The Networked economy zings not things. Obvious huh? Then why do we use 100 year old accounting whose books rule that machines and lifeless gluts of stocks are investments, people are always cots to cut?
Journalist Alan Mitchell picks up the story in the long awaited Bibliography of Valuing the Map that Sustains the World
chapter 2 - for personal use - if in doubt about commons copyright etc kindly mail
chris.macrae@yahoo.co.uk expliaing where you want to propgate parts or whole of this draft; our criteria are as follows - not to be sued by our publishers; to help citzen organsiations liberate and debates this stimulus may aid; to charge for profit organsiations unless they seek to use this to transform a global sector's future towards
sustaining human beings, or other economically abundant goals whose system quality benchmarks including deeply human purpose, trust-flow and transparency compound
exponentially11. The secret of mediocrityKey points
Embracing
Mapping won’t be easy because organisational resistance to real wealth creation is deep and subtle – and largely unacknowledged and unseen. But the consequences of not changing are unacceptable. We can’t put up with more of the same.
Nelson Mandela, Mahatma
Gandhi, Mother
Theresa, Martin Luther King: some people have done some extraordinary things in the causes of peace, social justice and the alleviation of human suffering. The Catholic Church, Oxford University: some institutions have exceptional longevity. For these two, a century is just one small part of a stunningly rich history.
Likewise, some companies have stellar performance compared with their peers. If you invested $1 in a fund that tracked the performance of the US stock market as a whole on January 1, 1926, by December 31, 1990 it would have been worth $415. But if you had invested your $1 in a group of eighteen ‘visionary’ companies such as 3M, American Express, Boeing, Citicorp, Ford, IBM and Procter & Gamble, however, you would have made fifteen times more money: $6,356.
[1]More stunningly just one or two companies of the service economy have generated 100 fold returns for investors. They have all systemised the intraprenurial triangles first viewable in the 1982 survey we're all intraprenurial now, The Economist, 1982, Norman Macrae. Companies like South West airlines have achieved this because they multipied 1000 fold value for their 2 other first partners in intrapreneurial revolution: employees and what future, a society located at one extremity of a continent, most wanted an airline to serve so as maximise people's productive and playful connections and collaborations around their lifetime exponentials. If your brand charter is measurable to the deepest human purpose an organisation can serve (what would the world uniquely miss if you ceased to exist tomorrow and who connects that world with the human relationship gravity your trust-flow spiral around) , your compound progress returns abundant wealth to those investors who share your journey for a generation. However, apart from never being financially weak, you do not naviagte by historical quarterly perormances alone, no more than a pilot would ever regard the chief cockpit dial as how much gas has been burnt up in the last 900 miles however important that is to keep a preventative eye on . Indeed, your leaders empower you to recognise that 90 day spreadsheeting is the greatest mathematical mistake you could ever monopolise goverance of a human - as distinguished from a machine-ruled - organisation around. A mistake (forecast back in 1984) as destined to end sustainability of the human race if most global market sectors are value chained by it .
Figure 1
Whether it’s individuals, institutions or businesses some always stand out from the crowd. They really are exceptional. Mesmerised as we are by what these outstanding individuals, institutions and businesses achieve, it’s not surprising that we seek to discover the secrets of their success. Probably the majority of business books, for example, take the following form: ‘look at the amazing performance of that business! Let’s try and understand how it got to be so successful. If we can uncover these secrets of success, perhaps we can emulate them’.
Certainly, it’s a valid line of enquiry. But it’s got a problem. The trouble with the exceptional – whether it relates to individuals, institutions or corporations – is that it is … well … exceptional. Which means that by definition, it’s different to ‘average’ or ‘normal’.
