Survival of the Fittest?

I've been doing a lot of reading on change, technology and social media lately. Thinking about these three things has become a big part of my job. In my research this week I came across two articles that collided in my mind one afternoon before a team meeting. The first article was published on the Cognitive Edge website. This very brief article, which includes a video clip, highlights the difference between creativity and innovation. David Snowden, founder and chief scientific officer of Cognitive Edge says "in human systems there are three necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for innovation to take place - starvation, pressure and perspective shift." He refers to the film Apollo 13 as an example of these three conditions being present in order for innovation to happen. What I found most interesting about Snowden's comments was the fact that creativity springs out of innovation. In other words, we aren't likely to be creative just for the sake of it. There must be innovation to stimulate creativity. These three conditions are the minimum requirements for innovation to take place.

The second article was part of 10 Must Read Articles from the Harvard Business Review. The first article in the pack, "Meeting the Challenge of Disruptive Change," by Clayton M. Christensen and Michael Overdorf, explain why so few established companies innovate successfully. They list three factors that impact an organisations capacity to cope with disruptive change: resources, processes, and values. In brief, resources include both tangible (people and technology) and intangible (brand and product design); process involves what a company can and cannot do. Christensen and Overdorf break process down into formal and informal. They suggest that the company’s most important capabilities can be found in the less visible, or informal, processes. These informal processes were also likely to be the source of the organisations disabilities as well. Finally, they define values as the framework used by employees, managers and executives in making their decisions and determining what product to back or which investment to make. In short, values are the ability to help all employees prioritize their work and decisions.

So what do these two articles have in common? And how can we use these thoughts to face the challenges in our organizations? By marrying these two articles together we can reach a new perspective to our current situation and maybe we'll see things that we couldn't see before.

Starvation and Resources

These two words, side-by-side, didn’t quite add up for me at first. Starvation usually takes place when there is a lack of resources. But in the face of starvation we find that we become more resourceful with what we have. Christensen and Overdorf ask managers to look beyond the capabilities of their staff to the capabilities of the organization. Instead of going directly to what we can cut out of the organization to fix the bottom line, we look to our organizational capabilities to see if we can find new and different ways of using our resources so the organization can go on for one more day, week, month or year. According to Snowden, the potential innovations that might come out of this thinking will bring with it creativity that may not have existed before. So we ask the question: In the face of starvation how might we use the resources we have differently to help us get to a better place? If we focus too much energy on what we don't have or what we have to cut we're likely to miss out on valuable opportunities that we wouldn’t have discovered had it not been for the fact that we were starving to survive.

Pressure and Processes

Process under pressure can be both a blessing and a curse. Sometimes processes work exactly as they should for the situations they were designed for. But when those processes are applied to new situations they may be more of a hindrance than a help. Christensen and Overdorf make this point when they say that the informal 'background processes' are where many organizational disabilities reside. Making investment decisions is an example of one of these 'background' processes. The organization must know and understand how decisions are made in order to choose between options A or B. Every employee, no matter their level of responsibility, understands what drives the investment decision. They are clear about what the organizations resources and capabilities are being used for, and what outcomes are expected as a result of the investment.  If every department invests their own resources according to what they think best, the organization will be hard pressed to make a call when they are faced with disruptive change. Under pressure these sorts of processes matter.

Perspective Shift and Values

Finally, when one is starved and can begin to see how they can use available resources differently; when pressure mounts and tests our processes; we might just begin to see that our perspective is shifting. Christensen et al define organizational values more broadly than ethical terms. They see values as frameworks by which employees to set priorities. These frameworks help employees know whether or not an activity that are about to pursue is going to 'attractive or unattractive'.  Christensen et al, suggest a crucial metric for measuring 'good management' is the clear and consistent presence of these sorts of values and frameworks in the organization. A clear set of values will help shift perspective, even the culture of an organization.

I’ve begun to bring some of these ideas together at work. We’re facing some difficult financial decisions. To address the fundamental shortcomings in our operating model we need to clarify our overarching objectives and create unity among the senior management team around these objectives. In my context, student recruitment is one of these clear objectives. If student recruitment is a responsibility that is shared across the organization, all departments need to pull together to achieve this outcome. These objectives can be met by re-examining our current capabilities and realigning them to meet the collective goals of the organization. One of our capabilities currently being underutilized is our audio-visual department. If we adjust our processes, AV becomes a capability that could be used in different ways to promote our programmes. Our financial pressures require us to examine our processes across the organization to see how we can do things smarter, better, and more efficiently. Finally, working together as a senior management team to deliver a clearly defined set of objectives would be a perspective shift for our organization. Instead of each department trying to deliver its own set of objectives, independent of other departments, we would work together, sharing our individual expertise and talents to deliver organization-wide objectives. These new values would ultimately lead to better use of resources. A better use of resources will improve our bottom line.

References:

Christensen, C. M., & Overdorf, M. (2000). Meeting the Challenge of Disruptive Change. Harvard Business Review, 66-77.

Personal and community responsibility

I attended a Brian McLaren lecture recently hosted by World Vision and Laidlaw College. Brian proposed that the three biggest threats (challenges) that face us each morning when we wake up are prosperity, security, and equity. In his view, prosperity is the catalyst that is pushing us further and further to the brink. Twenty percent of the world's population holds the majority of the world's wealth. McLaren suggested that our continued effort to hold on to and expand this prosperity is at the heart of many of the world's challenges today. One of the main confrontations in this area is the depletion of natural resources at a rate greater than they can be replaced.

