Category Archives: Management

Cathederal or Chaos?

GUEST POST from Stephen Shapiro

The other day I gave a speech on open innovation at a conference primarily focused on open source software.

One of the presenters at the event suggested that instead of trying to create a cathedral by controlling software development, we should instead be comfortable with a mess. The point of open source is to let creativity emerge from the mess.

I thought that was an interesting point and was curious if this is how open source really works.

Just then an audience member made a comment (paraphrased here) – “Nearly every major, successful open source software effort has been backed by (and loosely controlled) by a large group. For example, Mozilla’s support of Firefox and Oracle’s support of Open Office.” He listed a few others and concluded that the only one that was not organized this way was Apache. He implied that maybe the “mess” is not best.

I’m not an open source software expert, but I don’t find that surprising.

When there is no structure, chaos ensues. Structure, even simple structure, can help bring together people so that they can work together more efficiently AND creatively (we know that even creativity requires some structure; innovation more-so)

As the morning progressed, I realized that the conference itself was an example of what can happen when there are no controls. It quickly became apparent that there was no formal emcee, no one in charge of the running of the conference, and no well-defined agenda.

The morning plenary was scheduled to go from 9AM until 10:30AM followed by a 30 minute break. After the break were concurrent breakouts, including the one where I was presenting. Immediately after my speech, I would hop off the stage, hop into a taxi for the airport, and head to my next speech in Italy.

At 10:30, when the break was supposed to start, another speaker took the stage. I assumed we were running a little late, but it was hard to tell how late since they did not list who was supposed to speak. And then a parade of speakers continued. It seemed like it would never end. I think there were four or five speeches that went on after the scheduled end time. And quite a few of the speeches were nothing more than long-winded commercials from sponsoring companies. It was 11:30 – a 60 minute overrun on a 90 minute session – before the speeches were done. And then, no one was given instructions. Should they take a break? Should they go to their breakout? People were confused. They did not know what to do. I didn’t know what to do. And I wasn’t 100% sure I would make my flight given the delay.

Although it would be an exaggeration to call this event “chaotic,” it certainly was not orderly or efficient. And it demonstrated what can happen when things are left on their own without any kind of process.

I realize that innovation requires a bit of flexibility and comfort with ambiguity. Nothing is totally predictable in the world of innovation and you can’t schedule everything as neatly as you do in the world of operations or manufacturing. I also agree that new ideas can emerge from chaos that might not otherwise come to the surface (reminds me of the infinite monkey theorem). And when you have millions of people donating their time to the open source movement, the resulting inefficiency associated with the mess can be tolerated.

But can your business afford this level of inefficiency? Probably not. I have written frequently about the “signal-to-noise” ratio of your innovation efforts. If you modeled your business after the “uncontrolled, mess model,” you will almost certainly end up with an extremely low signal-to-noise ratio.

The real objective of your innovation “process” is to put in just enough structure to help make it efficient, while not putting in so much that it stifles creativity.

I’ll close this post with something I wrote back in 2001 in my first book, and reused in a blog entry a year ago:

(As innovators,) we are architects of companies and industries. An architect is not a ‘reengineer.’ To illustrate this point, I often ask clients what is the difference between an optimist, a pessimist, a reengineering consultant, and an architect. The optimist looks at a half filled glass of water and sees it as half-full. The pessimist looks at the same glass and sees it as half-empty. The reengineering consultant sees too much glass. Cut off the top. Downsize. An architect looks at the same glass and asks questions such as “Who’s thirsty?” “Why water?” Or “Is there another way to satisfy the thirst?”

We need to architect our innovation efforts. And in order to do that, we need to ask better questions.

In fact, one of the most critical skills for accelerating innovation is to – ask the right questions, the right way, of the right people.

With this approach, you get both the efficiency of the controlled cathedral building process and the emergent creativity associated with the messier forms of open source software.

P.S. The picture is one I took of St. Marks Basilica while in Venice, Italy. Although your business might not want to create a cathedral, this one was pretty impressive!

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

One Simple Action Can Change Your Life

GUEST POST from Stephen Shapiro

Recently, a number of people have asked me how I became an author and professional speaker. I reflected upon it and realized that it all started with one simple action. And maybe, to make major change happen, that’s all you need: one small move.

