Innovation Journey: Cargill’s Framework for Innovation Promotion
Dr. Vicki Hargrove, Sr. Consultant &
Michael Dockham, Business Application Technologies Manager, Cargill, Inc
Various musings on leadership, innovation & entrepreneurship.
Dr. Vicki Hargrove, Sr. Consultant &
Michael Dockham, Business Application Technologies Manager, Cargill, Inc
Built to Last identifies 18 "visionary" companies and sets out to determine what's special about them. To get on the list, a company had to be world famous, have a stellar brand image, and be at least 50 years old. We're talking about companies that even a layperson knows to be, well, different: the Disneys, the Wal-Marts, the Mercks.
Whatever the key to the success of these companies, the key to the success of this book is that the authors don't waste time comparing them to business failures. Instead, they use a control group of "successful-but-second-rank" companies to highlight what's special about their 18 "visionary" picks. Thus Disney is compared to Columbia Pictures, Ford to GM, Hewlett Packard to Texas Instruments, and so on.
The core myth, according to the authors, is that visionary companies must start with a great product and be pushed into the future by charismatic leaders. There are examples of that pattern, they admit: Johnson & Johnson, for one. But there are also just too many counterexamples--in fact, the majority of the "visionary" companies, including giants like 3M, Sony, and TI, don't fit the model. They were characterized by total lack of an initial business plan or key idea and by remarkably self-effacing leaders. Collins and Porras are much more impressed with something else they shared: an almost cult-like devotion to a "core ideology" or identity, and active indoctrination of employees into "ideologically commitment" to the company.
The comparison with the business "B"-team does tend to raise a significant methodological problem: which companies are to be counted as "visionary" in the first place? There's an air of circularity here, as if you achieve "visionary" status by ... achieving visionary status. So many roads lead to Rome that the book is less practical than it might appear. But that's exactly the point of an eloquent chapter on 3M. This wildly successful company had no master plan, little structure, and no prima donnas. Instead it had an atmosphere in which bright people were both keen to see the company succeed and unafraid to "try a lot of stuff and keep what works." --Richard FarrIntelligence, imagination, and knowledge are essential resources, but only effectiveness converts them into results.
Productivity for the knowledge worker means the ability to get the right things done. It means effectiveness.
Assumption is that effectiveness can be learned and that is my over-arching goal, to become more effective.
1. Know Where My Time Goes
Effective executives know where their time goes. They work systematically at managing the little of their time that can brought under their control.
2. Focus on Outward Contribution
Effective executives focus on outward contribution. They gear their efforts to results rather than to work. They start out with the question, “What results are expected of me?” rather than with the work to be done, let alone with its techniques and tools.
3. Build on My Strengths
Effective executives build on strengths – their own strengths, the strengths of their superiors, colleagues, and subordinates; and on the strengths in the situation, that is, on what they can do. They do not build on weakness. They do not start out with the things they cannot do.
4. Concentrate on Areas Where Superior Performance Will Produce Outstanding Results
Effective executives concentrate on the few major areas where superior performance will produce outstanding results. They force themselves to set priorities and stay with their priority decisions. They know that they have no choice but to do first things first – and second things not at all. The alternative is to get nothing done.
5. Effective Decisions
Effective executives, finally, make effective decisions. They know that this is, above all, a matter of system – of the right steps in the right sequence. They know that an effective decision is always a judgment based on “dissenting opinions” rather than on “consensus on facts.” And they know that to make many decisions fast means to make the wrong decisions. What is needed are few, but fundamental, decisions. What is needed is the right strategy rather than razzle-dazzle tactics.
Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles
Peter F. Drucker
According to Drucker, the essential purpose of a business is to create a customer. To this end, only marketing and innovation can produce results; all other activities are simply part of the cost of doing business.
The Practice of Innovation: Innovation is the specific tool of entrepreneurs, the means by which they exploit change as an opportunity for a different business or a different service. It is capable of being presented as a discipline, capable of being learned, capable of being practiced.
Innovation is the specific instrument of entrepreneurship. It is the act that endows resources with a new capacity to create wealth. Innovation, indeed, creates a resource.
The purposeful innovation resulting from analysis, system, and hard work is all that can be discussed and presented as the practice of innovation. But this is all that need be presented since it surely covers at least 90 percent of all effective innovations. And the extraordinary performer in innovation, as in every other area, will be effective only if grounded in the discipline and master of it.
Purposeful, systematic innovation begins with the analysis of the opportunities. It begins with the analysis of the opportunities. It begins with thinking through what I have called the sources of innovative opportunities.
All the sources of innovation should be systematically analyzed and systematically studied. It is not enough to be alerted to them. The search has to be organized, and must be done on a regular systematic basis.
Innovation is both conceptual and perceptual. Go out to look, to ask, to listen. The cannot be stressed often enough. They work out analytically what the innovation has to be to satisfy an opportunity. And then they go out and look at the customers, the users, to see what their expectations, their values, their needs are.
An innovation, to be effective, has to be simple and it has to be focused. It should do only one thing, otherwise it confuses. If it is on simple, it won’t work.
