LEADERSHIP BEYOND LEAN - FOR INNOVATION & GROWTH

To paraphrase an old quote, insanity is the expectation that old approaches will still work when the context you are operating in has changed. If managers are supposed to do things right, and leaders to do the right thing, then a recession deepens the requirement to support today’s strategy, whilst crafting its innovative replacement.

But what do you do in the interim before the new, “effective” strategy is operating? Just as the 1973 oil embargo forced the adoption of lean thinking in the Japanese automotive industry, we need to adopt a fundamentally different approach to forms of waste that we may not at first be able to see or even characterize by creating new, dynamic way of thinking about the most valuable resource that organisations possess – their people. It is ultimately through people that growth will come.

We’ve all heard of Not-Invented-Here, and I have written elsewhere about “sticky” organizations and how closed Relational Capital protects the status quo, but understanding the problem is not the same as solving it. Ordinary people are like athletes in that both have all the innate assets needed to become innovative and succeed, but few dare to systematically realise this potential by developing a form of mental fitness that reduces expensive defensive, paternalistic leadership and its partner incompetence, in order to liberate new, hidden capability to innovate and grow.

Throwing money at the recession will not solve the problem. Telling the banks to lend money just begs the question of what exactly are they going to invest in, within a recession? So what is required in order to be worth investing in?

Current Recession Context & Innovation Credo

·    Growth in a recession will come from different and better use of current resources to innovate, chiefly through our people and their talents.

·    Champions are the product of the ability to focus and control their own minds and fears to deliver outstanding behaviours combined with a conscious use of technique under difficult circumstances.

·    Successful leaders in difficult times are able to lead themselves and also influence the behaviours of those around them.

·    The problem for leaders is how to get more and different outcomes for less, by understanding how to develop and apply a form of mental and behavioural fitness to manage their own attention in order to change behaviours and expectations, more.

One of the strategic imperatives that Clive Woodward brought to British Athletics (and he knows he will never be forgiven for doing it) was to focus investment on athletes in events where they were likely to win a medal. Successful growth in a recession requires a similar approach to mental fitness to enable innovation and growth.

On 19th September 2012, Graham Williams and I will be presenting a showcase workshop on this topic, entitled "Mind Fit - To Innovate for Business Growth" at the University of Greenwich's Hamilton House in Greenwich. Details to follow. 

The Real Need for Autistic Board Members to Avoid Excessive Risk-Taking

The past few weeks have featured several articles replaying the old sex-war narrative around capitalism, on the line that a more balanced representation of women in the boardroom would have reduced risk-taking behaviour that led to the financial crash.

The Times’s Business Section, yesterday (Wednesday 28^th March) suggested that this is a naïve, simplistic view, referencing Bundesbank research which suggested that “women board members were more likely to take risks with a bank’s finances than their male counterparts”.  Swimming against the traditional sex-war narrative, the report concluded that “women determine corporate governance of banks significantly and are not marginalised by a male-dominated board culture”.

Interestingly, it was noted that risky behaviour was generally increased by the lower age of board members, but that PhD-holders brought greater stability.

Reading Michael Lewis’s brilliant “The Big Short” on the epidemic of stupidity that drove the sub-prime disaster, a key feature of those who could see what was about to happen was their shared relative autism. That is, they all shared elements of autistic behaviour common to innovative people, as one of the key protagonists discovered when his son was diagnosed with Aspergers’s syndrome, for which the typical behaviours included a lack of:

1.       Ability to read non-verbal behaviours and eye-contact.

2.       Interest in developing peer relationships and interest in socialising with other people.

Allied with a strong tendency to:

3.       Find computers and the internet appealing because they avoid 1 & 2 above,

4.       Have hobbies and interests which are often solitary, idiosyncratic and dominate their time and conversations.

What made Dr. Michael Burry unusual was that “only someone who has Asperger’s would read a subprime mortgate bond prospectus [and understand what was actually going on]”.

In conclusion, I would suggest that we need a new model for rationality when it comes to decision-making in financial institutions (and others). We need to include people who are asocial enough to apply logic in the face of social groupthink pressure to conform, and empower them to ask the real, systemic questions that the group is avoiding.

