JFX got a facelift (and a new url)

I’m moving up in the blogosphere! Thanks to Peter Flaschner at The Blogstudio for helping me get a better setup. Posts for JFX are now hosted at http://jfconnex.com/

Make sure you update your bookmarks and feeds.

Transparency beats asymmetries

As I begin this post I’m realizing transparency is a big topic, but it’s coming up all over the place in business, personal, and social situations, so I want to start picking it apart.  I noticed Seth Godin’s post earlier this week, and liked his statement that the issue is not to be viewed as a moral right, but a business tactic, tool or threat.  So this post is about sharing information as a business tactic to win complex games.

I’ve had many discussions with friends about putting things on the Web and how fearful they are about things being used against them.  I hear comments about invasion of privacy, loss of employment, Gattaca and Big Brother.   One of my best friends refuses to participate in social networking sites so he won’t make it any easier for anyone to find out stuff about him.  He’s a very sharp guy, and I think he is playing a good poker game.  And, as Seth points out, poker is not much fun if you can see everyone’s cards.

For me the issue here is not about transparency, but what game you are playing.  Poker is a small scale strategy game pitting one person against another.  Transparency is the exact wrong thing to do in that game.  But most “games” in life and business are far more complex, and given our 21st Century context (see Thomas Friedman), I think it’s dangerous to live life with a poker face.  It’s more like having one’s head in the sand.

In a complex system, transparency is important as it relates to information asymmetries.  This is when one “side” in a transaction knows more than another.  In such cases, people tend to undervalue an opportunity to avoid risks based on gaps in knowledge. It has been shown in economic theory that the overall value of a system is increased when everyone has access to the same information.

In markets, individuals benefit greatly by sharing their information with others to allow for fair exchanges.  This sharing brings the added bonus of systemic aggregation of information (the Internet enables this like never before).  Aggregation allows people to discover patterns that provide opportunities to adjust tactics and “win” more often.

So here’s some “games of life” to think of as markets instead of as poker:

• Job interviews/hiring decisions… what if employers and employees knew more about jobs and candidates? Better alignment of jobs and people lead to greater engagement and less turnover.

• Health… what if people were able to share their health information more fully? They could see trends and patterns and share them with medical professionals to get earlier and better treatment.
• Business… what if employers shared their performance goals and metrics more fully (even when it’s bad news)?  Employees could intervene earlier and with greater permission to prevent negative trends.
• Dating… more disclosure about values and interests leads to better match making and longer lasting relationships.

More learning to blog

It’s been about month since I started this blog and I’m having fun with it.  Here are some more tips I’ve gotten and things I’ve learned so far:

• To be interesting, be interested: Check out this great set of tips from russell davies to help you get started.

• Try the 10×10 exercise: Jay Goldman suggested I think of 10 categories and then 10 posts for each of the categories before I even started.  This has proven to be great advice, I get plenty of new ideas every day (so far) but having the 10×10 framework really helps structure this space and keep my posts on target.

• Try a series: I was inspired by Diego Rodriguez and his series on innovation.  I don’t have to post a sequel everyday, but if I’m stuck I’ve got an easy back up idea.  It also helps to think about this ahead of time and be on the look out for things that make the posts in the series more timely, tangible and relevant.

• Readers love lists: Dan Debow suggested using bullets or numbers to help readers quickly digest content.

• Link to others: I’m still struggling with “track backs” but I’ve found it very easy to use posts from other people to make my posts more interesting.  I connected to a comment from Diego on Twitter and he then tweeted about my post.  Got the highest volume of traffic to my blog yet!

More to come as I stumble along.

Free advice for GM #3-Put SAAB back on the edge

I was going to go with Saturn next, but a tweet from Diego on Metacool got me motivated to play with SAAB.  He says, SAAB should get back into rallying, which lends support to my understanding of this brand.

Rally to the edge

Technology, cool, edgy, unique.   Born from jets.  Svenska Aeroplan Aktie Bolaget is Swedish Airplane Company in Swedish.  Somewhere it all fell apart and they ended up another mediocre GM-mobile that had no style, no technology, and poor quality.

The organization behind an edgy car has to be edgy.  This is called brand integration (the outside and the inside have to align).  To create edgy things, people have to take risks and push the envelope.  Edge is by definition NOT THE MAINSTREAM.  Okay, I’m ranting… but it’s amazing to me how something edgy can get so rounded off to fit into a corporate model, that it’s no longer viable.

The interdependent organization archetype is a great model for SAAB because it could bring together an array of people and companies from many centers of excellence to work on the coolest automotive technology in the world.  There would need to be lots of experimentation (and failure) going on to find out what new ideas work and what theories don’t hold water.  You just can’t pull this kind of behavior off, if you are trying to please heads of engineering and design at the top of a corporate pyramid.

Key traits of the new SAAB organization:

1. Ad hoc reciprocal structure- each car should be viewed as a project, with full design-build responsibilities.  The designs should connect to the heritage of SAAB (e.g. efficient drag coefficient) but the technology should represent the best of what’s possible in the current market.  These teams should work under temporary agreements with other companies to bring resources necessary for manufacturing.

