Leadership

Purpose is Good. Shared Purpose is Better

Companies are turning to “purpose” and “authenticity” as a way to engage consumers and employees. But it’s hard enough to find a purpose in life if you’re an individual, let alone an entire company. And being authentic is a bit like being cool — sometimes the harder you try, the less you are.

So what’s a leader to do?

The first step is to recognize that there are different kinds of purpose. Sometimes purpose is about values — who you are and what you stand for. Other times it is about value — what you do and how it benefits others.

The ultimate goal would seem to be having your values and value aligned: have what you do reflect who you are, have what you stand for guide what you make, and have your value to the community enhance your value to customers and shareholders.

This goal is of aligning values and value is espoused by many eminent leaders, from Jim Stengel to Bill George. It’s a core tenet in the field of corporate social responsibility.

But in a social age, this kind of purpose isn’t enough. The problem comes down to a simple preposition. Most leaders think of purpose as a purpose for. But what is needed is a purpose with.

Customers are no longer just consumers; they’re co-creators. They aren’t just passive members of an audience; they are active members of a community. They want to be a part of something; to belong; to influence; to engage. It’s not enough that they feel good about your purpose. They want it to be their purpose too. They don’t want to be at the other end of your for. They want to be right there with you. Purpose needs to be shared.

To understand the power of shared purpose, it’s useful to look at the mission statements of leading companies. To be clear, I’m not equating mission statements with company purpose. But they illustrate the point, and in fact are remarkably representative of the differences between the companies. So with that caveat, let’s look at our first mission statements from Adidas and Nike:

Adidas: The adidas Group strives to be the global leader in the sporting goods industry with brands built on a passion for sports and a sporting lifestyle.

Nike: To bring inspiration and innovation to every athlete* in the world.

*”If you have a body, you are an athlete.”

Notice how you respond to each statement. Which one do you feel more a part of, regardless of whether you are a customer or shareholder? Adidas puts the emphasis on value and values. But Nike goes further, addressing not only people’s interests but their sense of who they are. Adidas is for, while Nike is with.

Let’s look at another example, this time between Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts.

Dunkin Donuts: Make and serve the freshest, most delicious coffee and donuts quickly and courteously in modern, well-merchandised stores.

Starbucks: Our mission: to inspire and nurture the human spirit — one person, one cup and one neighborhood at a time.

Dunkin Donuts’ purpose is clearly for customers, and it delivers on this purpose exceedingly well. But there is something different about Starbucks’ purpose. It is a purpose that is achieved with its customers.

Again, mission statements don’t always reflect a company’s true purpose. But in these cases, I think you would agree that they are fairly accurate representations of the company’s approach to the market, its engagement with customers, and its perception as an “authentic” brand.

The relationship of shared purpose to corporate social responsibility is worth exploring a bit further, this time by comparing Pepsi and Coca-Cola. Under the label “Performance with Purpose,” Pepsi has declared both a mission and a vision.

Mission: Our mission is to be the world’s premier consumer products company focused on convenient foods and beverages.

Vision: PepsiCo’s responsibility is to continually improve all aspects of the world in which we operate — environment, social, economic — creating a better tomorrow than today.

This is a perfect example of a “Values and Value” approach to purpose. The vision covers values, and the mission covers value. But something is missing. There is no shared purpose here. Nothing for people to participate in, belong to, engage with, co-create, or share with others that aligns the commercial side of the business with social responsibility.

By contrast, Coca-Cola has declared as its mission:

To refresh the world…
To inspire moments of optimism and happiness…
To create value and make a difference.

While the third line is a bit generic, the first two lay a stronger foundation for a shared purpose. It is perhaps no coincidence that Nike, Starbucks, and Coca-Cola all feature the word inspiration in their mission statements. You can’t inspire someone without their participation and engagement.

How can you create your own shared purpose? It’s simple, but not easy. The essential question is:

What is the shared purpose that …

a) We and our customers can work on together?
b) Is a natural expression of who we are and what we stand for?
c) Connects how we make money with how we contribute to the world?