So what happens when we look at the unexceptional (which, let’s face it, most of us are! Again, by definition!). Compare the Forbes 100 list of America’s largest companies from its first year of publication in 1917 to 1987, for example. Sixty one of the original 100 had ceased to exist over that seventy year period. Of the remaining 39, only eighteen – including Du Pont, Ford, General Electric, General Motors, Kodak and Procter & Gamble – managed to keep their place in the top 100, and only two (General Electric and Kodak) had performed better than the average. Since then, Kodak’s performance has fallen by the wayside.
[2]You can find similar figures for almost any comparison group, over any period of time. Compare the Standard & Poor 500 from 1957 to 1997 for example: only 74 of the original 500 remained, and only twelve of them outperformed the average index.
[3] Or how about the thirteen years between 1970 and 1983? In this short period, already one third of the biggest companies in the biggest market in the world, as charted by the Fortune 500, had disappeared from view: acquired, merged or broken up.
[4]Among the survivors, many don’t perform spectacularly well. Of 172 companies appearing on the Fortune 50 largest corporations list between 1955 to 1995, for example, only 5% were able to grow at six per cent above inflation during their reign at the top. The other 95% had periods of rapid growth. But then they stalled. And once that happened, most never recovered.
[5]So, here we are presented with a puzzling paradox. Organisations – some organisations at least – have the potential to sweep the world before them; to earn widespread and enduring admiration; to survive crisis and misfortune; even to change the world. Come to think of it, if you want to achieve anything significant nowadays, you have to do it through some sort of organisation. It’s through organisations – the cooperation of human beings for agreed purposes – that things get done.
Yet, at the same time, we’re face with widespread evidence of sustained failure to fulfil this potential. It’s not only true at the corporate level. It’s also true at the social level. Continued mass starvation, widespread pollution and environmental damage, human rights abuses, the persistence of killer illnesses such as AIDS. With all the riches, technologies, knowledge, skills and resources at the finger tips of modern institutions and corporations you would think that these problems could have been addressed far more effectively than they have so far. But they haven’t. We have the potential. But it hasn’t been unleashed.
Now look at the other end of the telescope, at individuals. How many individuals really achieve their full potential during the working, active lives? And how many end up not really taking their hearts and minds with them when they go to work? Some of the statistics are truly frightening. [1] For example, research by Towers Perrin in 2003 found that only 17% of US employees are ‘highly engaged’ with their work, with 19% being positively disengaged. The figures for Europe are slightly worse: 15% engaged, with 20% ‘completely uninterested in the work they do’. Likewise, a survey of 2.5 million employees by Harris Interactive and FranklinCovey found that only 22% of employees felt motivated and valued, only 15% felt they worked within a safe ‘win-win’ environment, with only 17% believing their work environment was characterised by mutual understanding and creative dialogue.
[6]In other words, at all three levels – of societies and social problems, organisations and individuals – we find evidence of endemic problems and squandered or blocked potential.
Perhaps there is a connection between these three levels
[7]. Perhaps what’s causing the problems for individuals is also causing problems (expressed in a different form) for organisations and for society generally. Perhaps, finding a way forward at one level can help has forge ahead at all levels. We believe there is a candidate. It’s the secret of mediocrity and unsustainability. By tackling this ‘uber-cause’, we believe we can make significant progress on all three fronts in a mutually reinforcing, mutually sustaining way. There’s a new virtuous spiral just waiting to be unleashed. So what is this ‘uber-cause’?
Thing-think
The secret of today’s problems and barriers is hidden within the secrets of our past successes: let’s call it ‘thing-think’.
Thing-think is a legacy from the industrial age, when the key secrets of new wealth creation lay in working out how to make the most of the potential of things: new sources of energy, clever bits of machinery, knowing how to turn raw materials into valued finished products.
Thing-thinking has been stupendously successful. Thanks to thing-thinking, billions of people now live at unprecedentedly-high levels of prosperity, comfort and health. Thing-thinking has transformed the world economically, politically and socially. It has made mankind a geological force in its own right. It is literally changing the face of the earth, including its climate. Its influence is all-pervading: because it has worked.
