Recent Updates Page 3 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Doug Belshaw 2:35 pm on August 29, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , leadership,   

    The leader is someone people trust to be at the forefront in the area, which is temporally meaningful for them. People recognize as the leader someone who inspires and enables them in the present. People, the followers, decide whom to follow, why, when and for how long. Another difference from traditional management is that because of the diversity of contexts people necessarily link to, there can never be just one “boss”. Thus, an individual should always have many leaders as a default state.

    Esko Kilpi
  • Doug Belshaw 2:32 pm on August 29, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , information,   

    New information is the organizing input. Solutions are always temporary. Human beings relate to each other. They communicate and their responses are based upon the response they receive from their communications. Information is the energy of organizing. When information is transparent to everybody, people can organize effectively around changes and differences, around customer contexts and innovative experiments.

    Esko Kilpi
  • Doug Belshaw 2:30 pm on August 29, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , ,   

    The new competitive edge comes from interactive capacity: the ability to connect with information and people, as and when needed. Knowing depends on how you are present and how you communicate. The idea of interactive competence also reflects the radical change in thinking that is going on. We are leaving behind the Western preoccupation with the autonomous, heroic individual and beginning to appreciate the importance of social processes and interdependence.

    Esko Kilpi
  • Doug Belshaw 2:27 pm on August 29, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , ,   

    Resource allocation has always been one of the main tasks of management: what is to be done by whom and when. In centralized systems and with homogeneous resources, this allocation can be performed top-down and in advance of action, separately from the people who act. When knowledge and creativity are the decisive factors of value creation and when work takes place in digital, global, decentralized environments, this top-down process is increasingly inefficient. A manager cannot know who knows or where the most valuable contributions could come from. This is a problem because time to value is an increasingly important metric.

    Esko Kilpi
  • Doug Belshaw 2:26 pm on August 29, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , ,   

    The present ways of dividing labor have historically been based on a very different communications environment than the one we are living in at present. The earlier high cost of coordination and communication is the reason behind many of the organizational forms that are taken for granted and which we still experience. The digital world we live in today is totally different when it comes to the quality and costs associated with coordination, communication and contracting and allows us to experiment with totally new value creation architectures.

    Esko Kilpi
  • Doug Belshaw 2:23 pm on August 29, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , ,   

    The technological environment of work has changed fundamentally, but we haven’t yet developed a new mode of economic space design, neither have we escaped the pull of the traditional industrial system. Our relations at work are still asymmetrical involving status differences based on systems of responsibility and systems of skills. This inbuilt systemic fault generates increasing social distance and inequality, as we have now seen. Due to the variety of contexts people work in, work requires interpretation, exploration and negotiation. The interpreter with the best situational awareness is the worker, working together with the customer, not a manager. The relations are built on symmetry. What defines most problems today is that they are not isolated and independent. To solve them, a person has to think not only about what he believes the right answer is, but also about what other people think the right answers might be. Work, then, is exploration both what comes to defining the problems and finding the solutions. Again, the relations need to be based on symmetry.

    Esko Kilpi
  • Doug Belshaw 2:21 pm on August 29, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , ,   

    The future architecture of work is not the structure of a corporation, but the structure of the network. The organization is not a given system or a given process, but an ongoing process of organizing. The Internet-based economic spaces see work and cognitive capability as networked communication. The most important model for work is a learning protocol where the value of all interactions is raised by all interactions; where every interaction and every worker benefits from the total number of interactions and workers.

    Esko Kilpi
  • Doug Belshaw 2:20 pm on August 29, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: change, , , networks,   

    Under circumstances of rapid technological change, the management challenge is not better planning and control, but creation of protocols that make possible openness to possibilities. By creating and integrating more relationships, the networked business broadens its opportunity space dramatically. The only common goal the nodes of the network have is the growth of the network.

    Esko Kilpi
  • Doug Belshaw 2:12 pm on August 29, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , ,   

    Perhaps we just don’t know how to measure ‘productivity’, anymore. Or said differently, the nature of work may have changed so much that the tools we use don’t measure all the outputs.

    Stowe Boyd
  • Doug Belshaw 1:56 pm on August 29, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: capitalism, decentralisation, , neoliberalism,   

    The bossless, decentralized Zappos model has been proffered as a liberatory answer to the soul-crushing environments of places like Amazon. However, while Amazon’s punitive, highly-surveilled workplace indeed sounds nightmarish, it’s perhaps the new breed of bossless office that illuminates the dystopian endgame of work under neoliberalism. Imagine, in other words, a labor-extraction apparatus so well-oiled that bosses are obsolete because every worker is one; that is, willing to oversee and discipline both their own production and that of their peers in service of capital. If managers are, as economist Frédéric Lordon has described them, “strange employees, materially on the side of labor but symbolically on the side of capital,” we might also call them neoliberalism’s model worker.

    J.C. Pan
compose new post
next post/next comment
previous post/previous comment
show/hide comments
go to top
go to login
show/hide help
shift + esc