When you apply this lens to the brand we have covered here, you can see how Nike, Starbucks, and Coca-Cola pass the test. Nike to inspire the athlete in all of us. Starbucks to nurture the human spirit. And Coca-Cola to refresh the world with moments of optimism and happiness
.
As you formulate your shared purpose, don’t go for what you think it should be. Look for who you already are. How you already connect with your customers. What your fans already say about you.

Remember, this is not something you are going to do to them, or for them, but withthem. It’s a journey you will be on together, hopefully for a very long time.


Mark Bonchek is the Founder and CEO (Chief Epiphany Officer) of Shift Thinking. He works with leaders and organizations to update their thinking for a digital age. Sign up for the Causeit, Inc. newsletter and follow Mark on Twitter at @MarkBonchek.


Originally appeared on Harvard Business Review. Reproduced with permission from the author.

Can Bigger Be Faster?

In nature, there’s a tradeoff between size and speed. Whales are slow. Birds are fast. But organizations today need to be big and fast. Is it possible? Can organizations be both agile and scalable?

There’s some good news. Science is revealing that biology doesn’t have to rule the marketplace. And new models of leadership are emerging from some unlikely places.

First, the science. Professor Geoffrey West from the Sante Fe Institute has shown that in biology, bigger does have its advantages. Whales are more efficient and live longer than birds. But they are also slower and less adaptive. Economies of scale give efficiency, but not speed or resilience.

Cities, by contrast, get better and faster as they get bigger. Large cities have higher income, lower crime rates, and more rapid innovation. People even walk faster in bigger cities.

The reason is networks. Bio-mechanical systems get more efficient as they get bigger, but they also slow down and become less adaptive. Networks, on the other hand, become more versatile and creative. The brain has this characteristic. So do social systems like cities and communities. And virtual communities like Facebook or Twitter.

But what about organizations? Are they more like cities or whales? Communities or machines? In his research, West found that companies today behave more like whales and machines. The pursuit of economies of scale has led to efficiencies, but also a loss of speed and agility.

The good news is that there’s no reason companies can’t be more like communities. After all, companies are social networks too. It’s just that we haven’t been running them that way.

To get bigger and faster, organizations need to be reconceived as networks. But how? The appeal of the status quo is overwhelming for many. The hierarchical models of the 20th Century are safe, dependable, and comfortable for leaders and investors alike. Networks sound unpredictable — good for creating social groups, but bad for large organizations that need to make disciplined decisions.

Outside of startups and tech firms in Silicon Valley, are there any role models to emulate?

One answer comes from an unlikely place: the U.S military. Perhaps the most whale-like organization in the world. There is no greater hierarchy in the world than within the five sides of the Pentagon. Yet inside this massive structure is a surprising amount of innovation in the area of organizational design and decision-making.

As we have written previously, the events of 9/11 led the U.S. military to realize that “it takes a network to defeat a network.” The new enemy was a light, agile, and rapidly evolving network. The hierarchical models of post-cold war design were no longer sufficient. Our military was big, and now it had to be fast.

The thought-leaders of this change within the military reconceived the organizational relationships as network-based, versus the traditional hierarchies of the past. They developed a new model that enabled the military to use its size — and its extended network of relationships — as an advantage rather than an impediment.

Four strategies were at the core of this transformation: build relationships, establish shared purpose, create shared consciousness, and foster diversity.

(1) Build relationships
In network terms, relationships are connections between nodes. When viewed as a network, hierarchies have a relatively sparse number of connections. Each individual only has relationships with his or her boss, peers, and direct reports. So the first step is to build more relationships and connections. This change first developed inside the special operations community whose leaders faced the reality of being out-paced by a new type of networked challenger in Al Qaeda, and therefore focused on building the density and diversity of their own friendly network. They orchestrated an unprecedented level of interagency collaboration across organizations that previously had never worked together — a model often referred to as the “team of teams.”