2. Each model is an experiment- transparency while prototyping (instead of secrecy) promotes involvement from others and improves quality.  Check out Martin Eberhard’s post on how blogs helped at Tesla Motors.  Instead of a long line of reductionist designs, hidden in secrecy while the companies round off the edges to save money, the clean slate approach gives the model team a chance to be truly innovative.  An open process pushes everyone to solve the complex tensions between viability, feasibility, and desirability.  The prototypes should be rallying all over the world to show off and test the new ideas.

3. Entrepreneurial leaders- leadership in today’s auto market is coming from disruptors like Tesla and Fiskar Automotive.  These are entrepreneurial ventures with something to prove and lots of backing to get there.  Each model should be considered and investment and live up to a market based promise of innovation.  Leadership teams should have to start over again with each model to prove this new idea is worth making (and buying).

Accurate Self Awareness

I spend a lot of time talking to people about getting good feedback.  Usually, they’ve picked up somehow that everything is not going along as well as they’d like.  It could be a friend saying, “you should go talk with so-and-so, I think you two are not on the same page.”  Or, maybe it’s a boss telling you to shape up in a particular area.  Or, maybe you’ve noticed nobody will sit next to you in the cafeteria.

Humans are social animals
The human desire to achieve is outdone only by the human desire to fit in, so these kind of scenarios are usually unsettling at the core of your emotional well-being.  The “reptilian brain stem” portion of your brain starts sending signals to your body that you are in danger and you feel stress and anxiety.

Downward spiral

Avoid the downward spiral
Over time, this is really bad for your body if you don’t deal with it. In the short term, this is really bad for your job because a lot of your energy is tied up in worry, defensiveness, etc.   Lots of people begin to “ping” those around them to see if this perceived threat is real.  Unfortunately, if this is not done well it feeds the problem and the spiral takes you down and then out to the market for a new job.

Tips for getting an accurate self assessment:

1. Ask better questions. A generic “how am I doing?” question usually leads to a neutral, safe response like, “fine.”  This gives you a false impression and accelerates the negative spiral by reinforcing your positive self image in the face of some legitimate concerns.  Instead of the generic, open-ended approach, ask a specific question about a specific concern you have.   See my “that’s a good question” post for some tips on this.

2. Ask the right people. In a panic situation, we tend to go to our closest allies for guidance and support.  But you need to build perspective when you are unsure, so extend your reach and ask some people you know will be more critical (helpful) and less inclined to protect you.  Having your feedback biased to your closer colleagues means your awareness is biased too.

3. Reduce risk for truthful input. Recognize that most people are not going to tell you their full critical opinion

Scaredy Cats

because it is “risky” to do so.  They may not want to hurt your feelings, may feel their opinion is not important, may believe it’s not their place to be critical of you, or be afraid that they’ll get a reputation for being harsh or unforgiving.  Try these two ways to get the full story from others:

• Build trust and be persistent.  Think of this like coaxing a cat out from under the bed.  Here kitty, kitty…

• Provide an anonymous channel to you.  You can ask a friend to gather some input for you, or you can use a tool like Rypple to do it yourself.

Free Advice for GM #2- A Chevy for Everyone

Continuing in a series of posts about GM and organization design, let’s take a closer look at creating the right organization for Chevrolet.  I know restructuring is not this simple; so take this as the first installment in a high level comparison of organization design options, not a comprehensive plan of action.

A return to the Chevy brand essence?

Let’s start with Chevrolet, because that’s the easiest to imagine given their current situation.

To me, Chevy is Americana.  This is the car that represents the American Dream, value, performance, and accessibility.

Chevrolet should help people get their first car, the family car, and have a competitive truck option.  This market means head-to-head competition with Toyota and Honda, so it has to be efficient and cost competitive and produce top quality, reliable, desirable vehicles.  Check out this post on The Truth About Cars for a quick review of the Chevy brand.

Key Traits of the new Chevrolet organization:

1. Efficient hierarchical structure. Clean lines of authority to provide clear direction, efficient decision-making, speed to market, and drive focus on customer needs as the basis for every action.  This market is not about sexy cars, it’s about helping people feel good while they get places safely and manage household costs.

2. Make each model a business. Get past the silos of design, engineering, marketing, etc. and organize each model around a General Manager, with a P&L outcome and a target consumer to drive functional integration.   Fidelity Investments organizes this way (dozens of P&L units), and it works really well.  Develop a rabid consumer orientation as a rallying point, rather than being fractured by functional expertise.

3. Restructure the supply chain. As pointed out by Charles Mann in Beyond Detroit, source great parts from the best suppliers by developing a modular platform.  Don’t try to own everything, focus on total design, build, and sell.

4. Engage employees. Focus on great leadership and build pride (See Jon Katzenbach). The days of management v. labor must be left behind.  This organization needs every single person engaged in a mission to deliver cost competitive, high quality vehicles.  Organize production around manufacturing teams provide job rotations to help employees learn, grow, and develop as a natural component of work.  Use the portfolio of models to allow employees career movement.

