I attended a corporate function yesterday under the theme of 'Innovation'. It was attended by innovation professionals, corporate execs and a range of participants from other innovation-related  sectors.

The discussions were very interesting but I was struck by one single fact: the ambiguous and generic use of the term 'innovation' - and the ramifications of this ambiguity on the corporation.

I am troubled by this for a range of reasons.

Ever since Hamel and Prahalad made 'innovation' the catch-cry of the times for corporations a few decades ago, corporations have interpreted 'innovation' to mean 'reinventing themselves'. That's OK when it's relevant but it doesn't apply to everyone.

The concept of innovation generally refers to the 'creation of something that didn't exist previously'. This is most evident, for example in the sciences and in some technological sectors. The bionic eye and ear initiatives, wireless technologies, solar power, and so on are excellent examples of creating something new.

In the corporate context this is rare however. Corporate interpretation of 'innovation' generally means 'improvement' or 'differentiation'. Both are legitimate but neither necessarily (and rarely) mean 'creating something new.'

Of course some companies need to innovate in their products and services area, but often it's a matter of incorporating features that competitors already offer, rather than of 'creation'.

Nearly everything in the corporate space already exists somewhere. Therefore for a corporation to improve or differentiate, it is often a matter of knowing what exists and being able to apply it efficiently and effectively for its own purposes. It does not therefore mean that the corporation must create something new.

This is particularly relevant because:

1. Creation is different to applying an existing technology.
2. Creation implies cost, time and effort.
3. Creation carries financial, time, effort and reputational risk.
4. Many managers and directors don't know the difference between the two concepts.

Many of the speakers at yesterday's session implied that the difficulties with adopting innovation is of embedding innovation as a cultural attribute. Some of corporate speakers therefore appeared to be trying to make everyone in their organisation 'innovative'. Firstly, not everyone needs to be innovative. Secondly, not everyone can be innovative (even if you adopt the principles of Kaizan). Thirdly, this is all about effective change and culture management.

Ultimately innovation, regardless of one's interpretation, should never be conducted without a robust and defensible business case that demonstrates the value such innovation would deliver toward the enhancement of the host's organisational objectives.

As with most things in life - there are very few absolutes.

It might be convenient to suggest that management is about the here and now and that leadership is about the future.

However, there are many situations where 'managers' must show 'leadership' in their area of responsibility.

A manager who is faced with significant operational challenge in the here and now, for example, must be able to demonstrate leadership to transition his/her area to a new context.

That involves, creating the future vision for his/her area of responsibility, helping  develop the transition plan to achieve it, selling the vision and its benefits to his/her people (and up the organisation) and then steer the transition so that the future vision become the reality.

Similarly, a 'leader' needs to be able to envision, and then deliver it. Just developing a vision is NEVER enough.

In the same way as effective leadership needs to operate equally comfortably in the right-brain and left-brain spaces, a leader needs to be able to see the future and then manage it to realisation. A CEO must do this across the entire organisation, while other executives must do it across their area's of responsibility.

Thus, in most  organisations, effective executives need to display both capabilities. Certainly some executives in some contexts display more of one than the other, but they must have capabilities in both realms to provide overall effectiveness.

You engender trust by exhibiting the behaviours that define 'trust', such as:

- do what you say (walk the talk)
- use the organisation's objectives as the criteria for assessing all actions and initiatives
- be honest and truthful at all times
- don't allow vested interests to affect decision-making
- be reliable - if you say you will do something, then do it
- work within your abilities and recognise when others have other abilities
- be ethical and principled at all times
- be fair, balanced and considerate
- allow facts to alter your view or force a review of your decisions
- give credit where, when and to whom it is due

If you exhibit these attributes and behaviours, you will be trusted - regardless of the type of organisation.

As with most things in life - there are no universal truths when it comes to strategy.

Firstly, are we talking about strategy formulation or strategy execution?

Secondly, are we talking about strategy through creativity or strategy through analysis?

Thirdly, are we talking about strategy as 'vision' or strategy as 'tactic'?

Fourth, what is strategy in one context is not in another context.

Fifth, who is it exactly within the organisation that needs to be 'strategically' developed?

My experience in hundreds of corporations and organisations is that each has its context, character and requirements - sometimes the development of 'strategy' is dominant and sometimes it is secondary.

If you want to develop strategy as 'vision' in a left-brain organisation then the person/people trying to sell the vision will struggle and meet resistance. Conversely, a left-brain person trying to sell strategy as 'tactic' to a right-brain organisation will meet with indifference.

The problem with 'strategy capability' in organisations is that people assume it is a single simple concept when in fact it's much more complex.

Ultimately, good strategy is that which helps the organisation achieve its objectives; and the people who need to develop strategic skills are those who are empowered and entrusted to find the course to satisfaction.

I recently became aware of Bond International and their services which help cut unnecessary legal costs.

They have helped reduce clients’ risk in the face of inter-company or intra-company issues that expose them to legal proceedings.  

They ensure that the differences and disagreements people and businesses face reach early negotiated agreement, rather than going through lengthy, costly and draining formal legal proceedings.  They have saved organisations hundreds of thousands of dollars that they may have been forced to spend to fight battles in court.   

Bond International offers:

1)   A standard contractual clause to incorporate into every contract you enter; and

2)   A standby service ensuring disputes produce a cost-effective and productive outcome.

They offer this standard clause so you can mitigate your own exposure and costs to unnecessary court battles.  

If you are interested in how this thinking and approach can help you, they would be pleased to meet and demonstrate how you can prevent  squandering substantial resources.   

 

Their contact details are:

Phone:      1300 26-BOND   1300-26-26-63   (03) 8678 1817
Fax:          03 9523 1355
Mobile:     0402 422 922
Web:         www.bondnational.com.au
Email:       peter@bondnational.com.au

 

 

 

Can we negotiate better?  Can we get better results?