(2) Establish shared purpose
To build relationships, it’s not enough to hold offsites and call bigger meetings. People need a reason to work together — a reason that simultaneously addresses the interests of all stakeholders: customers, community, investors, and employees. In Iraq, the shared purpose was rebuilding a nation on principles of freedom and self-determination. As General Stan McChrystal, one of the leaders of the military’s move to networks, said in a recent TED Talk: “Instead of giving orders, you’re now building consensus and you’re building a sense of shared purpose.”

(3) Create shared consciousness
To get where you are going, you first have to know where you are. Shared consciousness ensures that everyone across the network has a sense of where they are and is acting on the best available information. The formation of “intelligence fusion teams” created unprecedented levels of collaboration between a broad array of military units and many civilian organizations, accelerating the flow of information across the network. These globally dispersed teams were constantly connected and became the epicenter for creating shared consciousness. They gathered data from across the network, then pushed out the information to whomever was best positioned to take swift and effective action.

(4) Encourage dissent
In a hierarchy, obedience is a virtue. In a network, it is a vice. Conformity creates groupthink, stifling innovation and organizational resilience. The antidote is cultural diversity in all its forms: experience, gender, age, ethnicity, geography, profession, etc. The new military-interagency collaboration created an environment in which dissent was not only tolerated, but encouraged. Instead of being chastised for expressing a contrary or unpopular view, team members were reprimanded for withholding it. Individuals were incentivized to present counterpoints, and leaders worked diligently to ensure the environment was safe for the free exchange of ideas.

This new approach turned traditional war-fighting upside down and inside out. Instead of centralizing command and control at the top, information and autonomy was aggressively pushed to decision-makers in the field. Decentralize to the edge of discomfort became the mantra of many of these organizations — setting the conditions for rapid and focused action.

Motivated by a shared purpose and aligned by shared consciousness, the network became denser, more diverse, and more intelligent. The result was unprecedented speed, resilience, and effectiveness — even while surrounded by the chaos of war. Bigger no longer meant slower, and network no longer meant unpredictable.

If the Pentagon could turn itself from a whale into a city, so too can a large corporation. Most companies embody leadership and organizational models created at the turn of the 20th century. Back then, the goal was size not speed, and the challenge was coordination not complexity. We live in a different time and we need new models to enable us to get bigger and faster. We need our leaders to be more like mayors than generals, building relationships instead of issuing orders. If our generals can make the change, so too can our business leaders.


Mark Bonchek is the Founder and CEO (Chief Epiphany Officer) of Shift Thinking. He works with leaders and organizations to update their thinking for a digital age. Sign up for the Causeit, Inc. newsletter and follow Mark on Twitter at @MarkBonchek.

Chris Fussell is a director at McChrystal Group. Follow him on Twitter at @mcchrystalgroup.


Originally appeared on Harvard Business Review. Reproduced with permission from the author.

How Leaders Can Let Go Without Losing Control

Massive flocks of starlings, known as murmurations, exhibit a rare combination of speed and scale. The birds coordinate themselves with remarkable agility to find food and avoid attacks. Schools of fish do the same.

What’s noteworthy in these murmurations is the lack of a leader. Instead, each bird follows three simple rules: (1) move to the center, (2) follow your neighbor, and (3) don’t collide. The rules enable each bird to act independently while ensuring the group acts cohesively.

Every organization today wants to achieve both alignment and autonomy. Can what works for birds and fish also work for people? The answer comes from a surprising place: the battlefield.

Over centuries, the military has developed an approach to managing “the fog of war.” Generals need to ensure alignment to the strategy, while soldiers need autonomy to respond to changing conditions. The military’s solution has two parts:

  • Commander’s Intent declares the purpose of an operation and the conditions for success.
  • Doctrine determines how soldiers make decisions towards the fulfillment of that purpose.

The formal definition of doctrine is important: “Fundamental principles by which the military forces guide their actions in support of objectives. It is authoritative but requires judgment in application.”

For a flock of birds, the intent is to reach their breeding grounds. This means finding food, staying on course, and staying alive. The three simple rules are the doctrine for the flock. They don’t tell the bird which way to go, but rather guide them on what action to take (move to the center, follow one’s neighbor). In terms of doctrine they are the “principles [that] guide actions in support of objectives.”