Nevertheless, thing-think has its limits and dangers. It tends to treat people as if they were things – mere appendages of organisational machines. It tends to address human problems as if they are engineering challenges, with clear lines of cause and effect lending themselves to elegant, complete, solutions that can be imposed via command and control methods. It tends to measure only things and thing-attributes. In short, think-think is blind to the human factor. It’s this blindness that lies behind today’s big problems and lost opportunities.
Take a quick look at Figure 1, for example. It lists many of problems that people routinely face in the course of their daily work. The common factor uniting them all is that they all go back to the two defining attributes of every organisation. Relationships between people, and the purposes people pursue in and through these relationships.
You could probably add more to this list. Many of these symptoms have a tendency to crop up together as common organisational syndromes:
a failure to notice or react to how the world around you is changing;
‘the CEO disease’ (where only ‘good news’ is allowed to travel to the top and bad news is kept hidden);
CEO dependency disease is a form of co-dependency. People who always look to leaders to lead them effectively dis-empower themselves. (And authoritarian leaders who live and breath command-and-control create ‘followers’ who never take the initiative – thereby recreating the need for the very command and control methods that created the problem in the first place)
[8].
short-termism: forever chasing after short term goals without any underlying sense of direction;
incessant politicking.
Figure 1: Symptoms of organisational diseases
Organisations (and people) like this are extremely frustrating to work for, and with. They’re also extremely common. What about your own organisation, or organisations that you deal with a lot? What proportion of peoples’ time, effort and emotional energy is invested – or squandered – indulging in and dealing with these activities and emotions? Is it 10 per cent? 30 per cent? 50% per cent? Or perhaps even more? In our experience, in many organisations it’s at least 30-50 per cent. Which means that the organisation’s overall performance is reduced by at least 30-50 per cent.
[9] The potential for improvement is staggeringly enormous.
And that’s just looking inside organisations. If you look outside you’ll find even more squandered potential: time, effort, money, emotional energy frittered away in pointless conflict and cat-and-mouse games between companies and their suppliers, regulators, pressure groups and customers. Far from generating ‘zing’ in other words, most networks’ real potential is paralysed if not by open conflict then by mutual indifference or crossed purposes.
So here’s the thing. You can go ‘in search of excellence’ if you want to. You can look for a super-clever strategy, a breakthrough innovation, a cutting edge technology that will really help you stand out from the crowed. And yes, these are all wonderful things; meat and drink to icons and superstars. But what about ordinary mortals? What are the things that every organisation can to do to continually improve performance?
Because when push comes to shove, organisations can improve their performance in two ways:
by doing amazing, clever things
by stopping doing stupid things
You have to be special – like Mahatma Gandhi or Oxford University – to do amazing or clever things. But every organisation, and every part of every organisation, has the opportunity to tackle the causes of mediocrity and move along that continuum from Type B to Type A organisation.
Of course, in the end, we need to do both amazing new things and to stop doing stupid things. But often organisations’ brave new ventures and initiatives fail because the stupid things they do end up getting in the way of the clever things they could do. Often the clever things are ‘thing’-things – fancy new bits of technology – and their implementation and operation are messed up by people-things. In fact, often, the really, really hard thing is to stop doing the stupid things you’re already doing.
Hamster-wheel habits
Here’s a suggestion. Most modern organisations are stuck on a closed loop: a series of internally consistent and coherent, mutually reinforcing habits and assumptions, methods and incentives which in turn make certain behaviours and outcomes (both positive and negative) almost inevitable. Like a hamster on the hamster-wheel, it’s possible to spin round this loop endlessly, going ever faster (thereby giving the illusion of progress) – only to find yourself pretty much where you started.
Figure 2: The corporation’s closed loop
A closed loop is the organisation’s (or person’s) default mode. No matter where you are, what you are trying to do, or where you are trying to go, like some vast gravitational field, it sucks you back to the same instinctive attitudes and behaviours. In business today, the closed loop is created and defined by thing-think.
