Here, I present you the core thoughts of Prof Gary Hamel on the way innovation is going to be managed in the future.
The traditional hierarchically based 20th-century model is not effective at organizing the thinking-intensive work of self-directed people who need to make subjective judgments based upon their own special knowledge.
The winners will be those that enable their thinking-intensive employees to create more profits by putting their collective mind power to better use. The real challenge is making profits off those talented people. That’s where the big opportunity is. The leading companies today are combining talent, technology, and organizational design to generate much higher profits per employee than was possible in the past. So the trick becomes, “How do I hire talent that I can profit from?”
In terms of managing creative-thinking people, you have to separate the work of managing from the notion of managers as a distinct and privileged class of employees. Highly talented people don’t need, and are unlikely to put up with, an overtly hierarchical management model. Increasingly, the work of management won’t be done by managers. It will be pushed out to the periphery. It will be embedded in systems. I think we’re on the verge of a post-managerial society. Your notion that you mobilize human labor, through a hierarchy of overseers, bureaucrats, and administrators, is going to look extraordinarily antiquated a decade or two from now.
The outlines of the 21st-century management model are already clear. Decision-making will be more peer-based; the tools of creativity will be widely distributed in organizations. Ideas will compete on an equal footing. Strategies will be built from the bottom up. Power will be a function of competence rather than of position.
In terms of the future of management, we’re at the beginning of what will be a fairly long journey. You can see some of the pieces starting to come together, but we’re not there yet. It often takes a crisis to change an organization because in most companies the authority to set strategy and direction is highly concentrated at the top. As a consequence, a relatively small group of people at the top can hold the organization’s capacity to change hostage to their own personal willingness to adapt and to change.
3 comments:
The professor is correct about the hierachically based model, the top-down command and control model.
He is right not just for self-directed people, but for all people because top-down by its nature, repeat "by its nature" demeans and disrespects employees. Those who are not naturally self-directed (professionals estimate this to be about 95%) are led by this treatment to treat their work, customers, each other and their bosses similarly, that being with disrespect. If the boss doesn't care about employees, why should the employees care about their work.
The naturally self-directed will probably refuse to work for such a boss or such a management team.
So it is very important for all companies and managers to stop using the top-down model, stop issuing all sorts of direction such as targets, goals, visions, and orders. Then they should start listening to their people. Good communication is up. When bosses show they really care about employees by listening very carefully to them and giving them what they say they want to do a better job, only then will employees commit themselves to their work and treat it, their customers, each other and their bosses with great respect.
It is also possible to convert the 95% who are conformists into self-directed people. Once converted, they will never again return to being conformists or followers.
Best regards, Ben Simonton
Author My Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed
The traditional hierarchically based 20th-century model is not effective at organizing the thinking-intensive work of self-directed people who need to make subjective judgments based upon their own special knowledge.
The winners will be those that enable their thinking-intensive employees to create more profits by putting their collective mind power to better use. The real challenge is making profits off those talented people. That’s where the big opportunity is. The leading companies today are combining talent, technology, and organizational design to generate much higher profits per employee than was possible in the past. So the trick becomes, “How do I hire talent that I can profit from?”
In terms of managing creative-thinking people, you have to separate the work of managing from the notion of managers as a distinct and privileged class of employees. Highly talented people don’t need, and are unlikely to put up with, an overtly hierarchical management model. Increasingly, the work of management won’t be done by managers. It will be pushed out to the periphery. It will be embedded in systems. I think we’re on the verge of a post-managerial society. Your notion that you mobilize human labor, through a hierarchy of overseers, bureaucrats, and administrators, is going to look extraordinarily antiquated a decade or two from now.
The outlines of the 21st-century management model are already clear. Decision-making will be more peer-based; the tools of creativity will be widely distributed in organizations. Ideas will compete on an equal footing. Strategies will be built from the bottom up. Power will be a function of competence rather than of position.
How does PRofessor Hamel, or anyone for that matter, explain the success of Apple at innovation. People are empowered at Apple to be sure, but it is clearly led by a dominant personality in Steve Jobs. Contrast this with Motorola who has lacked a visionary leader for several years -- and is failing.
Gregg wrote -
"How does PRofessor Hamel, or anyone for that matter, explain the success of Apple at innovation. People are empowered at Apple to be sure, but it is clearly led by a dominant personality in Steve Jobs."
The explanation is quite simple. Being a dominant personality does not mean that he turns off creativity and innovation. But the man he replaced did that by creating a top-down, bureaucratically run organization that stifled creativity, innovation and productivity. Jobs was brought back to Apple because it was floundering under such management.
Having a dominant personality does not necessarily mean that the person mistreats people. As a manager for 34 years, I was a very dominant personality. But in the course of those years I turned around 4 different management disasters including a nuclear-powered cruiser and a 1300 person unionized group in New York City. In each of those we had more than enough creativity and innovation to beat the competition handily.
So I know how to cause employees to unleash their full potential of creativity, innovation and productivity. I imagine that Jobs has done likewise at Apple otherwise Apple would not have turned into such a great success.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
Post a Comment