All effective innovations are breathtakingly simple. Indeed, the greatest praise an innovation can receive is for people to say: “This is obvious. Why didn’t I think of it?”
Effective innovations start small. They are not grandiose. They try to do one specific thing.
A successful innovation aims at leadership. If an innovation does not aim at leadership from the beginning, it is unlikely to be innovative enough, and therefore unlikely to be capable of establishing itself.
The Knowing-Doing Gap – How Smart Companies Turn Knowledge into Action
Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert L. Sutton
Every year, companies spend billions of dollars on training programs and management consultants, searching for ways to improve. But it's mostly all talk and no action, according to Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert I. Sutton, authors of The Knowing-Doing Gap. "Did you ever wonder why so much education and training, management consultation, organizational research and so many books and articles produce so few changes in actual management practice?" ask Stanford University professors Pfeffer and Sutton. "We wondered, too, and so we embarked on a quest to explore one of the great mysteries in organizational management: why knowledge of what needs to be done frequently fails to result in action or behavior consistent with that knowledge." The authors describe the most common obstacles to action---such as fear and inertia---and profile successful companies that overcome them.
1. Why before How: Philosophy is Important.
2. Knowing Comes from Doing and Teaching Others How.
3. Action Counts More Than Elegant Plans and Concepts.
4. There is No Doing without Mistakes. What is the company's Response?
5. Fear Fosters Knowing-Doing Gaps, So Drive Out Fear.
6. Beware of False Analogies: Fight the Competition, Not Each Other.
7. Measure What Matters and What Can Help Turn Knowledge into Action.
8. What Leaders Do, How They Spend their Time and How they Allocate Resources, Matters.
WAYS OF OVERCOMING DESTRUCTIVE INTERNAL COMPETITION
: Hire, reward, and retain people in part based on their ability and willingness to work cooperatively with others for the company's welfare
: Fire, demote, and punish people who act only in their individual short-term self-interest.
: Focus people's attention and energy on defeating external competitive threats, not on fighting each other.
: Avoid compensation and performance measurement systems that create internal competition.
: Establish measures that assess cooperation.
: Build a culture that defines individual success partly by the success of the person's peers.
: Encourage leaders to model the right behavior by acting collaboratively, sharing information, and helping others.
: Promote people to top management positions who have a history of building groups where members cooperate, share information, and provide each other mutual assistance.
: Use power and authority to get people and units to share information, to learn from each other, and to work collaboratively to enhance overall performance.
One of the more important insights from our research is that knowledge that is actually implemented is much more likely to be acquired from learning by doing than from learning by reading, listening, or even thinking.
One of our main recommendations is to engage more frequently in thoughtful action. Spend less time just contemplating and talking about organizational problems. Taking action will generate experience from which you can learn.
Great companies get remarkable performance from ordinary people. Not-so-great companies take talented people and manage to lose the benefits of their talent, insight, and motivation. That is why we focus on management practices that either create or reduce the knowing-doing gap.
There is evidence that knowledge of how to enhance performance doesn’t transfer readily even within firms. There are persistent and substantial differences in performance within facilities in the same company.
It is possible that differences in organizational performance come from differences in what firms know – the quality and depth of their insights about business strategy, technologies, products, customers, and operations – rather than from their ability to translate that knowledge into action. There are, however, numerous reasons to doubt this is the case.
A much larger source of variation in performance stems from the ability to turn knowledge into action.
Research demonstrates that the success of most interventions designed to improve organizational performance depends largely on implementing what is already known, rather than from adopting new or previously unknown ways of doing things.
Most workplace learning goes on unbudgeted, unplanned, and un-captured by the organization…Up to 70 percent of workplace learning is informal.
While firms keep investing millions of dollars to set up knowledge management groups, most of the knowledge that is actually used and useful is transferred by the stories people tell to each other, by the trials and errors that occur as people develop knowledge and skill, by inexperienced people watching those more experienced, and by experience people providing close and constant coaching to newcomers.
Knowledge management systems seem to work best when the people who generate the knowledge are also those who store it, explain it to others, and coach them as they try to implement the knowledge.
Part librarian, part consultant, and part coach.
Knowledge is intangible.
Knowledge management tends to focus on specific practices and ignore the importance of philosophy.
It is about philosophy and perspective, about such things as people, processes, quality, and continuous improvement. It is not just a set of techniques or practices – techniques, systems and philosophy.
What is important is not so much what we do – the specific people management techniques and practices – buy why we do it – the underlying philosophy and view of people and the business that provides a foundation for the practices.
Competitive advantage comes from being able to do something that others can’t do.
The trick is in turning the knowledge acquired into organizational action.
If you do it, then you will know.
At one level, the answer to the knowing-doing problem is deceptively simple. Embed more of the process of acquiring new knowledge in the actual doing of the task and less in formal training programs that are frequently ineffective.
How to overcome the tendency to substitute talk for action: impose a real deadline with real measures.
Planning can be a ritualistic exercise disconnected from operations and from transforming knowledge into action. Of course, planning can facilitate developing knowledge and generating action. But it does not invariably do so and often does the opposite.