We can find doctrine in other places besides the battlefield, namely constitutional democracies. For example, in the U.S., the Declaration of Independence describes an intent of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” There are also numerous laws, rules, and regulations that specify what citizens can and can’t do. In between, the Constitution serves as doctrine. It is “authoritative but requires judgment in application.” In fact, an entire branch of government is tasked with its interpretation and application.

Turning to business, we find doctrine to be noticeably missing. Every organization has its mission, goals, and strategies to tell people where to go. They also have rules, policies, and procedures that tell people what to do. But few organizations have comprehensive, communicated, and contextualized doctrine to empower decision-making across the organization.

Without doctrine, it’s impossible for managers to let go without losing control. Instead, leaders must rely on active oversight and supervision. The opportunity is to replace processes that control behavior with principles that empower decision-making.

Although rare, there are companies that have made the shift from process to principles-based management. Wikipedia has its five pillars. Red Hat has embraced open source principles. Visa was designed to achieve both chaos and order. Google has its nine principles of innovation. And Amazon has its own leadership principles.

Amazon says of its leadership principles: “Our Leadership Principles aren’t just a pretty inspirational wall hanging. These Principles work hard, just like we do. Amazonians use them, every day, whether they’re discussing ideas for new projects, deciding on the best solution for a customer’s problem, or interviewing candidates.” Good decision principles help people make everyday decisions in diverse settings.

It’s important to know the difference between values, goals, and decision principles: Values are what’s important to you. Goals are what you want to see in the world. Principles are what help you make decisions. So “Frugality” is a value. “Saving money” is a goal. “Spend others’ money like your own” is a principle.

One difference between values and principles is their specificity. Principles can “nest” inside other principles, like Russian dolls. Amazon has a fundamental principle of “Customer Obsession” and working backwards from the customer. This means different things for product development, marketing, and customer service. Wikipedia has specific principles for authors that nest inside the more general five pillars. The Agile Software movement has general principles that apply universally, and specific principles for practices like Kanban and scrum.

Be aware that the shift to doctrine and principles-based management is more than a tactic. It’s a new way of thinking about management. Instead of making decisions forothers, or delegating those decisions to others, it’s creating principles with others that enable them to make decisions for themselves. It’s a distributed governance model for networked organizations.

Current, a digital power service from GE, is on this journey. Like many other companies, Current saw the need to evolve its company culture. They defined their values, put them in behavioral terms, and built them into systems & structures. But as Bethany Napoli, global head of HR for Current says, “the action rested on the shoulders of leadership to implement. We were left with a system that measured what leadership defined as the ‘right’ way to behave.”

Current wanted a culture that could move faster and support exponential growth. So they shifted their focus from values and behaviors to cultural tenets and decision principles. According to Bethany, “The very act of creating the tenets and associated decision principles is what creates the promise of real and organic culture change. We are on a path to change from the typical pattern of creating culture by defining attributes and managing them through systems and structures to organically building it through dialog, empowerment, and engagement.”

To get started on the journey, take these steps:

  1. Purpose: Re-examine your mission. Is it truly a shared purpose? Do you have a narrative that explains how that purpose will be fulfilled?
  2. Principles: Start with your existing values. Transform them into decision principles. Then find real-world decisions and reverse engineer the most effective principles.
  3. Catalysts: Find internal catalysts who can help evolve the principles and help people apply them to daily decisions. Connect the catalysts to learn together.

Keep in mind that this is an iterative process. When decisions are made that don’t align with the mission or strategy, take a look at the situation. It might be that the person is responsible. But chances are you are simply missing the right principles and need to create some new doctrine. The goal is to manage principles more than people.

By creating the missing layer of decision principles, leaders have an opportunity to let go without losing control, and to add structure without losing speed. It’s a way to transcend the tradeoff between alignment and autonomy and to create a culture based on principles over process. It works for birds, fish, and soldiers. Maybe it’s time to give it a try for companies too.


Mark Bonchek is the Founder and CEO (Chief Epiphany Officer) of Shift Thinking. He works with leaders and organizations to update their thinking for a digital age. Sign up for the Causeit, Inc. newsletter and follow Mark on Twitter at @MarkBonchek.


