Twenty-five years ago, Governor Jim Hunt initiated the annual Emerging Issues Forum focusing on the topic of innovation. This February, the Forum will come full circle as his think-and-do tank, the Institute for Emerging Issues (IEI), prepares for the 25th Annual Forum: Creativity, Inc.

As the IEI began to dive into the topics of innovation and creativity, they quickly found a collaborative partner right in their own backyard. The IEI called on New Kind to bring expertise in collaboration, innovation and design throughout the IEI’s public policy process and especially during the Forum itself.

As always, the Forum will be full of thought-provoking discussions, including presentations from Daniel Pink, best-selling author and expert on innovation and competition, and Bill Strickland, President and CEO of Manchester Bidwell Corporation.

However, in keeping with the spirit of innovation, this year the Forum experience will extend beyond the two days at the Raleigh Convention Center. New Kind and the IEI have developed an online community to promote a statewide exchange of ideas, and are working to establish a Forum alumni network so the conversations begun in Raleigh can continue long after.

New Kind is honored and invigorated by its partnership with the Institute. Together, we will take our discussions and research into action, finding ways to nurture creativity in North Carolina.

In the software development industry the results are in and open source is the winner. As Matt Asay predicts in a recent blog, future dialogues about open source will be less about evangelism and there will be more focus on putting open source into practice.

Which forces us to look, fundamentally, at exactly what we’re putting into practice? Open source software? Or open source itself? What do we mean when we say open source?

At New Kind, we believe that open source is— simply stated—  a beautiful and effective way to scale creative thinking and culture. What is amazing is the rapid acceptance of “open source” beyond software development. Today businesses are looking at open source as a way to create new business models, new management strategies, new marketing, innovation and community-building paradigms.

As we’ve noted before (and will, no doubt continue to note) evangelists in this broader understanding of open source include many of the world’s most influential business thinkers including Gary Hamel, Roger Martin and Tom Peters. Two weeks ago I watched Coke’s VP of Global Branding— David Butler— introduce open source as a powerful branding/design concept to AIGA’s national conference for professional designers. These speakers are not referring to open source software.

But, through the proven success of the open source software development model, in part, they have discovered the competitive power of such creative collaborative, design thinking cultures. And they are advising today’s business leaders to rapidly adopt these new kinds of models across their organizations; internally and externally.

Acceptance will be slow among executives who are just now being introduced to open source creative models. Hamel says they are locked into “archaic beliefs” that must be changed if they are to remain competitive. It took nearly 15 years for the technology acceptance; how long will this take?

The time is now. For organizations where innovation is now a strategic necessity, open source creative cultures are a powerful if frightening alternative to the habitual thinking of analytical-driven, MBA-type cultures. As Martin’s book The Responsibility Virus makes clear, fear is a powerful force that shuts down innovation. Most executives and senior managers have little clue how strongly fear influences their thinking and actions, and the effect that has on the competitive positioning of the organizations they lead.

Open source and design thinking are anecdotes. But there are countless traditional players— individuals and corporations; large and powerful— who have no interest in seeing new competitive threats to their status quo arise. Open source is revolutionary change; landowners seldom start revolutions. These players will not welcome the change open source promises. And they will not play nicely.

Such opposition will look for evidence that open source doesn’t work. To borrow Roger Martin’s language, “reliable” actions will trump more “viable” solutions. When they find ‘reliable’ evidence, they can and will be ruthless adversaries. Open source practitioners must not be naive; evangelism can become a detriment in this environment. Even the Christian Bible (a fair prophet on evangelism) warns, “Faith without works is dead.”

In that context, Matt Asay is correct. Evangelist must begin to play a secondary role to the practitioner. And if Malcolm Gladwell is right, then it takes 10,000 hours for an individual to grasp the nuance and expertise necessary to play that role. That’s a small community of practitioners.

That’s the next challenge for open source.

……………………..

additional resources:

https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/ghost.aspx?ID=/Strategy/Innovation/Innovative_management_A_conversation_between_Gary_Hamel_and_Lowell_Bryan_2065

http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/rogermartin/publications.htm

Hopefully, many of you are aware of a project Matthew Muñoz and I have undertaken with Leslie Boney — www.changepapers.org. In a recent post, one of our readers posted this quote from Machiavelli:

“One should bear in mind that there is nothing more difficult to execute, nor more dubious of success, nor more dangerous to administer than to introduce a new system of things: for he who introduces it has all those who profit from the old system as his enemies, and he has only lukewarm allies in all those who might profit from the new system. (more…)

When I first entered the corporate world five years ago after nearly twenty years of running my own business, I was definitely a fish out of water. As a direct report to the CEO, I participated in many of the most important conversations taking place in the company. Being a designer, I often had points of view rather different from the other executives sitting around the table. Sometimes, after offering such a point, I would find them looking at me like I was insane.