The loop encompasses the organisation’s purposes, its methods, measures and external imperatives.
Stated baldly, they are:
Purpose: to make money/maximise shareholder value
Method: increase efficiency and productivity, improve margins
Measures: financially oriented … ‘what’s the ROI?’
External imperatives: market forces in the form of stock market/share price and earnings pressure
Wherever you enter the loop – whether it’s via the organisation’s purpose, method or measures – your entry point both presupposes and implies the other parts. Everything ‘fits’ so neatly and obviously you are immediately sucked in to its logic.
Closed loops define success in their its own terms. If money making is your purpose and you make money, then you have succeeded regardless of what else you might have done (such as imposed costs on other people, or the environment). That’s why closed loop practitioners often see evidence of success when others look at the same thing and see cause for concern: they are judging the same thing by different criteria.
Closed loops include powerful vested interests who (rightly or wrongly) associate their future prosperity with the continuation of the loop. People within the loop are incentivised and rewarded for perpetuating it, and punished for undermining it. Legacy systems, infrastructure, metrics, language and theories are all based on the loop and designed to perpetuate and extend it. All of which makes it ‘natural’ for those working inside the loop to pursue closed loop purposes in closed loop ways – and to obstruct those who try to do anything different.
Closed loops do have their benefits
[10]. Re-examining every assumption and every methodology from scratch all the time is a recipe for continually reinventing the wheel. And closed loops get established because they work. For example, the closed loop created by think-think created the modern company as the consummate productivity machine. It explains the corporation’s resolute focus, ruthless efficiency, endless opportunism and dynamism. It explains its success.
But closed loops also have their drawbacks. If some aspect of reality doesn’t figure within the loop for example, it tends to be ignored. Once you are inside a closed loop, it’s extremely difficult to consider genuine alternatives. While closed loops facilitate learning within the loop, they don’t allow for learning that challenges or takes you beyond the loop itself.
The missing link
We’ve already seen the problem with today’s closed loop. It has a fatal flaw; a major blindspot. It ignores the human factor. It’s extremely good at processes, structures, functions, measures and objectives. But it doesn’t really ‘see’ people (see Figure 3) and it’s this blindness that undermines trust and discourages engagement while creating the perfect breeding ground for organisational diseases.
Figure 3: The other side of the coin
“The human factor? Oh p-lease! Can’t you tell us something new?
“Anybody who’s anybody is talking about the human factor nowadays! Try finding a CEO who doesn’t keep on repeating like a stuck record ‘our people/customers are our most valuable asset’ and who isn’t committed to being socially responsible. Try finding an accountant who is not wrestling with something to do with the valuation of intangible assets. OK. They may not have found all the answers yet. But at least they’ve started looking for them.”
Surely with all its clever people, endless resources, awesome technologies and so on … surely modern corporations are on top of this? It’s not as if managers are unaware of the problems. Indeed, senior managers consistently worry about the need for a more open, innovative culture; to cross departmental silos; to motivate staff; to react to changing circumstances faster; to be willing to go that extra mile, and so on.
Yet, what stands out is not our success but just how persistent, prevalent, pervasive the problems are. In fact, they’re endemic. Somehow, they just grow out of the woodwork even when everyone knows they ‘a bad thing’. Why?
Stephen Covey lays bare the perverse behaviours and mindsets generated by closed loop organisations in a brilliant passage in his book The 8th Habit. Industrial age organisations “absolutely suppress the release of human potential,” he argues
[11] because they don’t address the needs or nature of ‘the whole person’, which includes mind, body, heart and spirit.
[12] In organisational terms, spirit translates into trust; mind into shared vision and goals; body into organisational alignment; and heart with empowerment – being emotionally connected to the work you are doing.