Originally appeared on Harvard Business Review. Reproduced with permission from the author.

Use Doctrine to Pierce the Fog of Business

The “fog of war” describes the uncertainty faced by soldiers in the field of battle. In today’s markets, business leaders face a similar challenge: how to pierce through the “the fog of business.”

The traditional tools of management — strategy and planning — are no longer sufficient. Strategy and planning are like high beams on a car; they just bounce off the fog. Strategy doesn’t give employees enough guidance to know how to take action, and plans are too rigid to adapt to changing circumstances. In rapidly changing environments, you need fog lights to get closer to the ground.

Business leaders recognize the importance of pushing decision-making down the organization and out to the front line. But delegation can lead to invisibility, inconsistency and even chaos. When driving, fog lights work best when there are lines on the road to follow. Similarly, leaders must create mechanisms that keep everyone aligned to the mission and coordinated in the field.

Doctrine is the military’s mechanism for managing the fog of war, pushing decision-making closer to the ground while providing the lines to guide decision-making and action. Doctrine creates the common framework of understanding inside of which individuals can make rapid decisions that are right for their circumstances. We believe doctrine offers a powerful model for executives looking to pierce the fog of business and find new ways of exerting influence without centralized control.

NATO defines doctrine as “Fundamental principles by which the military forces guide their actions in support of objectives. It is authoritative but requires judgment in application.” If strategy defines objectives, and plans prescribe behavior, then doctrine guides decisions.

Consider one example from U.S. Special Operations teams trying to get the most use out of their helicopters, assets with high demand and limited supply. One approach would be to centralize all of these decisions, but that would be too slow. Another would be to have a computer automate the process, but there would be no way to feed enough data into the system in real time. So Special Operations went with a third option … let the human network figure it out and create solutions.

This network became the fog lights, pushing decision-making closer to the ground. But how to ensure the human network made the right decisions? What were the lines to paint on the road?

Military leadership created a common doctrine to frame the organization’s understanding of how helicopters would and wouldn’t be employed, their range, their maximum load capacity, their refueling requirements, etc. With these principles and shared understanding, the network could quickly coordinate across silos and create collaborative solutions.

One of the most powerful qualities of doctrine is its scalability. Like a Russian matryoshka doll, doctrine can be nested inside other doctrine. For example, the doctrine related to helicopters is nested inside doctrine related to the military’s network-centric approach to warfighting. This higher-level doctrine has four core tenets:

 A robustly networked force improves information sharing;
 Information sharing enhances the quality of information and shared situational awareness;
 Shared situational awareness enables collaboration and self-synchronization, and enhances sustainability and speed of command; and
 These, in turn, dramatically increase mission effectiveness.

One can see how the distributed approach to managing helicopters flowed from this higher level doctrine, especially in how to achieve self-synchronization. Doctrine provided the many units spread around the battlefield with a shared framework in which they could operate. Units were free to move and take action within that framework. In turn, results were fed back to leaders, who evolved the doctrine to improve performance, enabling a true learning organization.

The media company TED would seem to have little in common with Special Forces units in Iraq. But in fact, TED’s approach to scalable growth echoes the same doctrine-based approach.

Founded in 1984 by Richard Saul Wurman, TED became famous for its exclusive conferences and compelling talks. The world discovered TED when Chris Anderson posted videos of the talks online. But how to give more people the experience of TED events, not just the content? The solution was TEDx, which launched in 2008 to extend the TED mission of “ideas worth spreading.” In only a few years, TEDx has grown to 1,300 events in 134 countries with only a handful of employees.

What most people don’t know is that TED has no direct control over TEDx events. Instead, TED authorizes and empowers local organizers to create TED-like events in their own communities. How does TED ensure consistency instead of chaos? With what amounts to doctrine.