The year was 1993. I was a relatively junior person at Andersen Consulting (now Accenture). I was 7 years out of college and was working on projects like everyone else. I blended into the woodwork and was not distinguished from any of the other 40,000 consultants.

And then one day I had an idea: I realized that I was interested in “cultural transformation” work and felt that Andersen’s culture could use a little transforming. Therefore I decided to call the CEO, George Shaheen, and ask for a meeting to discuss this, um, idea. Yes, I admit, it sounds a little crazy.

I moved into action. I found a company directory, looked up the direct dial number for George, and placed the call. I remember the call well. His executive assistant answered the phone and asked what I wanted. I said, “I want to speak with George Shaheen about transforming Andersen Consulting.”

I am certain she must have looked at the phone and thought, “Who is this crazy person?” She responded, “Excuse me. What do you want?” I repeated myself. She was polite and said, “Ok, let me see what I can do.” She hung up and I assumed that would be the end of things.

The next day, the partner leading the project I was working on came to my desk. Although he was many levels down the totem pole, word got to him quickly. He asked me, “Did you call George Shaheen?” I confirmed that I had. I’m sure HE thought I was crazy. He said, “Maybe I can help you.” I proceeded to tell him my idea about transforming the company’s culture. His response – “I know someone, Bill Stoddard, who is involved with an effort called ‘Enterprise Transformation.’ Maybe you want to meet him instead.” I said, “I would love to meet with Bill. And I still want to meet with George.”

Long story short, I did eventually meet with George, and it was an interesting meeting. But the person who changed my career forever was Bill Stoddard. Meeting him put my career on a totally different trajectory. For some reason he liked me and asked me to work with him on a new initiate he was leading called Value Driven Re-Engineering (he was only an adviser to the Enterprise Transformation initiative). I stopped doing full-time client work and started working with Bill. Our re-engineering work turned out to be big. VERY big. At one point, over one-third of the company’s revenues could be tied back to re-engineering. I was busy leading training sessions and giving speeches around the world.

This started me on the path towards the career I have now. A career I absolutely love.

And none of this might have happened if it weren’t for that one phone call to George.

Sometimes one action can forever change the course of your life, or your business.

Of course, I did not realize that this call would lead me down a totally new path. But sometimes, we can predict possible futures based on actions.

What action can you take TODAY that could change the course of events for you or your business. If the action doesn’t seem outrageous or crazy, keep on thinking.

Who can you call that you would never typically have the guts to call?
What can you do that is out of your comfort zone, but could have life changing implications?
Where could you go that you would never go, but might open up new opportunities?

Sometimes, just taking the first step on a new path can change the course of future events.

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

How Can Goals Enhance Creativity?

GUEST POST from Stephen Shapiro

Over the years, I have written numerous articles on “The Performance Paradox” that show how an obsession with the future reduces performance in the present. And typically, creativity is significantly diminished in the process.

But given that businesses are driven by goals, how can we leverage them as a tool for enhancing creativity?

One way is to use stretch targets. REALLY stretch targets.

For example, one client that I was with last week has a target of doubling their business over the next 5 years. I know MANY organizations that have exactly the same goal. That equates to a 14% growth rate each year (assuming compounding). I’m sure, with hard work, they could hit those numbers, even though it would certainly not be easy.

But what if they set a target of growing by 50% a year? It might have a fundamentally different impact on the organization. That level of growth is unprecedented. It will certainly stretch the way they think. A 14% improvement can most likely be attained through conventional thinking. But a 50% growth target would require some breakthrough thinking; radical ideas.

It might also have an interesting psychological impact on the organization.

Because a 14% growth rate is viewed as doable, it might create an attachment in the minds of the executives and employees. “We should be able to hit these targets. Therefore it we don’t, there is something wrong.”

But a 50% growth rate is unheard of. Clearly no one in the organization would be “attached” to that outcome. Surely the executives would not expect employees to deliver on those targets.

As a result, the 50% target becomes a “game” without attachment. Everyone knows it is designed to shift their thinking and to help create enthusiasm.

The future gives them the present, rather than present giving them the future.

As long as everyone in the organization believes they are playing a game which is designed to get them energized today, and it is not specifically about hitting the target, I can assure you that people will be more motivated. Creativity will be stimulated. And even if the company does not hit 50% growth rates, they will certainly have a better chance of hitting the 14% improvement than if they focused on that as the goal.

Goals that are not goals, can enhance creativity.

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.