The last two days I’ve posted blogs based on articles in recent editions of MITSloan Management Review and the Harvard Business Review. I thought I would share a sample of the best quotes from these magazines— today I’ll focus on HBR (JULY/AUG 2009); tomorrow I’ll look at the MITSloan. While these thoughts and research-based ideas may be new to the business world, they are not to the design world.

The Big Shift— Measuring the Forces of Change

“One of the easiest but most powerful ways firms can achieve the performance improvements promised by technology is to jettison management’s distinction between “creative talent” and the rest of the organization. All workers can continually improve the performance by engaging in creative problems solving, often by connecting with peers inside and outside the firm.”

from HBR; July/Aug 2009; “Leadership in the New World”

“An executive team on its own can’t find the best solutions. But leadership can generate more leadership deep in the organization.”

“Embrace disequilibrium— keeping people in a state that creates enough discomfort to induce change, but not so much that they fight, flee, or freeze.”

from HBR; July/Aug 2009; “Strategy in the New World: The 10 Trends You Have to Watch”

“Corporate leaders need to demonstrate to civil society that they understand popular and political concerns related to executive compensation, risk management, board oversight, and the treatment of employees facing layoffs.”

Management models “need to incorporate more-realistic version of human behavior— most likely by drawing on behavior economics, becoming more dynamic, and integrating real-world feedback— and… business leaders need to get better at using them.”

Regulation in the New World: Government in Your Business

“The changes afoot have been on the horizon for some time, thanks to long-term trends such as deepening public distrust of business.”

Shareholders First? Not So Fast…

“Why should past labor (capital) receive so much preference over current labor (employees)?”

“Consider that there are literally scores of recent studies showing the gains in profitability and productivity that companies have made— not by putting investors’ interests first but by implementing high-commitment work practices. These include investing in training, decentralizing decision making, and having pay contingent on organizational, not just individual, performance. Other sources show the benefits companies reap from customer loyalty and high levels of customer satisfaction.”

[DB NOTE: I was struck by the use of "high-commitment" rather that "accountability" in the paragraph above. Machine parts need to be "accountable" but innovative organizations thrive via deep personal commitment. Fodder for a future blog]

Restoring America’s Competitiveness

“Corporate management must overhaul its practices and governance structures so the no longer exaggerate the payoffs and discount the dangers of outsourcing production and cutting investments in R&D.”

“Stop blaming Wall Street for short-term behavior… When companies promise to increase returns quarter after quarter, that’s what Wall Street expects. But when they articulate a credible long-term strategy and demonstrate a capacity to execute that strategy, the capital markets have given them the necessary room to achieve it.”

“Managers would serve their companies more wisely by recognizing that informed judgment is a better guide to making such decisions than an analytical model loaded with arbitrary assumptions. There is no way to take the guesswork out of the process.

“Only be rejuvenating its innovative capabilities can America return to a path of sustainable growth.”

Sane or insane? You decide. More tomorrow…

I wanted to share a recent article from the influential design blog Core77 that adds New Kind to a growing list of influential regional design groups building on the efforts of the U.S. National Design Policy Initiative (NDPI).

On a state and regional level, independent design groups seek to address the lack of federal funding for design- and innovation-based initiatives. One goal, among many, is to give young designers access to resources so they can create and innovate — seems elementary, but these resources have been sorely lacking to date.

In early 2008, Matt Muñoz traveled to Europe with MASS LBP Principal Peter MacLeod, visiting think tanks Demos and Involve, as well as design organizations Participle and Kaospilots, among others. While there, he saw first hand the support young thinkers receive in countries like England and Denmark, where national programs provide funding and infrastructure to emerging ideas and talent. Muñoz and partner David Burney were inspired by this level of commitment to design and innovation, one thread which compelled the formation of New Kind in 2008.

In her article, Lisa Smith of Core77 writes that companies like New Kind, Design Industry Group of Massachusetts (DIGMA) and Design West Michigan “seek to organize state officials, design industry leadership, and educational institutions to promote design as an agent of economic growth and social change in those regions.” Hear, hear!

Beate Becker, Founding Director of DIGMA, invited Muñoz to attend the launch in Boston this summer, and he hopes that an ongoing conversation between groups like New Kind and DIGMA, the first state-level design industry group, will help lay the groundwork for effecting change on a regional level.

Smith’s Core77 article provided insight into the challenges and opportunities facing the changing landscape of design. Through her efforts with the Chicago-based Object Design League, Smith and co-founder Caroline Linder embody this new way of thinking about design and collaboration. New Kind is honored to be mentioned alongside such inspirational groups.

This blog has been too idle too long.

I’ve been reading the book Iconoclast: A Neuroscientist Reveals How to Think Differently written by Emory professor of neuroeconomics, Gregory Berns. Berns uses brain-scanning technologies to explain the decision-making process of human minds. As such he is a highly respected researcher and speaker on the science of innovation.

According to his publicist, his book asks these questions:
+   what makes true innovators so creative, so successful — and so rare?
+   what makes them tick?
+   how can we learn to be a little more like them?’