On its web site, TED publishes clear guidelines for organizers on how to run a TEDx event:

1. RULES, e.g. “Your event must maintain the spirit of TED itself: multidisciplinary, focused on the power of ideas to change attitudes, lives and ultimately, the world.”
2. RESPONSIBILITIES, e.g. “Early on, you’ll need to decide who your event is for: Work colleagues? Friends? Kids? This decision will help guide all the decisions that follow.”
3. RESOURCES: Best practices from the community on designing, promoting, and sponsoring TEDx events

These guidelines are consistent with the definition of doctrine: “Fundamental principles by which [TEDx organizers] guide their actions in support of objectives.” These principles are “authoritative but require judgment in application.” As another sign of the doctrine-based approach, TED recently had a problem with some of the TEDx events. Rather than step in to micromanage, they clarified and reinforced the doctrine.

How can you apply doctrine to your company?

1. See where you might already have some elements of doctrine. Do you have principles that guide decision-making throughout the organization? Sometimes these are informal precepts that are passed along as part of the culture. Other times they get codified, as Reed Hastings did for Netflix.

2. Identify areas conducive to doctrine-based approaches. It might be where the front line is calling for more authority, but where you are afraid to give up control. Or where centralized operations can’t keep up with the amount of information or the variety of local conditions (as in the case of the helicopters.)

3. Involve your broader team in creating the doctrine. When the military rewrote its doctrine on counter-insurgency, it brought together a cross-functional team of soldiers, civilians, experts and leaders while gathering feedback from hundreds of front-line personnel. When IBM rewrote its values, it engaged 50,000 employees around the world.

4. When developing doctrine, focus on principles not policies. Don’t be too specific in telling people what to do, but also not so broad that it doesn’t help them make the right decision. What information do you need from them, and what information do they need from you, in order to create rapid, independent, and effective action?

One way to put these steps into practice is to convene a “Constitutional Convention.”

After all, a constitution is essentially doctrine for democracy, providing the enduring principles by which to govern a nation. The Agile software movement started with such a gathering.

Ultimately, good doctrine becomes embedded in the culture. Touring a command post in Baghdad, a general came across this sign: “In the absence of guidance or orders, determine what they should have been and execute aggressively.” Good doctrine provides the empowerment, autonomy, and direction to make this not only possible, but effective. For business leaders operating in fast-moving and uncertain environments, doctrine dispels the fog of business.


Mark Bonchek is the Founder and CEO (Chief Epiphany Officer) of Shift Thinking. He works with leaders and organizations to update their thinking for a digital age. Sign up for the Causeit, Inc. newsletter and follow Mark on Twitter at @MarkBonchek.

Chris Fussell is a director at McChrystal Group. Follow him on Twitter at @mcchrystalgroup.


Originally appeared on Harvard Business Review. Reproduced with permission from the author.

Mark Bonchek Talks Doctrine and Decision-Making

Mark Bonchek Talks Doctrine and Decision-Making

Mark Bonchek describes how organizations can use decision principles to empower employees to take action that is both timely and aligned with the organization's principles.

Creating Cultures of Innovation— A Perspective from the Heart

Creating Cultures of Innovation— A Perspective from the Heart

Emotional intelligence is a real, and really important, factor at play in any business which employs and serves human beings. Leaders are learning how to leverage the impact that emotional intelligence—sometimes called “soft skills”—has in business, from individual careers to organizational culture. Articles on the subject are no longer relegated to fringe publications or social sciences, in fact mainstream business journals like ForbesHarvard Business Review, and FastCompany have been talking about it for several years. The thriving conscious capitalism movement, the emergence of B Corps , and sold-out conferences like Wisdom 2.0 are all further evidence that more and more professionals and companies are taking the human element of business very seriously. This means that not only is the industrial age model of treating people like machines an outdated one, but companies who aren’t engaged with their employees and customers on a human level are at a competitive disadvantage in an increasingly networked world.

Teams of Lone Wolves

Teams of Lone Wolves

I first started conceiving of misfits and misfit teams when I began to reflect on my own employment process. As an unusual, "over"-sensitive and intelligent kid with no siblings, I often balked at oversimplified directions, experienced a bruised ego when receiving criticism, and struggled with how to participate in team or group environments. By the time I entered the workforce, I had developed a complex web of insecurities and related defenses designed to protect against the embarrassment of making public mistakes, compensating with my intelligence. It was in my first management position, which happened at about the same time I was engaging in lot of personal development work, that I really saw the impact. 