Because they fail to address ‘the whole person’, closed loop organisations substitute authority and power for trust, rules for shared goals, efficiency for alignment, and control for empowerment. But power, rules, efficiency and control are poor proxies for the real thing: mere ‘prostheses’, in Covey’s words. Precisely because they are poor proxies, they don’t work very well. This means managers have to work ever harder to exert their authority, enforce their rules, improve efficiency and ensure control. And the more they do so, the more they undermine the very trust, shared goals, alignment and empowerment they need to ‘zing’.
[13]But didn’t we just say that for most senior managers ‘people issues’ in their various forms are their biggest headache?
Certainly, most organisations have woken up to the fact the a problem exists. The knowledge management movement has sought to capture, maximise and deploy the knowledge and information assets that reside in staff’s heads and walk out of the office door every night. Brand and customer relationship managers seek to capture the loyalty and affinity of customers. Accountants strive to recognise the financial value of such intangible and reputational assets.
CEOs wrestle with the need to develop a vision and a mission to unite and inspire staff – and to change cultures which resist change. And companies generally feel the need to respond to social pressures: to become more environmentally friendly, to respect human rights, serve local communities and be more ethical. Such pressures are even being expressed in new measurement and management frameworks such as the balanced scorecard, endless talk about leadership, and different approaches to corporate governance.
What we know How we have addressed the problem so far
Intangibles are increasingly important Knowledge management, CRM, brand valuation
Stakeholder relationships matter Vision, mission, culture change
Companies are fallible/mortal Leadership, corporate governance
Financial accounts don’t measure what matters Triple bottom line, balanced scorecard etc
Ethics/values are a part of value Corporate social responsibility
Figure 4: The intangibles learning curve, stage 1
Yet, for the most part, these movements have failed to deliver on their original promise. Indeed, the problems they set out to address seem to remain as embedded as ever. Thus:
Companies realise they need to instil passion and motivation in their staff, only to face a wall of cynicism or indifference . . . because the organisation’s underlying purpose and behaviour has not changed.
The board decides it needs a more customer-centric culture, only for critical customer-relationship building initiatives to be derailed by pressure to improve the year-end figures
[14]The CEO identifies a strategic need to share and use knowledge more effectively, but the resulting program focuses on IT systems rather than the people who use the systems or are affected by them.
A new leader embraces the cause of corporate social responsibility only to be met by external suspicion on the one hand (‘it’s just window-dressing, lipstick to make the gorilla seem more attractive’) and internal management resistance on the other (‘show me the ROI on these investments!’).
Despite tremendous excitement, effort and investment in other words, the net result of much hard work has been little more than ‘initiative fatigue’. Worse, along the way we have created new set of silos, each with their own set of ‘experts’ fighting turf wars for budget and ‘the ear’ of the CEO – and each displaying the same symptoms as the problems they’re supposed to be solving: initiative fatigue, ‘silo-itis’, politics, increased rather than reduced cynicism, and so on. Thus none of these bandwagons are ‘joined up’. What do customer relationship managers have to say to knowledge managers, and vice versa, for example? What has ‘culture change’ got to do with corporate social responsibility?
[15] Instead, they each focus on their own speciality, each rolling on in their own separate directions. Indeed, if anything, their net effect has been to raise more questions than answers.
What we know What we don’t know
Intangibles are increasingly important How to measure intangibles and maximize their potential?
Stakeholder relationships matter How to join stakeholders together in a win-win way?
Companies are fallible/mortal How to anticipate and make changes, and avoid mistakes?
Financial accounts don’t measure what matters What’s the alternative?
Ethics/values are a part of value How to combine value and values?
Figure 5: The intangibles learning curve: stage 2 – next questions
Why is this? One possible answer is that we simply haven’t tried hard enough. But there’s another possibility: perhaps these movements are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Perhaps they a reaction to the problem, attempting to address its various manifestations without really addressing the underlying causes. Perhaps the attempt to reverse engineer these ‘people issues’ back into closed loop strategies and priorities has as much chance of succeeding as trying to add yeast to your loaf of bread after you have baked it.
