fluidminds

The Hub is one answer!

Following up on my previous post on old incumbents and a new world: Where can we find harbingers of what is to come in Corporations 2.0?

The Hub, where fluidminds is taking part might be one answer. It's the first serious attempt to break free from the industrial paradigm we've been living with for the last 300 years. We build multinational companies the same way today as we did when large companies need to stash large amount of capital to invest in large factories and had to employ massive amount of people to operate these large organizations.

This isn't true any more. The biggest part of the balance sheet in almost any company today consists of knowledge capital. This capital mainly resides in the heads of individuals and in cheap portable computers. All this capital is connected through a free global network; the Internet. Supporting systems and functions are developed in an Open Source environment yielding an almost endless flow of cheap or free solutions to support the work of this global network.

Despite this, all multinational companies are build as the old metaphor was still true!

The Hub is all about breaking free from this outdated metaphor. The Hub is about building the first truly multinational company consisting of only individual entrepreneurs. Individuals sharing the same vision and values. Individuals sharing a passion for doing good for the world through their professional deed. This global network can act much like an amoeba; One day it's just 100 000 individual companies doing there own thing. Another day the network acts as one global "company". This global "company" can approach institutions like the United Nation and compete head to head with companies like McKinsey and General Electric for global contracts. Work that will be delivered through thousands of individual entrepreneurs and invoiced to the customer as one company.

A network like the Hub will be hard to defeat. As we are all individual entrepreneurs we care ourselves for our professional development and our high standard of quality when we deliver. No need for large, expensive internal systems to track this. We take our salary in the currency we prefer. For some a monetary compensation is most important. For others currencies such as time to reflect, train new skills or spend time on charity is much more important. We, as individual entrepreneurs decide ourselves. No need huge centralized, bureaucratic systems to manage this. We all rely on open source developed systems for our tools - available to all. We don't need huge, expensive internal development departments developing closed systems for our use only.

/kent

Is this just another ordinary crisis or a major correction of our whole societal system?

Coca Colas previous CEO and chairman Neville Isdell spoke about his view on the current financial crisis in an interview I recently read. He delivered a very harsh message (interpreted by me); “Don't think this is like anything you experienced before. I has much more to do with a major shift in the underpinnings of our whole society”

Come to think of it. We are building companies exactly the same way today as we have been doing since the dawn of the Industrial age. Huge monoliths with vast hordes of employees. Tightly controlled hierarchies that centralizes decision making to a few hands. Large overheads utilizing monstrous administrative systems to stretch the control mechanism all the way down to the very last employee in the organisation.

Perhaps it's time to stop repeating what we've done for centuries? Maybe there is a whole new world is out there that we have to adjust to when building organizations for the future?

More to read: Download Isdell_connected_capitalism_speech

/kent

Is sustainable the right goal?

If you have a moment read this and get a interesting perspective on sustainability.

//jan

Take the risk!

Sasha Dichter gives us this piece of counter-intuitive-yet-to-the-point-advice.

And once you think about things this way you realize that lots of risks should be taken now. 

The logic of our behaviour is interesting. When things are going well we have more to lose - and tend to be more careful. And when things are going a little worse we have less to lose - but still tend to be careful.

So when do we take the risk?

Sasha Dichter is the Director of Business Development at Acumen Fund.

//jan

Monday morning

Even in the new world of work some mornings are slower and gloomier than others. Here in Stockholm winter is starting to ascend on us with less day light and colder temperatures.

I'm in constant wonder over the masses of people that every morning pull off large logistics maneuvers – getting kids to school and day care and hauling one self through rush hour traffic or public transport to that job one has. 

I might be alone thinking that there could be a better way for a week day morning to evolve. But this separation between work, school, play, free time, etc generates a lot of stress for most of us. 

Even if the Tayloristic ideas of the past are loosening their grip on work itself, they seem alive and vital in how we live our lives in general.

Have a great week!

//jan

definition of fluid

From Yourdictionary:

fluid (flo̵̅o̅′id)

adjective

1. that can flow; not solid; able to move and change shape without separating when under pressure
2. of a fluid or fluids
3. like a fluid; that can change rapidly or easily; not settled or fixed fluid plans
4. marked by or using graceful movements
5. available for investment fluid capital
6. available as cash fluid assets

Etymology: ME < L fluidus < fluere, to flow: see fluctuate

noun

1. any substance that can flow; liquid or gas
2. a liquid in the body

Related Forms:

• fluidic: flu·id′ic (flo̵̅o̅ id′ik) adjective
• fluidity: flu·id′·ity noun or fluidness: flu′·id·ness
• fluidly: flu′·idly adverb 

  

Pretty neat. We chose a great name ten years ago. Comes close to being a perfect definition of the qualities needed in the new world of work ;-) Seriously, a couple of them are. 

//jan 

Networks make hierarchies nervous

A couple of times every week I get involved in conversations about networks and how they can improve things in traditional organizations. Speed up internal communication... Build new client relationship structures... Improve projects... Increase employee participation... 

Increasingly I'm starting to see flaws in this reasoning. I sense more wishful thinking than actual improvements. More charades than real network action.

I've stated it here in earlier posts, hierarchies are good at driving out and eliminating variation. This is what hierarchies are designed for and probably what hierachies do best. So, anything that generates variation, i.e. networks, makes a hierarchy nervous and creates a reaction. 

The reaction might be to embrace networks, and then subconsciously sabotage them. Or openly confront the "informal and uncontrolled flow of internal information". Maybe even restrict employees from "unauthorized participation" in external forums that discuss a company's products/services.

Why is this? Well basically social networks tend to expose and erode power structures and encourage self-organization. And hierarchies in contrast build and harbor power structures and encourage command and control. 

An unhappy match indeed.

//jan

Banks 2.0?

My friend Alexander pointed us toward two new types of financial services. They are two interesting prototypes of the new world of work - based on networking and self-organizing mechanisms. And they potentially do away with institutions like banks and government foreign aid agencies. (Isn't it about time they experience som new competition...?)

One is Zopa, social lending service. And one is Kiva, person-to-person microlending to entrepreneurs in developing countries.

Take a moment and check them out. Quite inspiring.

//jan

Random thoughts

• Why is it that the time and money spent on a task or job still is the most significant aspect of work? Why not the quality/impact of the end result? Why not the level of sustainability? Why...? Well, it is obvious isn't it. Time and money can be measured. The other stuff can't. So let us continue to run the world only from parameters that can be measured. Sounds reasonable. [yes, irony...]   

• Which type of person creates most value? He/she who strictly follows rules and social norms, or he/she who regularily bends them?   

• Why do all formal project models lack the "Oh shit phase" – the point in time when the full consequences of the task at hand become known and aware to the team? Most real projects run into an "Oh shit phase". Experienced project people know this. But we don't train for it. And we don't visualize the phase in the elegant PPTs that describe our project.

• Why is it so difficult for us to recognize that hierarchies drive out variation? That is what they are best at. And that is what they are designed for and should be doing. Therefore we should not be surprised that our creativity or innovation efforts normally fail. It is written in the stars... and only few seem to manage to sustainably induce variation in hierarchies.

  
//jan 

Conscious Capitalism

A friend pointed me to this event. The theme in itself - and the speakers they have rounded up to support it - does say a lot about the changes to come in the business world.

The format however could be much more exciting and fitting to the theme. And sadly, only two women as speakers. Also, too many ties and suits for my taste ;-)

//jan