Here’s more from Berns’ publicist:
Gregory Berns is the Distinguished Chair of Neuroeconomics at Emory University, where he is a professor in the departments of Psychiatry and Economics, and at the Gouzueta Business School. The field he has helped put on the map, Neuroeconomics, is, fittingly, a blend of neuroscience, economics and psychology. In his work, he is breaking ground in everything from the biological roots of political conflict to predicting which teenagers are likely to make fatally bad judgments. Even better, he possesses a rare ability to translate dense technical material for a general audience. He has been profiled — and his work has been ecstatically reviewed — in The New York Times, Forbes and The Wall Street Journal, as well as other leading business and science publications. In addition to Iconoclast: A Neuroscientist Reveals How to Think Differently, he is also the author of Satisfaction: The Science of Finding True Fulfillment.

I’m digging the book. Great research and surprising observations. It will sit proudly on my shelf next to the books of Roger Martin, Gary Hamel, and Rollo May’s classic The Courage to Create. Well written and funny. Here are a few of my favorite lines:

“This is a story of the search for the holy grail of creativity,
an almost childlike imagination and willful abandonment to dream crazy thoughts.”

“Before one can muster the strength to tear down conventional thinking,
one must first imagine the possibility that conventional thinking is wrong.”

“The brain is fundamentally a lazy piece of meat.” You gotta love that.

“The brain takes shortcuts whenever it can.” Well, that would explain a lot, wouldn’t it.

Business leaders looking to compete by being more innovative would do well to read and follow the professor’s advice. Or they could ask an  artist or designer who’s experienced in managing creative teams.

Some historians don’t like using the term ‘revolution’ when discussing the Industrial Age. Their point is that the transitions between Ages was more evolutionary. Chronologically speaking, I agree with this point of view. But I still prefer the term revolution as it refers to the social effects humans experienced.

With change came an unwritten contract. As people accepted the idea of spending their lives doing machine-like work, their expectations for security grew. Increased power of the worker manifested itself in the form of unions. And over a few hundred years of ardent and often violent interaction, advances on the behalf of the Industrial Age’s laborers continued to improve the workers’ standard of living. Businesses did pretty well too, history shows.

It became easier for individuals to accept the sacrifices of personal freedom. Over time, workers began to feel loyalty to many of the companies who employed them. Thirty and forty year careers with one company became common. Good paying jobs and benefits created safe families and opportunities to better the lives of future generations. Children and grandchildren often looked to follow their parents into the same companies, trusting in the status quo.

But a funny thing happened on the road to efficiency and productivity. Labor unions drove great improvements. But power corrupts. Labor unions were no exception. Soon, one ‘top-down’ boss was replaced by another. The influence of labor unions quickly began to wither.

In 1981, when newly inaugurated president Ronald Reagan fired every striking air traffic controller across the nation, the death knell rang. Corporations began in earnest to redraw the lines. They increased pressure on unions by moving jobs off shore.  As mothers entered the work force in far greater numbers they added substantially to their families’ fortune thereby postponing the real experience such consequences bring. But the writing was on the wall.

Today, the consequences are plain and painful. Mathematics proves that changing one side of an equation necessitates an equal change on the other side. Working conditions— where work still exists— have declined. Yet, over the past 28 years, executive compensation increased from 40 times the pay of the average worker to more than 360 times the pay of average workers by 2007. No one should be surprised that employees are less loyal than they were a generation ago.

While the power of well-organized unions has greatly diminished, workers are now discovering the power of networked associations. Bottoms up. Transparent. Authentic. Power is spread between groups and individuals alike. Nimble. Immediate. Scalable. Regardless of how you label it, we live in a new and equally revolutionary Age. Loyalty to any big power is dead.

‘Engagement’ is the new word. If you believe in meaningful data, take a look at the work Gallup has done in this area. Gallup presents a new kind thinking aimed at the most relevant business management practices for today’s work forces. It is non-intuitive to most current corporate leaders and managers. One key survey question they ask of workers is “do you have a best friend at work?’ The answer is a key indicator of corporate success.

They’ve titled their thinking Human Sigma. Here are the five basic principles:

* Employee and customer experiences must be managed together — not as separate entities.
* Emotions drive and shape the employee-customer encounter.
* The employee-customer encounter must be measured and managed at the local level.
* Employee and customer engagement interact to drive enhanced financial performance. This interaction can be quantified and summarized with a single performance metric.
* Sustainable improvement in the employee-customer encounter requires disciplined local action coupled with a company-wide commitment to changing how employees are recruited, positioned in roles, rewarded and recognized, and importantly, how they are managed.

When the media is the message and your company must be innovative to compete, any leadership discussion of loyalty will be viewed as propoganda. That includes ‘accountability’ and ‘responsibility’ and ‘commitment.’ If it is not transparent that these conversations are two-way processes, then leaders and managers who try to force these messages will lose credibility and relevance.

Loyalty is dead. Love live engagement. Thanks Gallup.