5. Reward performance. Pay individuals, teams, and business units more when they meet performance goals in revenue, quality, and costs.  Create healthy internal competition between the businesses.

Next up, how to recover the SATURN brand through an open-source organization.

Announcing the Rypple LC

Check out my post on the Rypple blog about our new learning project called the Rypple Learning Collaborative.

Free Advice for GM #1

If you are interested in organization design, you should read Beyond Detroit in the 17.06 issue of Wired magazine. Chris Anderson offers a great introduction arguing that a new era of global business (long heralded) is really here.  The point is, that with the Big Three disintegrating, it’s time for the “little guys” to proliferate in a market of automotive technologies that includes many, many more players and will produce much better results.

Despite the deep malaise in the auto industry and the lackluster efforts by the federal government, articles like this show there is light at the end of the tunnel with practical ideas and solid advice. I thought I’d join the fray with an idea for how GM might move forward to a better place. I’m not claiming to be an auto industry expert, but my distance from it might be an advantage (at IDEO we call this the “naïve mind”).

Awhile back, I shared a framework for organization design inspired by the animal kingdom. Fundamental to that approach is the concept of biodiversity in an ecosystem.  Changing circumstances require entities within the system to evolve and adapt or they will die. And evolution is about letting an existing trait emerge and thrive when new conditions emerge and demand it. See this interesting blog post by Robert Patterson for more on this line of thinking.

While GM has had dozens of brands and even some difference in their range of businesses, they have sought to keep everything operating on the same model and use scale as a lever to create efficiencies. This “no variance” strategy crushed Saturn, one of their best hopes for survival.

So a mortal enemy of a sustainable organization is homogeneity, and GM is the poster child of homogeneity.  Using this framework, we can explore how GM might diversify their organizational structures to be more successful in four different consumer categories, with four different auto brands.  It’s likely that these different consumers want different things from their cars, so the organizations should operate differently to meet those needs.

Below you can see four GM brands plotted on the “organization ecosystem” model to guide our exploration.  Based on their unique brand attributes, and the demands of the market and consumers of those brands, each of the companies could be structured and operate quite differently. It’s funny to me that two of these brands are being jettisoned in the current restructuring actions.

Check back here for my next several posts and deeper descriptions of each example.

How could GM have an ecosystem of companies and brands?

That’s a good question!

I’ve been playing with feedback again lately, and I am currently fascinated with the response people have when asked a good question.  They usually smile!

Interestingly, research on influence shows that having a smile on your face makes you more influential and more successful in relationships (Womack, Hertenstein).  And, importantly, authentic smiles are more effective than fake ones.  So check this out:  I can help you influence me if my question makes you smile.  Just think of the therapy and training costs you can avoid!

So what kind of questions make people smile?  Often they get right to the heart of a matter and disarm someone who is feeling defensive, causing them to relax, and smile in relief.  Other times, they reveal something new to the person being asked, so the discovery makes them smile in delight.

Either way, I think that asking a good question makes it easier for someone to answer and they appreciate the help.

I think the best questions, start with a small disclosure or observation, showing that you’ve noticed something about the other person or need their help with something.

Here’s a few examples:

I noticed you seemed confused by my presentation.  Is there something I could have done better? (Disarming)

Did you know your input during the meeting really helped me? (Discovery)  How could I have gotten to that point more quickly?

I’m hoping to get a promotion soon. (Disclosure)  What should I be working on to increase my chances of getting it?

It probably helps if you smile while you ask your question.  Okay, everybody head to a mirror to see if you smile when you talk.  It works!

Getting Leverage for Change

I just saw a great post on Seth’s blog about challenging convention.  I really admire how he generates cool insights and puts them simply so they are easy to remember.  As I was reading his tips for challenging convention, it occurred to me that there’s a deeper issue below such challenges.  He refers to the convention as “it” and I began to wonder about the possibilities of “it”.

One of my favorite movie lines is “there could be anything in there!” (from: A Christmas Story), and this statement is so true here.  It really matters in his third point about leverage.  If “it” is a simple change to a control knob, your leverage challenge is relatively straightforward and concrete.  If “it” is a new paradigm of consumption, your leverage challenge requires a whole different level of challenging.  Some types of leverage are more powerful than others, but most importantly you should use the right one for the task at hand.

For example: are you trying to challenge the convention of a controlling music volume (Seth’s example)?  By shifting the convention from a physical knob to a digital slider you can focus on the physical parameters of the human/machine interaction.  But if a person is not already of the mindset to interact with music via a computer, your users will experience a disconnect.  The more effective leverage point would be to focus on the mindset of listening to music via a computer first, then shifting your focus to the digital interaction.

I believe this is what Apple did with the first iPod.  The early generation machines still had familiar physcial controls.  Now the iPhone has a completely digital touch screen.  If they had not first gotten people to listen to music via the iTunes system, I would think the adoption of the touch screen may have struggled.

For more ideas about leverage points, Dana Meadows provides a great spectrum in her article: Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System.  Check out the summary on Wikipedia.