Healing the Wounds of the Assembly Line with Feedback Loops and Doctrine

Healing the Wounds of the Assembly Line with Feedback Loops and Doctrine

Often, the focus on the ideal of the cross-functional, interdisciplinary, extroverted worker results in questions being asked which the average employee is insufficiently skilled to answer. In her book Quiet, Susan Cain cites the example of one of her research technical interviewees' recollection of a 'murder board,' a panel of decision-makers whom engineers had to face in order to get their new ideas considered for funding and other resources. One can imagine a hard-faced panel of besuited men tearing down the brilliant if meek engineer with the smug expressions of a young MBA grad: "What's your marketing plan!," they might shout, "

Autonomy and Acceptable Failures: The Need for Doctrine

Autonomy and Acceptable Failures: The Need for Doctrine

Autonomy, especially in and around U.S. businesses, is a tricky concept. Autonomy is valued very highly in our culture, but the challenge of finding a way to hand off acceptable amounts of control takes a lot more work than most leaders or employees realize. Few companies have the patience or budget for mistakes which occur when a more-autonomous goes wrong, so they choose not to grant autonomy in the first place, or revoke it at the first sign of trouble. Understandably, the constant conflict of employees who need autonomy and leaders who need accountability plagues most organizations. 

First Steps to Doctrine: the Example of Moore's Cloud Business Principles

First Steps to Doctrine: the Example of Moore's Cloud Business Principles

For an example of a fluid progression from values to high-level beginnings of doctrine, consider this published set of business principles from Moore's Cloud, a "smart light" startup based in Australia. Their founder, Mark Pesce, explained that the intent of these principles was both internal and external, being used both to inform internal daily decision-making and to filter (attract or repel) investors by explicitly stating the company's commitment to open ecosystems and transparent business practice. By 'downloading' individuals decision-making guides from key leaders in the organization and then 'uploading' them to the business's guiding source code, Moore's Cloud has reduced huge amounts of unnecessary

Doctrine: Downloading Wisdom for Agility and Effective Improvisation

Doctrine sits in between strategy and plans. It is more specific than the strategy, but also more versatile than plans, or rules. Think of it as heuristics, or guidelines: the purpose of doctrine is to enable an individual to know what to do in a situation that's consistent with the strategy and achieves the objectives of a plan, but with flexibility, with autonomy, for the individual, in the circumstance. And the creation of effective business doctrine, I believe is going to be critical for the transition of business in the next century.

The Shift from Push to Pull: Creating an Orbit

The Shift from Push to Pull: Creating an Orbit

One of the greatest shifts we're seeing today is a shift from push to pull. We're in a world now where our customers and our employees don't need us the way that they used to. It used to be that we needed to advertise, we needed to promote, we needed to push information out to people, so that they knew who we are, what we sell, why they should buy from us

Caring: The Missing Ingredient

I think the biggest missing ingredient for leaders is caring. At some point along the line, they stop caring—about their teams, about the company, about their customers, and it becomes a matter of just executing actions. I think when leaders reconnect with why they're doing what they're doing, the difference that it makes in the world and allow themselves to open their mind and their heart and take action based on those, that's when things really start to happen. Because it becomes inviting to people. That's what becomes open and transparent.

Creatives, Non-Linear Thinkers and So-Called Misfits

I was recently asked to weigh in on how to support the creative worker. It's a broad, almost-impossible question: how does one even begin to categorize such a person? So I chose to respond by focusing on the elements of the workplace which enable creativity, both culturally and structurally, to support the rise of good ideas and ease for those bringing good ideas to light. 

Social Enterprise as a Listening Tool

Social Enterprise as a Listening Tool

And what I would say is that there is a unique opportunity right now for companies to, as a first step, to start to embrace the social enterprise—because what that does is that gets the value of the human component quantified, and from there we start to make decisions, we start to put in structures that are not 100% based on just what the profit and revenue growth are. Those things become an end, an outcome.