McLaren went on to argue that security (the protection of our prosperity) is the second struggle we face. We personally and collectively invest in security measures because we want to protect the possessions. On a personal level this involves locks on our doors and security systems in our homes. At a local level it involves police, sheriffs, and community constables just to name a few. At a national level the Army, Air Force, and other types of military. Depending on where you live in the world will depend on how much your government invest in these sorts of security measures. So on top of what we invest in our possession, we also pay a heavy price for the protection of those possessions. For example, the United States has budgeted US$650 billion for their national defence department (Wikipedia, 2009). The New Zealand Government, by contrast has budgeted NZ$1.7 billion for their defence forces (Wikipedia, 2009). In very rough terms, if you live in the United States each citizen pays approximately US$2100 per year just for national defence. A New Zealander, on the other hand, will pay about NZ$425. Security is a big deal.

This led to McLaren's final global challenge, that of equity. Because of the disproportionate distribution of the world's wealth, the Western nations invest heavily in security to defend and protect it. We could discuss equity in terms of possessions, but that wouldn't necessarily bring it home to many of us. So we'll think of it in human terms. According to McLaren, those of us born in wealthy nations (20% of us), on average, live 35 years longer than those born in poor countries (80% of us). None of us has any control over where we were born. Is it any wonder then why there is such disdain in some parts of the world for the 20% who use their wealth and prosperity to keep the other 80% from getting access to the resources that are required to sustain a basic life?

For me, this is where personal responsibility comes to play. As one of the privileged (by chance I was born in the 20%) what am I doing to ensure that others are given equal opportunities? Everyone should work for a living, so I'm not talking about giving handouts. What I'm suggesting is that we need to be equally responsible for ourselves and for our neighbours. I must work to take care of myself and my family, but as a citizen of the planet I must also work to ensure that my neighbour can work and take care of their family.

If we take seriously the talk about global environmental issues and the short time frame we have to do something about it then we must change how we live as individuals. In the last two years most of the world has experienced tremendous financial difficulty and economic strife. If we take these warning signs seriously we must change how we live as individuals. I would suggest that we must re-evaluate our standard of living in light of the standards of living available to 80% of the world's population. We who have enjoyed an abundance must learn to be content with less so that those who have less can enjoy adequate or average standards. There must be lower consumption on the part of the West so there can be an equitable distribution of the planets resources with the rest of the world. I suggest this because if the entire world is to live equitably, we must realise that there are not enough resources left on the planet to sustain the level of prosperity enjoyed by the West at the moment. We must find a middle ground.

McLaren was clear that we aren't necessarily responsibility for the problems we currently face. He was also clear though about the fact that we have a responsibility to sort it out. This responsibility means asking some very tough questions about what I can do differently to change the way that I live so that others can live.

Sources:

Wikipedia. (2009 , August 20). New Zealand Defence Force. Retrieved October 14, 2009, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Defence_Force

Wikipedia. (2009, October 12). United States Department of Defense. Retrieved October 14, 2009, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense

World relief

There is so much going on in the world it is hard to know where to begin. Over the last week, the Pacific Islands of Samoa and Tonga were hit with a Tsunami, the result of an earthquake measuring 8.3. Tsunami warnings were received here in New Zealand, but the quake only caused a slight rise in sea levels. Hundreds of people have lost their lives. One of our students left for Samoa last week because he had lost eight family members, some of them extended, to the natural disaster. The Philippines is facing another Typhoon (Parma), a week after Typhoon Ketsana killed 300 people.

Unrelated, and at home, we have the government proposal to open up national parks and natural reserves to the mining industry because we are sitting on billions of dollars of mineral resources. It seems that we will go after every last ounce of oil, gram of gold and pound of coal, before we look for other means to fuel our cars and economy, and to heat our homes. Environmental groups will surely fight this proposal, and rightly so. The natural environment and habitats in the South of New Zealand are worth far more than the expected billions that are anticipated to come out of the ground in mineral resources.

These two scenarios got me thinking. When disaster strikes, we mobilise to help those who have been effected the most. But we only seem to be able to do this after the fact. After the earthquake has happened or the typhoon has landed. Once we see the devastation we are compelled to act. Why is it though, that we seem unwilling to act to prevent such disastrous consequences that will come once our energy sources are depleted? It is almost as if we are collectively sitting back and saying, "When it happens then we'll act. Until that day we'll continue to pursue the status quo and make as much money as we can along the way."

As the human race, we have done what we can to prepare ourselves to respond to natural disasters. We saw this over the past week as Governments and International Aid Organisations mobilised to help people affected by earthquakes and typhoons in the Pacific Rim. We are, in my opinion however, sorely lacking in an ability to prepare ourselves for the man made disasters that we have faced and are surely to continue to face. Where is there thinking taking place outside the box? Where are the ideas that will change the way that we live? Maybe we've grown too complacent. Maybe we are not capable of thinking and doing great things until we are faced with disaster. I for one do not want to wait that long. I don't know what I will do, but it must be something.