Have you ever left a negotiation, questioning where all your profit margin went ?

Did you ever regret later that you should have done a deal you missed out on ?

Are there ways to get consistently good results in negotiation ?

Do you ever question what you should be aware of, in the heat of a deal ?

These questions lie at the heart of our business dealings, our personal relationships and most of our interactions, when we're negotiating.

If you or your key staff are always negotiating, what can you do to get better outcomes?

Come and hear Negotiation Author, Professor, Business Consultant and Presenter Russell Korobkin, speak at RACV Club Melbourne on Tuesday 23rd July 2013.       

This is a 1-day workshop worthy of your professional Development budget.

Professional Development Credits apply. 

 

To reserve your place at the workshop, go to http://tinyurl.com/chand6m or call Mary Parker at Bond International on 1300-26-26-63 or email seminar@bondinternational.com.au.

I am pleased to notify all devoted my blog readers of the Independent Consultant Collaborative (ICC). We are a group of independent specialists (some might say “experts”) who work with management in medium to large corporations and organisations.

Between us, we have diverse and recent experience in corporations - helping to manage them, guide them, advise them, and when asked, to fix them.

The people listed here are competent and skilled advisors in a wide range of business, technology and organisation-related areas. Many of these individuals operate as sole practitioners.

We have a directory of ICC consultants that provides corporate decision makers with a panel of high quality and technically proficient resources that they will retain, refer to, and call on when they need a particular competence.

We offer the following advantages:

• You have one source for diverse expertise;


• You have access to successful, experienced and motivated people;


• You save precious time, money and get the result you want;


• Instead of paying high corporate overheads, you pay for the service received;


• Rather than going through intermediaries, you determine the most effective way to work;


• In place of surcharges or additional fees there is nothing additional to budget.

How it works
1.       Search the list of categories to find the particular approach you want - consulting, seminar, workshop, facilitation, etc.
2.       Review the offering and the skill sets.
3.       Contact the facilitator directly.
4.       Invite a meeting or a proposal to match your requirements.
5.       Enter into a commercial arrangement with the facilitator.
6.       The facilitators deliver their promise.
7.       You pay their account as agreed.

If you wish to receive a copy of the ICC catalogue or have any queries, please email Dr Jack Jacoby at jacoby@jacobyconsulting.com.au

So now it's two kids under 8 who have shot their toddler siblings in the US! And the Neanderthal gunslingers of the USA want more guns. Go figure?

Now, I am a strong supporter of the American idiom (despite my irregular criticisms) and their many amazing achievements, but let's get real - what a bunch of self-serving morons.

I do get the American Constitution. I truly do understand where the pro-gun lobby gets its moral strength - but really - it's the 21st Century now - not 1787.

When  the Constitution was written, it was to enable the country to protect itself. Which cretin believes that the hand gun or machine gun is the way the USA will be protected in the 21st Century.

In fact it's the gun that is a significant contributor to the destruction of the values that have made the USA so strong for so long. Just look at South Africa. Give me one good argument that will convince me that the USA won't end up like that sick society where people are scared to walk in the streets and where 'everyone' carries a gun for self preservation.

It's easy to preach rights - but it takes guts, honesty and intelligence to confront one's reality. And the gunslingers of the US have neither the honesty, intelligence or moral clarity to resolve this themselves.

In a blog I wrote a couple of years ago commenting critically on some of the weirder US practices, I received a comment that said "Then keep your sorry arse out of the US."

I bet that person owned a gun!

Everyone understands the criticality of nuturing and training our young people. It is obvious that we need an intelligent and capable workforce to ensure that our society continues to function into the future.

At the other end of the scale, not too much thought and effort is applied to keeping the Baby Boomer generation self-sustainable.

This issue promises serious social and economic problems that appear inevitable and should be of serious concern to all of us. BRW on 8/4/13 stated that "over-65s will nearly treble from 8.8 per cent in 1971 to about 21 per cent by 2026 and 28 per cent by 2056."

1. Most Baby Boomers came into the superannuation environment too late. According to APRA, the average superannuation balances a couple of years ago for men aged 60-64 was only $198,235 and only $112, 632 for women - clearly not enough to live on - particularly at today's interest rates.

Inevitably, this will force many/most Baby Boomers onto the pension at some stage. How is a decreasing proportion of tax-payers going to fund a higher proportion of people drawing on the state's resources?

2. To add insult to injury, the Baby Boomers are also getting a really rough deal in their employment environment - if they are lucky enough to be working. The contemporary organisation promotes 'youngsters', (and fair enough too) but ignores or marginalises the mature worker. It is often assumed that the older worker won't stick around, won't or can't learn new skills and is not flexible. In some cases that is certainly true, but it is equally true of some younger workers too.

Today's reality is that the average career changes for the typical worker is six or more times over one's working life. Therefore, the expectation that the current career beginner will stick around long-term is unrealistic in the face of the facts.

Mature workers don't have the career ambitions that the younger generation but are generally more content to do their job and do it well.

3. When it's time to lay off workers, it's the older worker who gets the chop first - and at a time when getting another job is much harder than for the younger worker.

4. And when mature-age applicants with a life-time of experience apply for an advertised position, they don't stand a chance. This is because the people processing the applications are generally younger than the children of the applicants who apply for the position; and they have absolutely no appreciation for experience, mature judgement and an understanding of people.

It is common that people in their late forties, fifties and sixties are in their intellectual prime - and they are being put on a scrap heap.

Time to fight back folks - next time you are considering buying something, ask the vendor what proportion of that company's staff are over fifty. If they don't know or answer with a low number, then take your business to an establishment that values experience and maturity.