Tuesday, 4 May 2010

Julian Birkinshaw: Reinventing Management (“There must be a better way of running large companies”)

 

   I’ve posted on Julian Birkinshaw and his work at MLab quite a few times previously:

 

Well, over the last couple of weeks, I’ve been reading Julian’s latest work, Reinventing Management.

It’s an interesting and thought provoking read, mainly concerned with the need for companies to develop a ‘Management Model’:

“A Management Model is the choices made by the executives of a firm regarding how they define objectives, motivate effort, coordinate activities, and allocate resources – in other words, how they define how work of management gets done.”

 

Julian’s main point is that organisations need to define what their Management Model is, and his suggestion is that each Management Model consists of these four dimensions (whilst recognising that this is not a comprehensive list):

 

I totally support the need for employers to clarify how their organisations are going to work and support anything which encourages this, so I generally feel very positive about the book.

I particularly like the way Julian shows that web 2.0 can be combined with real-world activities – something that I’ve been arguing for within this blog.

I also like the focus on developing strategy (or ‘Management Model’) from looking at what’s working in the organisation ie through a process of understanding, evaluating, envisioning and experimenting (which Vineet Nayar at HCL Technologies labels an inside-out approach – see my arguments with Dave Ulrich & co on this).

And I like Julian’s thinking on emergence: “If you provide very few rules and very little structure, most people will figure out for themselves the best thing to do, and the best way of coordinating their activities with those of others” – I can see lots of opportunities for this, for example in performance management.

Having said this, I’m also pleased to see that he suggests that employers can still control social activities within the organisation too – not everything needs to be down to emergence: “Emergent behaviour is necessary for experimenting with new opportunities but it needs to be coupled with processes for harnessing and focussing effort” (I’ve got a blog post on this coming out shortly).

Similarly, with hierarchy: “Hierarchy is not going away.  Large organisations will continue to be an important part of the business landscape, and large organisations need some level of hierarchy to function.”

 

However, I do also have a number of quite major reservations about the book.

I don’t agree that Julian’s ‘Management Model’ is a useful place to start a management reinvention.  The Model is simply a set of aligned activities – you still need something to align these activities upon.  You’re much better off starting with a particular outcome, whether this is a set of values, a BHAG etc (I suggest ‘mojo’).

And I’m also not completely convinced about some of the dimensions in the Model.

Hierarchy and Collective Wisdom in particularly, don’t seem to me to opposite ends of a single scale.  Julian claims “Hierarchy assumes that the boss always knows best” but it doesn’t have to – it’s simply a way of organising responsibilities.  And the opposite of hierarchy is flatness.

Similarly, bureaucracy and emergence - the opposite of emergence is control.

 

I also don’t agree with the way Julian distinguishes management from leadership.

The book is supposedly about management – about how companies implement their plans.  It’s therefore intended to avoid ‘more alluring themes’ such as leadership, change and strategy.  However, I don’t think this it does.  This becomes particularly clear during the review of IBM’s Values Jam – if there’s anything more focused on leadership than this, I don’t know what it is!

The required distinction isn’t between management and leadership, it’s between internal and external, or the organisation and the business.

To me, Julian’s management model isn’t a model of management vs leadership, it’s a model of the organisation vs the business.  I’ll explain more in my next post.

 

 

  • Consulting  - Research - Speaking  -  Training -  Writing
  • Strategy   -  Team development  -  Web 2.0  -  Change
  • Contact  me to  create  more  value  for  your  business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

.

Looking back to May 2009

 

   You may also be interested in these posts from April last year:

 

Or even from the year before?

My contact details:

  • Consulting  - Research - Speaking  -  Training -  Writing
  • Strategy   -  Team development  -  Web 2.0  -  Change
  • Contact  me to  create  more  value  for  your  business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

 

Photo credit: Decoetzee

Friday, 30 April 2010

Stowe Boyd and the Social Business

 

I’ve been enjoying the videos from The Social Business Edge conference.  See Stowe Boyd’s reflections here:

 

Among his predictions:

  • The individual becomes the new group is the fundamental element of the system
  • Connections are more important than rank
  • Small talk is big again
  • People rely on networks to help them make sense of what is important
  • They trade personal productivity for connectedness (connectedness trumps all other obligations including timeliness).

 

 

  • Consulting  - Research - Speaking  -  Training -  Writing
  • Strategy   -  Team development  -  Web 2.0  -  Change
  • Contact  me to  create  more  value  for  your  business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

Thursday, 29 April 2010

Google Collaboration

 

   Day 1 of the informatology conference focused on learning and technology with a presentation by Sudhir Giri from Google.

Giri is creating a ‘learning ecosystem’ at Google, in order to get people collaborating internally better.

Part of this development is the Google environment and the way this encourages people to naturally interact with each other.  This includes lots of shared play and food spaces – for example the cafeteria which gets people communicating with other people they wouldn’t normally have connections with.

And then there’s the technology – like g2g tv – getting googlers creating content and teaching others:

DSCN2194

 

And gwhiz – an internal system which allows people to tag others and themselves with technical skills.  The higher up the search list someone appears, the more expertise that can be assumed to have.  People can also identify whether they are available to answer questions and / or for mentoring.  So this provides a rudimentary CV and is much more likely to be used than a traditional skills inventory.  And again, it helps people to connect with other folk.

DSCN2196

DSCN2197

 

These developments provide a range of intangible benefits for Google but these can’t be captured by a ROI!

 

The following photos are from the peer circle run following Sudhir’s session, led by Clive Shepherd and including Karyn Romeis, Mark Berthelemy, Charles Jennings and John Castledine:

DSCN2199

DSCN2203

DSCN2198

DSCN2201

 

 

  • Consulting  - Research - Speaking  -  Training -  Writing
  • Strategy   -  Team development  -  Web 2.0  -  Change
  • Contact  me to  create  more  value  for  your  business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com
  • .

