goes back all the way: to the concept in the state of potentiality.
This is important because re-birth is only possible in this earliest stage. The more often the ritual/return is performed, the more alive, powerful, fresh, young the brand remains.
Today there are more artificial than organic identities. The awareness of the system rarely goes beyond pricing, positioning, competitors, etc. The attention is focused on the outside, and the organization acts like a robot without any sign of internal life. Although the reason behind this is clear, awareness is shrinking in proportion to the growth of the already vast literature on proposed solutions.