Practical Innovation Leadership - 20th September 2012

A Flash Innovation Workshop with Victor Newman and Simon Evans, Innovoflow Ltd.

Developing Responsive Fast-Twitch Muscle Training for Rugby! 

Date: 20th September 2012 @ Hamilton House, University of Greenwich         Timing: 0900-1700

Overview

Innovation Agility combines flexible thinking about your innovation process, the willingness to exploit the full range of options outside current products, services and business models, plus the ability to learn rapidly.

Agile Innovation Leadership skills are especially valuable in turbulent markets and for developing Open Innovation strategies to work with great ideas from both inside or outside the company, and also for going to market with external partners.

 This workshop provides a model (through simulation) to help innovation leaders to develop agile thinking and the necessary decision making ability to operate successfully and meet the needs of the emergent, post-recession world.

Content 

·         A warm-up task to stimulate innovative thinking.

·         Current challenges and problems with innovation.
·         Use of simulations to accelerate innovation learning.
·         Introducing the concepts of the “Innovation Eco-System” the “Idea lifecycle” and “Agile Innovation leadership”.  Discussion.
·         Learning from experience - using simulation components to illustrate examples of failed innovation initiatives and how they could have been rescued.  Participants illustrate their experiences using the simulation.
·         Constructing an optimal innovation ecosystem with constrained resources.
·         Reverse Innovation Thinking: Identifying barriers to innovation and harvesting experience to develop antidotes.
·         Who is the custodian of the eco-system?  Discussion
·         Summing up, review and take-aways.

Learning Objectives

1. To understand that innovation is at the core of all businesses
2. To understand the nature of an idea and how it survives
3. To take the broad view of innovation and ensure that ideas have the best chance of generating real value – it’s not just about coming up with ideas
4. To recognise that innovation must be “part of the day job”
5. To treat the innovation eco-system as something that requires feeding, watering and nurturing in order to be successful
6. (Most importantly!) recognise that innovation is not a free lunch -  you must invest many different types of resource

Who should attend

All SMEs or entrepreneurs who care about developing innovation agility in a turbulent environment, who realise that new ideas sometimes need new ways of thinking and working, to turn them into practical products, services and business models.

Benefits to you and your business

·         Acquire a new and practical way of discussing and thinking openly about the way you innovate in your organisation.
·         Discover how to design and test a comprehensive innovation eco-system to ensure ideas are supported throughout their whole lifecycle to generate maximum value
·         An opportunity to share experiences of successful or failed innovation approaches and how to learn from them
·         Have an enjoyable learning day, much of which can be taken back to your business
·         To start to build a relationship with the Centre for Entrerprise & Innovation which could lead to other opportunities

How do you sell innovation to current business leaders?

We are in an interesting situation. Businesses that could be investing in innovation are holding onto their cash and waiting to see how the global economy plays out. That’s one explanation. I have another.

There’s an old consulting joke that goes like this:

Question - How many consultants does it take to change a light-bulb?

Answer - The number of consultants is immaterial, the key issue is that the light-bulb has got to want to change!

Let’s unpack the current context:  what have we got?

• POLITICIANS: Who borrowed irresponsibly to create artificial economic growth & buy elections through unsustainable public service expansion and vanity projects.
• BUSINESS LEADERS: Who successfully rode artificial growth-curves but don’t know how to grow businesses in a recession.
• ORGANISATIONS: With Products/ Services & Business Models at the wrong end of the S cash-curve, who are betting their pensions and bonuses on product extensions.

And we have even got CONSULTANTS who can see the need to move out of EFFICIENCY strategies and into EFFECTIVENESS strategies but cannot package a new paradigm & don’t know how to sell it to current leaders, but we either innovate or we die and we cannot borrow our way into growth.

We can sell transactional efficiency, product optimisation process consulting BUT we know that having the right people with the right psychology will make a lot of the KPI architecture completely irrelevant. Unfortunately at the top, we have people (probably not really leaders in the true sense) who can play political games in a growth phase, but who may not be the right people to grow the business in the current environment through innovation.