Heroic? Maybe.
Effective? Highly unlikely.
Summary
Organisational mediocrity is not caused by a lack of talent. It’s not caused by a lack of hard work. It’s not caused by failed ‘strategies’. It’s caused by talented people working hard at the wrong things.
This happens when organisational diseases take root. Organisational diseases consume peoples’ time, energy and emotions in unproductive, non-value adding activities. Today, the main cause of organisational disease is closed loop ‘thing-think’.
Being stuck on a closed loop is like being stuck on a hamster wheel with its two sides closed off by mirrors. First, you can’t see outside the loop. So, for example, you can’t see that you’re running very hard to get nowhere fast. The closed loop gives you an illusion of progress.
Second, if and when you stop to look for a way out, the mirrors simply remind you of your existing pre-occupations – the fact that time staring into the mirror means you’ve stopped making the wheel go round. As judged by existing performance indicators (which, of course, reflect the priorities and obsessions of the status quo) your search for an alternative simply undermines your performance.
But is it really that bad? Is our current closed loop really that narrow? To see just how narrow it is, we need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.
[1] Built to Last, James C. Collins and Jerry L Porras, p4
[2] Discontinuity p7
[3] Discontinuity p8
[4] The Living Company, Arie de Geus, p7
[5] Stall Points, Corporate Strategy Board, 1998, quoted in The Innovator’s Solution, Clayton M Christensen and Michael E Raynor, Harvard Business School Press, 2003
[6] For Towers Perrin data see
http://www.towersperrin.com/ press releases. For Harris Interactive data see Stephen Covey, The 8th Habit, Free Press 2004, Appendix 6.
[7] Categories like ‘society’, ‘organisation’ and ‘individual’ needed to be treated carefully: while they are often useful as levels of analysis they’re not always the best levels for appropriate action. The most effective change might come through intermediate levels such as end-to-end supply chain management (i.e. between organisation and society) or teams or business units (i.e. between individual and organisation). That’s why the Mapping process focuses on five levels of analysis: individual, team, organisation, organisation’s partners and social context.
[8] Nowadays, the most common item on any agenda for change is ‘backing from the top’. CEOs are being asked to put their full weight behind virtually every initiative undertaken by the organisation. But even the heftiest CEO has only got so much weight to throw around. So what happens if the buy-in doesn’t happen; If the idea is rejected, or only given lip service? Then everyone is left off the hook. ‘Aw, shucks! If the CEO doesn’t back it, we can’t do it! Which is quite convenient really. Because that means we’re not going to be put to the test. And now we’ve got someone to blame!’
[9] The existence of multiplier or ‘knock-on’ effects means that the effect is even higher. We return to this multiplier effect later.
[10] You could argue that all thinking frameworks have closed-loop attributes. This is one of the observations made by Thomas Kuhn in his research into the nature of scientific paradigms. See The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, 1970
[11] Stephen R Covey, The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness, Free Press, 2004 p 15
[12] This coincides with the four dimensional approach to value we use later: representing the rational, emotional, political and spiritual. These are discussion extensively in Brand Manners [details].
[13] See The 8th Habit, p106-113.
[14] When the US retailer Sears tried to introduce a recovery programme during the 1990s, it discovered to its dismay that its employees believed they were paid by the company to ‘protect the assets of the company’ from customers. Where on earth would they get an idea like that from? Reported in Best Face Forward, by Jeffrey F Rayport and Bernard J Jaworski, Harvard Business Review, November 2004.
[15] How to join up the dots so that, for example knowledge management, customer relationship management and corporate social responsibility all worth together ‘in synergy’ rather than competing against each other for management preference is one of the jobs of Mapping. What’s needed is a ‘governance framework’ that helps us put things in perspective, set priorities and align each initiative’s positive input. That is the job of the Map.