fluidminds

The rumor is the plague - not the flue!

Isn't it ironic. A fairly common flue have rapidly grown in importance and is now blamed for everything from falling share prices to a global pandemic. Nowadays, when we live in a completely transparent world even the smallest thing can grow out of proportion. Seven billion pair of eyes constantly looking for a tiny butterfly in China flapping its wings will most certainly see a hurricane coming in every spring breeze. With no “friction” in our global communication tools we will all become terrified safety addicts.

Wonder what kind of “friction” we need and what we can do without?

/kent

Good point

Check out Seth's latest post.

//jan

Is Volvo really a green company?

Volvo is currently running a very slick and intensive ad campaign in Sweden. The message is "Volvo in the green!", apparently spinning on companies being in the red or black. Slick indeed. 

Now this is a very personal opinion but I do believe Volvo would do better by coming clean. Admitting to customers and themselves that they blew the eco-trend and are suffering badly from it. And that they now are working like mad to catch up and pass the competitors. Instead we are through the campaign led to believe that something as bland as a new diesel powered V50 is something of a green achievement. And that they are in the green game. Come on. Do they think we customers are daft...? 

A very literal green wash indeed. And nothing that schticks in the new world of work - or business.

//jan

Is sustainable the right goal?

If you have a moment read this and get a interesting perspective on sustainability.

//jan

The Green Thing

From my point of view the new world of work needs to be sustainable. 

It can't just be about fluffy nice visions of how we interact through networks and self-organize. We also need to address the ecological realities of work. And fact is, very very much of the work we do seriously screws up the planet.

Here's the deal. An unsustainable work practice can't be part of the new world of work. 

//jan

Take the risk!

Sasha Dichter gives us this piece of counter-intuitive-yet-to-the-point-advice.

And once you think about things this way you realize that lots of risks should be taken now. 

The logic of our behaviour is interesting. When things are going well we have more to lose - and tend to be more careful. And when things are going a little worse we have less to lose - but still tend to be careful.

So when do we take the risk?

Sasha Dichter is the Director of Business Development at Acumen Fund.

//jan

Networks make hierarchies nervous

A couple of times every week I get involved in conversations about networks and how they can improve things in traditional organizations. Speed up internal communication... Build new client relationship structures... Improve projects... Increase employee participation... 

Increasingly I'm starting to see flaws in this reasoning. I sense more wishful thinking than actual improvements. More charades than real network action.

I've stated it here in earlier posts, hierarchies are good at driving out and eliminating variation. This is what hierarchies are designed for and probably what hierachies do best. So, anything that generates variation, i.e. networks, makes a hierarchy nervous and creates a reaction. 

The reaction might be to embrace networks, and then subconsciously sabotage them. Or openly confront the "informal and uncontrolled flow of internal information". Maybe even restrict employees from "unauthorized participation" in external forums that discuss a company's products/services.

Why is this? Well basically social networks tend to expose and erode power structures and encourage self-organization. And hierarchies in contrast build and harbor power structures and encourage command and control. 

An unhappy match indeed.

//jan

Random thoughts

• Why is it that the time and money spent on a task or job still is the most significant aspect of work? Why not the quality/impact of the end result? Why not the level of sustainability? Why...? Well, it is obvious isn't it. Time and money can be measured. The other stuff can't. So let us continue to run the world only from parameters that can be measured. Sounds reasonable. [yes, irony...]   

• Which type of person creates most value? He/she who strictly follows rules and social norms, or he/she who regularily bends them?   

• Why do all formal project models lack the "Oh shit phase" – the point in time when the full consequences of the task at hand become known and aware to the team? Most real projects run into an "Oh shit phase". Experienced project people know this. But we don't train for it. And we don't visualize the phase in the elegant PPTs that describe our project.

• Why is it so difficult for us to recognize that hierarchies drive out variation? That is what they are best at. And that is what they are designed for and should be doing. Therefore we should not be surprised that our creativity or innovation efforts normally fail. It is written in the stars... and only few seem to manage to sustainably induce variation in hierarchies.

  
//jan 

Welcome to a new week...

...in the emerging new world of work. We should expect some more ups and downs in the finance world. Also a few ups and downs of publicly listed companies. Perhaps a merger or two of som biggies. Maybe a bankruptcy...? And perhaps even a scandal om som sort. I'm betting on something to do with executive compensation ;-)

In the mean time the unlisted companies and the social businesses continue their work. I'm not saying they aren't affected by the present economic turmoil. But I'd be surprised if they make the headlines.

Have a great week.

//jan

Old or new?

Head economist of Confederation of Swedish Enterprise Stefan Fölster has written a book. The title translates roughly into "Goodbye World Destruction - The Art of Surviving the Greenhouse Effect."

I haven't read the book yet. But the largest daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter reviewed it yesterday and compared it to another book written by Christian Azar, researcher and member of the UN Climate Panel. Striking differences in approach it seems.

Obviously the journalist has chosen sides, but Fölster still comes out like the old Soviet propaganda machines – more and more out of tune with the rest of the world. And championing over-simplified, capitalistic and opportunistic ideas that many are starting to question these days. Brave or dumb?

Let me put it this way. fluidminds is not a member of the Confederation. And will never be. They are part of the old world of work. And so is Fölster.

Read article in Dagens Nyheter here. [In Swedish]