Comments on: Why I can’t agree with Groucho Marx

By: Didier Marlier

Didier Marlier — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:07:59 +0000

GREAT post nd thank you Gaulia. I guess we would all prefer to see “built to last” companies. The fact is that change is speeding up and, if companies do not carefully 1) prepare for the future, 2) design more flexible, flat, organic and intelligent organizations and 3) if leadership doesn’t migrate from intellect only to behavioural and emotional (what you beautyfully describe as the MEANING), then they won’t last.
Thanks as well for the beautyfull (and sustainable) exmple of the samba schools… Very relevant, nothing gets done without Passion… And thank you for sharig this at the height of Carnival times!!! “E tudo se acabar na quarta feira…” Abraços

By: Gaulia

Gaulia — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:36:51 +0000

Hi Didier and Doug – I ´ve already read the comments below the first post. I would like to believe more in “Built to last organizations” (Jim Collins ?) – those ones who know how to reinvent themsleves as DuPont for example, always looking ahead for the next evolution step or nowadays companies like Chevron or BP (in the energy field not any more in the gas & oil business only).

But the most important point is MEANING. Here in Brazil were are in the end of Carnival and many schools of samba are organizations that frequently have to show creative and outstanding parades every year. And only one will be the champion. So the people that work the hole year in these schools of samba (hundreds of colaborative workers) BELIEVE in the purpose – because they participate in the final result. 100% engagement.

Is this possible in public or private companies?

By: Didier Marlier

Didier Marlier — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 08:54:30 +0000

Doug, thank you very much for insightful remarks. Gerd Leonhard (www.mediafuturist.com) with whom I now regularly reflect on the future of the Open Economy, couldn’t agree more with the changes you describe re: Marketing and advertising. What the “experts” of whom you are seem to agree is that intrusive, distruptive advertising is counterproductive and on its way out. To survive, advertising will have to bring true value to be tolerated…
On the second poit, I find it spot on; It i a part of all the reflection we, as leaders, need to have about the way we engage our people. The traditional ways (career path, remuneration) are ess effective. It is not unusual now to see some specialists workig from home or execs refusing to relocate into HQ hometown and operate from their european capital. What you describe through your questions Doug, reflect this transition from “Built to last organizations” to “inspired to strive organisms”. As I will describe into upcomig posts, three traits define such “intelligent enterprises”: A strong and shared sense of Purpose, a permanent, purpose related feedback loop and a productive ground of relationships. Tak you for your geat input! Didier

By: doug

doug — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:30:31 +0000

Didier

This is not a direct comment on your latest posting but rather a general reference to your series.

The video “Did you know?” brings up many interesting points but two have really stuck with me. 1) Most jobs in top demand did not exist 4 years ago. (This is also a point you picked up on too). From my personal observation, this is true, particularly in Marketing where the new economy has completely shattered the advertising industry structures and ways of doing business. For sure, people still read ads. But they are doing it differently and certainly using the internet to get information in far more interesting ways than they used to. Plus, the world on-line lets you track and trace results on a much broader/deeper basis than ever before, so why invest money in things you can’t measure like print ads and billboards?
2) Even more interesting to me is the notion that companies (or whatever you want to call an assembly of people) are forming and breaking-up far more frequently than before. It would be interesting to do a relative analysis of our own MBA class. How many companies have we worked for? In how many industries and how many countries? I think we would be shocked by the number. I can imagine that our average classmate has worked in more than 5 companies / 5 industries / 5 countries. I know I have. So the question becomes, how do you form and break-up organizations on a continuous basis? If we are really averaging less than 10 years for a company to go from cradle to grave, then we need to organize and lead organizations that are meant to last less than a decade. How do you recruit? How do you form teams and a culture? How do you get buy-in? How do you evolve the organization and people to the next level? It is clear that we can’t afford to have high performing individuals and teams sitting on the sidelines waiting a year or more for the next opportunity to come around before and after an organization forms and implodes. (Please don’t mention head-hunters, these people are hopelessly stuck in the past and can’t contribute a thing towards working on a solution to bridge the gap between organizational implosion and formation.) So this is the real question. How do we form bunches of Apaches to ride around from mission to mission / market to market and are able to keep going and re-inventing themselves? Who leads it? Why lead it?