So how can we sell change in order to innovate to people who don’t understand what it means?  We could possibly begin with the linguistic trick that launched Lean Thinking. The word “lean” was powerful because of the implication that those who didn’t adopt it were fat (organisations). We need a similar linguistic trick that carries a hidden insult for non-consumers to act as a Trojan Horse to begin a literally vital, viral makeover.

Creativity, Projects, Project Leadership and Project Managers

Spencer Holmes interviews me on Youtube, discussing creative thinking, project leadership and managers. An introduction to the 30/70 rule as a means of aligning specialists behind a project.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aigg1rMwZ8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Toxic Efficiency: How to Kill Your Organization by Making Efficiency Your God

Back in the 90s, I read an interesting book about fighting power by a retired US Colonel (Trevor N, Dupuy) much of which I disagreed with, where he established that the German Wehrmacht had by April 1945, quadrupled the fighting power of their infantry battalions in comparison with their capability in June 1940, this in spite of virtually halving the manpower on an infantry battalion down from 800 to approximately 400 men. What the author didn’t discuss was the futility of such developments, since the war was already lost and this kind of fighting power was irrelevant.

But the futility of focusing on transactional efficiency is often hidden in organisational cultures which prefer to work on solving problems that they can solve, that reinforce the collaboration of existing power and resourcing structures, instead of focusing on the problem whose resolution will lead to systematic change that will demolish current accumulated reserves of Relational Capital, whose new shape is unpredictable.

A few years later, I found myself facilitating the leadership of an automotive assembly plant on their strategic rationale for achieving the appropriate level of lean-ness as being the means of ensuring that they would be a natural site for the assembly of future models from their Japanese partners. I realized that there was something wrong with this as a viable strategy, but couldn’t put it into words.

Subsequently, I led an exercise in reverse-assembly of a 4WD vehicle in order to discover how to simplify the current assembly process. This was useful in that it led to the simplification of the assembly process by focusing on pre-assembly of modular components (so we could appear to reduce the man-hours involved in assembly), a significant reduction in the variety of fixing devices, and the final realisation that the 4WD vehicle needed to be redesigned and light-weighted (since it was really based on a heavy truck sub-frame and suspension system). We constructed a new prototype vehicle with significant benefits and showed it to our Japanese partner. The outcome was unexpected. I was asked to formally apologize to our Japanese CEO. As he drily put it: we do the innovation, you just assemble the product. At that point, I realized the danger of focusing on efficiency: it can mean that you lose the ability to invent new products, yourself.

In 2000, I was headhunted from Cranfield University to become Pfizer’s Chief Learning Officer, setting up a corporate university, organising governance, metrics and a system of barefoot practitioners. I realised that if I wanted to be successful in my own terms I had to connect closely with the strategy (developing a system of Strategic Learning Plans that answered the question of what do you need to be good at to deliver the strategy?, and what do you need to learn to provide the capability required?). I worked on improving the learning process for drug project teams whose lifecycle can take 8-10 years and involve considerable member rotation meaning that teams can unlearn as fast as they learnt. This lead to the invention of the Baton Passing technique with some significant improvements in time and cost-saving and reduction in attrition or failure.

Then in 2003 I suddenly woke up. I noticed that acquisitions were not delivering and it wasn’t down to the costs of integration. I realised that there was no point in optimising a strategy that would never deliver the shareholder returns required in the long run, at a time when innovation productivity in the pharmaceutical industry had been flat-lining since 1981. We needed a new strategy. So I began leading skunkworks projects to harvest lost Intellectual Property in Pfizer and build awareness of the fractured nature of the current investment strategy and its limitations. But it was too late. Naturally, leadership (like all pharmaceutical businesses) told itself to cut costs and began the dreary ritual of down-sizing and attempting to learn how to operate efficiently, but like the Wehrmacht, they missed the strategic point of inflection, in other words, that all strategies have a lifecycle, but that when you focus primarily upon efficiency without a balanced, ambidextrous approach that includes effectiveness, you are doomed.