Saturday, 24 April 2010

Personnel Today Social Media Week - Review

 

Five days, five articles.

If you’ve read them, what did you think?

If not, my review is here:

 

You can access the articles at http://bit.ly/PTSocialMediaWeek.

 

 

  • Consulting  - Research - Speaking  -  Training -  Writing
  • Strategy   -  Team development  -  Web 2.0  -  Change
  • Contact  me to  create  more  value  for  your  business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

.

Friday, 16 April 2010

Top Online Influencer in Talent Management

 

    I’ve been recognised as the top online influencer in talent management.

The recognition comes from John Sumser’s HRExaminer which has already included me in its list of top online influencers in HR.

In one way, this recognition means more for more me, partly because I’ve got the no. 1 slot this time around, but also because I’m more focused on talent and human capital management than I am on traditional HR.

But at the same time, talent management is such as overused and misused term, I think the recognition is in some ways less meaningful.  It’s certainly the first of thee lists where I don’t actually recognise a lot of the other people who are included.

As John states:

“We were all surprised by some of the results. As noted earlier, Talent Management is not the most clearly defined silo in HR. Bill Kutik defines it as a suite of software services. Wikipedia’s definition is the full lifecycle harvesting of human capital. Some people mean ‘succession planning’ (that’s roughly how Bersin and associates define it). While others (many of the people on the list) see it as a euphemism for Recruiting.”

 

You can see my thoughts on these various definitions here.

I’ll return to the list with some more thoughts on it after I’ve had a look through the blogs of the other people who have been included.

Here’s the top 10:

 

 

  • Consulting  - Research - Speaking  -  Training -  Writing
  • Strategy   -  Team development  -  Web 2.0  -  Change
  • Contact  me to  create  more  value  for  your  business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com
  • .

Thursday, 1 April 2010

Saturday, 20 March 2010

More social media stories (from M&S, Shell, Unilever)

 

   The second event this week was JustMeans’ Social Media & Stakeholder Engagement conference.  This featured a number of speakers / case studies (including Marks & Spencer – which I referred to in my Personnel Today report – presented by Robert Nuttall, formerly Head of Internal Communication there).

In one of these sessions, Bjorn Edlund, formerly Executive VP of Communication for Shell presented on a number of issues, including the need for all employees to be able to represent the company externally (which relates to the points made by AXA and Santander at the other conference earlier this week):

“What’s the difference between a company spokesperson and someone who just happens to work at Shell?  We have to let people communicate, let go of control.  We can’t participate in the conversation if the legal department need to check everything, for legalese and marketing spin.  People understand the different between being in the conversation and using information that’s not in the public domain as yet.  We need to adapt our disclosure rules.  People can make mistakes, things happen – but things have always happened.”

 

Also see:

 

I then moderated a session on Employee Engagement which included a presentation from Tim Johns, VP Corporate Communication at Unilever.  Johns’ presentation reinforced many of the points made by Edlund:

  • There are very low levels of involvement in traditional employee communication channels
  • People don’t trust these – they trust PLUs (People Like Us)
  • The future is about web space rather than web sites – Unilever’s collaboration zones
  • Employees can blog, vote and see the results
  • The company has moved from portals to a sharepoint platform people can use to find other people they’re interested in.

 

As a result of this shift, Unilever’s employee engagement scores have shot up.  The approach works because it’s what’s normal in external society, and because it’s right:

“Flattening hierachy & empoyering employees is where next battle lines in companies will be drawn.”

 

I was asked questions over Twitter on:

Engagement within Unilever’s multi-brand environment

Johns explained that companies think they can control messages and control the organisation – but Unilever is a massive organisation, and you can’t control it:

“It’s about a change in society, and there’s no difference between the internal and the external – so you can’t run internal and external differently.  You can’t engage employees in one place and not elsewhere – it doesn’t work like that.  You’re stronger when you cede control that when you try to keep it.”

 

Workplace agility

Is key – you could spend every day on planning.

 

Senior leadership nervousness about social media

Johns suggested that you shouldn’t ask permission or it will never happen.

 

Encouraging take-up outside just IT

Johns stressed the need to avoid the dead hand of HR and IT

 

Also see:

 

 

Please note, I hope the reporting of Johns’ presentation is reasonably accurate, but I was listening to Johns, keeping an eye on the audience and reading the tweets at the same time as scribbling down my notes, so please forgive any inaccuracies.

 

 

  • Consulting  - Research - Speaking  -  Training -  Writing
  • Strategy   -  Team development  -  Web 2.0  -  Change
  • Contact  me to  create  more  value  for  your  business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

.

Friday, 19 March 2010

Social media stories (from Virgin Media, Santander, Axa, Asda and Pfizer)

 

   I’ve attended two social media conferences this week – the first was Enterprise Social Media on Monday, and featured case studies from Virgin Media, Santander, Axa, Asda and Pfizer as well as ING (which unfortunately I missed).

My report on these case studies is up at Personnel Today.

 

 

  • Consulting  - Research - Speaking  -  Training -  Writing
  • Strategy   -  Team development  -  Web 2.0  -  Change
  • Contact  me to  create  more  value  for  your  business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

 

.

Monday, 1 March 2010

Looking back to March 2009

 

You may also be interested in these posts from March last year:

 

Or even from the year before?

 

My contact details:

  • Consulting  - Research - Speaking  -  Training -  Writing
  • Strategy   -  Team development  -  Web 2.0  -  Change
  • Contact  me to  create  more  value  for  your  business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

 

Picture credit: Wondermcdc

Technorati Tags: Social capital,competitive advantage,business