“free the battery humans!’

What the heck, I know I men­tio­ned this in pas­sing ear­lier today, but I liked this one so much I thought it worthy of its own blog post.
The uber-intelligent Lee Byant from Headshift left a great com­ment in my “Cloud Bott­le­necks & Huma­ni­fi­ca­tion post:

Hi Hugh,
I agree that the twin cha­llen­ges of de-commoditisation and huma­ni­sa­tion are part of the key to com­pa­nies like this deve­lo­ping the kind of new rela­tionships we all want to see.
You have tried the blue mons­ter thing, which is a kind of inter­nal adver­ti­sing cam­paign, to gal­va­nise peo­ple inside large com­pa­nies. I think we need to com­ple­ment this with a num­ber of other tech­ni­ques to huma­nise the orga­ni­sa­tion and take inter­nal brand enga­ge­ment to a new level if we are to move for­ward.
I wrote a lon­gish post about this recently based on a talk I gave at Reboot: http://www.headshift.com/blog/2008/07/free-the-battery-humans.php

Thats the slide deck from Lee’s talk above. What a fabu­lous ope­ning image. I wish I had been there to hear him speak:

What these three dimen­sions have in com­mon is their depen­dence upon the peo­ple inside the busi­ness. By ele­va­ting the indi­vi­duals in the orga­ni­sa­tion above sys­tems, and by re-balancing the rela­tionship bet­ween peo­ple and pro­cess, we can create a social fabric that lives and breathes the values that large com­pa­nies are trying to ins­till in their orga­ni­sa­tions. We have the tools and the ideas to do this in ways that were not pos­si­ble before, and we are in a posi­tion to finally move beyond Tay­lo­rism and the fac­tory model to a new era of genui­nely people-powered orga­ni­sa­tions and net­works. We know how to create rich and pur­po­se­ful social net­works as vehic­les for colla­bo­ra­tion and co-operation. We know how to aggre­gate ideas and nego­tiate com­mon lan­guage to create bet­ter forms of infor­ma­tion orga­ni­sa­tion and retrie­val. We know a lot more about what is pos­si­ble when peo­ple trust each other by default; and we also know a lot more about how to engage in debate and deli­be­ra­tion with peo­ple who agree with us and peo­ple who do not.

Yeah, I agree with Lee. Affec­ting real change inside a large com­pany requi­res more than just a mad, blog­ging car­too­nist ran­ting away from somewhere out in dee­pest, dar­kest West Texas.
The fact is, this stuff is REALLY hard. Even if the com­pany WANTS to change. But that’s what makes it so damn inte­res­ting. Rock on.

Comments

  1. To over sim­plify my point of view, (as I usually do):
    Most cor­po­ra­tions are a for­tress full of mana­gers who like to kill the messengers…

  2. Lee’s essay was fas­ci­na­ting for its breadth and depth. I’d recom­mend Gerd Gigerenzer’s work on heu­ris­tics in this con­text. He speaks to the areas of decision-making under con­di­tions of uncertainty/complexity, how to create effec­tive colla­bo­ra­tion, the role of lea­dership and par­ti­cu­larly the impact past lea­dership can have on cor­po­rate cul­tu­res long after an exe­cu­tive has depar­ted.
    Short-termism, which is the enemy of colla­bo­ra­tion and a more expan­sive rela­tionship bet­ween cor­po­ra­tion and staff, often starts with the need to hit quar­terly ear­nings tar­gets and how the CEO ope­ra­tes tac­ti­cally ver­sus stra­te­gi­cally in that con­text.
    Diverse groups and hiring more unortho­dox emplo­yees are shown to trump more con­ven­tio­nal approaches in the lon­ger term, but both require more deft mana­ge­ment and bed­ding in. So in hiring, too often the line mana­ger expec­ta­tion is for peo­ple to hit the ground run­ning and the can­di­date choice in effect is sub-optimal. Busi­ness schools too have ten­ded to breed con­for­mity of approaches.
    Tim

  3. I enjo­yed the slide pre­sen­ta­tion but slide #15 has me stum­ped — what does this mean: “con­su­me­ri­sa­tion of enter­prise IT is our chance to think about codifyng new human, con­nec­ted values for the future”.
    In any case, it is truly the rare team or even indi­vi­dual in my sphere that is even inte­res­ted in the con­ver­sa­tion, let alone con­tem­pla­ting making any subs­tan­tive change for the very rea­son you state: This is hard!

  4. Thanks Hugh and Hi.
    Dean­nie: the phrase you quote basi­cally means that the pro­cess of con­su­me­ri­sa­tion of IT (ie back­ward inter­nal IT cul­ture being influen­ced by more rapid change in the con­su­mer sphere) pre­sents a unqiue oppor­tu­nity for us to embed bet­ter, more human values in the next gene­ra­tion of inter­nal IT sys­tems and thin­king. Hope that helps a bit. It is sad that peo­ple in your sphere are not inte­res­ted in the con­ver­sa­tion. I think the change is hap­pe­ning, but every­body has their own rea­sons or dri­vers for adoption.

Are you ready to work with us?

Get More Info

Testimonials

His work acknowledges the absurdity of workaday life, while also encouraging employees to respond with passion, creativity, and non-conformity...   MacLeod’s work is undeniably an improvement over the office schlock of yore. At its best, it’s more honest, and more cognizant of the entrepreneurial psyche, while still retaining some idealism.

The New Republic
Lydia Depillis

Last year my State of the College address was 76 slides loaded with data. This year it was 14 cartoons that were substantially more memorable.

Len Schlesinger
Former President, Babson College

Hugh MacLeod is a genius.  Genius.

Seth Godin
Best Selling Author

In moments of indecision I glance at the wall for guidance.

Brian Clark
@copyblogger
 
  • The New Republic
  • Len Schlesinger
  • Seth Godin
  • Brian Clark
prevnext