Key Learning Point for Leaders: try to balance transactional efficiency strategies with systemic effectiveness strategies!

Rediscovering the Lost Art of Strategic Knowledge Management in Business Administration

All strategies are knowledge strategies - in the sense that your strategy is the product of a series of conscious or unconscious knowledge choices.

Sometimes it can be helpful to go back to basics. Strategic knowledge management is taught in business administration courses, like the ones profiled on this MBA degree site. However, when professionals enter the fast-paced environment of the real business world, they sometimes leave the fundamental tools and lessons of school behind them."

A few years ago, I was consulting at a senior level in a business where every year more money was being pumped into product development and yet the number of products getting to market was static. Reviewing the data within a variant on the porter Competitive Advantage matrix (price and product differentiation) was leading us into a 2nd-best trap of minor differentiation because low risk had become the name of the game. Similarly, productivity was being affected by dangerous, institutionalised assumptions that the minute survival ratio of successful products to prototypes and high attrition (failure) ratio required a necessarily large population of prototypes to work from to grow the business.

This low survival rate of successful prototypes was demonstrated to be another example of groups within the organisation exploiting and corrupting measurement systems over time (in other words if you want lots of prototypes that don’t work and will pay for them, we will provide them for you). However, the failing business model and associated strategy required a more indirect approach to open up and articulate the underlying and often tacit knowledge it was based upon which was clearly not working.


I noticed that although we had a lot of data about the situation, we never discussed the emergent strategy or tested the knowledge it was based upon. Although we talked about innovation, people seemed to think they were already doing it. Whenever I asked to see the organisation’s “innovation process”, they kept pointing at the New Product Development process (sometimes called the pipeline). The first problem was that we were committed to a default strategy that we never discussed and it was killing us; and the second problem was that people thought that the NPD or product pipeline WAS the innovation process, and thus it was impossible to question the business model or the potential for creating new value services around the old core products.

No-one was willing to directly question the business model that involved spending so much to deliver less. I decided to take another approach, and lead a disguised strategic conversation exercise through metaphor, based upon the 9-dot problem.

You know the one where you are asked to connect 9 dots in a box arrangement of 3 lines of 3 dots, using only 4 continuous straight lines. Usually what happens is that you try and try to solve this problem and it’s only when someone shows you the “arrowhead” pattern that extends the lines outside of the box that you realise that you sometimes have to step outside the box to understand the problem and see a solution. Working within the current emergent strategy was a bit like trying to solve the problem by staying within the box with similar emotional frustrations - in that it didn’t matter what you did with your resources, you still couldn’t solve the problem with current thinking. Having made the connection with the strategy, the next step was to invite people to connect the 9 dots using just 3 consecutive straight lines. After initial astonishment and disbelief, people would ask whether they could break the rules and in effect began to question their own constraining assumptions. We then transferred this thinking to our emergent strategy to ask ourselves: just what were the constraining assumptions? We then applied “reality checks”. Were these constraining assumptions still true, did they still constrain us? In every session, with a bit of preparation, the same 6 constraining assumptions that made up the organisation’s success formula would appear and we would demolish or modify them in the light of new knowledge and market changes. The outcome was a populated matrix or portfolio of new strategies that defined new freedoms to innovate in the language of the organisation. The scariest moment was presenting this to the head of new product development when he said: “you know, I only ever get to think like this on my own, late at night…”

There is a big difference between being efficient and effective. All strategies are knowledge strategies. Make sure that the knowledge you use to build your strategic choices is still current. Thinking outside of the box involves being a stranger to the familiarity of your own organisation. Knowledge is like fruit, the highest value is only realised when you connect the timing of the fruit ripening to the moment of the customer’s hunger. Don’t keep selling old fruit to people who aren’t hungry. Make sure your strategy is based on fresh knowledge, and that any old knowledge that remains within your emergent strategy is still edible and not past its sell-by date.

Implications:

1. How long has the current strategy got left?
2. How good is the knowledge you are paying attention to?
3. What is the knowledge you are deliberately ignoring, and why?