Month: May 2008

….and Torquay.

Today’s headline: Ebbsfleet 1 Torquay 0.

And so Ebbsfleet win the FA Trophy.

Not bad for a club that was “taken over” by around 27,000 members, each of whom paid £35.

Here’s an extract from the Wikipedia article on the club:

On November 13, 2007, it was announced that the website MyFootballClub had entered a deal in principle to take over the club.^[6] Approximately 27,000 MyFootballClub members each paid £35 to provide an approximate £700,000 takeover fund and all own an equal share in the club but make no profit nor receive a dividend. Members have a vote on transfers as well as player selection and all major decisions. Because of the nature of MyFootballClub, it was announced that manager Liam Daish would become instead the first team Head Coach. His backroom staff would remain at the club.^[6]

Between January 16 and January 23 2008, MyFootballClub members were given the choice to vote on whether to proceed with the takeover and whether to allow Liam Daish to continue with his plans for the January transfer window. Both resulted in overwhelming “Yes” votes: 95.89% voted to proceed with the takeover while 95.86% voted to allow Daish to continue his transfer plans. The deal was ratified at an Extraordinary General Meeting of the club’s board on 19 February.

Collaborative ownership, collaborative management, championship trophies. Hmmm.

Now consider Barack Obama. The millions of dollars of campaign money generated by thousands of people paying small sums of money. What if his fans had the same power as Ebbsfleet fans (or, more correctly, MyFootballClub fans)?

Just thinking. Ebbsfleet is the shape of things to come. In more ways than one.

There is something in me that makes me pretty relaxed about “sharing” per se. Maybe it was caused by growing up in a large “undivided” family: when I lived in India, the class of family I was part of was referred to as a Hindu Undivided Family or HUF. This was seen as distinct and different from other families where formal division had been applied for, ostensibly to take advantage of tax advantages that accrued as a result.

Or maybe it was because I grew up in Calcutta. Access to material goods seemed a lot more important than ownership of the same goods; possession was a transient concept. It wasn’t your bed, your book, your park bench, your air. You just had passing and temporary rights to it, and the rights would fade as easily as they came to exist.

Maybe it’s something in me, maybe I don’t like the sheer palaver. One way or the other, I have always found it easy to share.

Which is probably why I assumed that failures in collaboration were usually caused by people not having this facility: by people finding it hard to share. Sometimes this was caused by insecurity, sometimes it was cultural. At least that’s what I assumed.

More recently, as I’ve been continuing with my investigations into intellectual property law, patents, copyrights, trademarks and their burgeoning digital equivalents, I’ve begun to wonder about something else.

And it is this. When you look at the Agricultural Revolution you notice something. Scale happened when the participants understood division of labour. When you look at the Industrial Revolution, something similar happened. Ford and Taylor could not construct an assembly line unless there was something to make a line with. Division of labour again.

Collaboration takes place when you do what you are good at, and when you let other people do what they are good at.

Sometimes I wonder whether we as knowledge workers have learnt this. Somehow I don’t think so. Over the last thirty years, working primarily in service industries, working solely as a knowledge worker, I see something different.

I see people unable to respect the skills of others. Of wanting to be all things to all men.

I see no division of labour within knowledge workers.

Which is a shame.

Collaboration has many payoffs. These payoffs tend to increase when there is a shortage of the “resource” being shared. We live in an age where the war for talent is likely to continue. Knowledge workers have the most to gain from collaboration.

But we’re not going to get there. Not while we limit ourselves, not while we try and pretend there is no division of labour.

Each of us has to learn to do what we are good at, and to let others do what they are good at. Even if we think we’re good at those things as well, we have to choose to do the things we are disproportionately better at. That’s not just a prerequisite for collaboration. That’s not just a prerequisite for teamwork. It’s a prerequisite for being a human being.

Collective stewardship requires respect for others. Respect for others requires respect for their skills and abilities. For some reason, we could handle it during the Agricultural Revolution, we could handle it during the Industrial Revolution, but when it comes to the Information Revolution, we’re falling short.

Views? Comments? That is, if you’re prepared to share them….

some questions i’m trying to deal with as i write strategy papers on a number of subjects:

• if you tell everyone your strategy, is it still strategy?
• if you don’t tell anyone your strategy, is it still strategy?
• shouldn’t we use wikis to capture strategies?
• can linus’s law be made to apply for strategy?
• shouldn’t customers be involved?
• and if we work in coopetitive markets, shouldn’t competitors be involved?

…….

and if all the answers go one way, then

does it mean that the distinctive value is in execution, not strategy per se?

just wondering.

Work-life balance. What a strange phrase. As if “work” is something that is distinct and separate from “life”, that the two are mutually exclusive, that there is a need to allocate critical resources (like time) between “work” and “life”, and that some sort of trade-off between the two must take place. One day someone will explain to me how and why the phrase originated.

But in the meantime.

One thing is clear:

If you treat work and life as mutually exclusive things, then you should not be surprised to have a work-life balance problem

Me, I like to think I’m on holiday all the time. And, as a result:

• While I’m on holiday, there are a number of things I have to get done. And it is important that I get them done as efficiently as I can, so that I can enjoy “the rest of my holiday”.
• While I’m on holiday, there are a number of things that happen, things that I have to respond to. And it is important that I respond to them effectively, knowing how to prioritise them when they compete for attention, how to manage conflict between them. As long as I have a clear view of my priorities, I can enjoy “the rest of my holiday”.
• While I’m on holiday, there are a number of things I think about, things that I discuss with the people I’m on holiday with. It is important that I have these discussions, because something very important depends on the outcome of the discussions. How to stay on holiday. As long as I have an answer to that question, I can enjoy “the rest of my holiday”.

Being on holiday is not a physical thing. It’s about where your head is at.

You can be doing your best to imitate a rotisserie chicken while on the beach somewhere, but if your head is in the office then that’s where you really are. if you’re on the slopes and all you can think about is how to solve the noises that emanate from your home heating system, then that’s where you really are.

You can be doing your best to imitate a “suit” while in the office somewhere, but if your head is in bed then that’s where you really are.

Being on holiday is a state of mind.

And the opposite of “being on holiday” is “not being on holiday”. Which is not to be confused with “being at work” and “being at home”.

if the only time you’re away from stress is when you’re on holiday, then maybe you should act as if you’re on holiday all the time. You will make better decisions that way. And if the only time you’re able to function properly is when you’re at work, then maybe you should act as if you’re at work all the time. Horses for courses.

Here’s one way to look at things: I have my personal life, and I have my professional life. They are not mutually exclusive, they overlap all over the place. People you know professionally can and do become your friends. People you know personally can and do become your colleagues. This is not wrong. It’s normal.

If I am at work, and I get a call from my daughter saying she’s at Waterloo Station, all shaken up, the victim of a mugging, then I drop everything and go to her. Because that takes priority over whatever else I am doing at the time.

In the same way, if I am at home, and I get a call from a colleague saying there’s been a major problem with a project and it’s all hands to the pump for the weekend, I drop everything and go in. Because that takes priority over whatever else I am doing at the time.

It’s a question of priorities.

Sometimes it’s not that simple. If my daughter calls me from Waterloo and I am in San Francisco at the time, then I can only “drop thing” virtually and vicariously. I have to respond to the stimulus according to the known constraints. I’m not going to get on the first plane back willy-nilly, I’m going to ensure that someone I can trust goes and meets my daughter, and remains responsible for her until she’s safely at home.

And if I’m in Jamaica with the family when the project call comes in, I’m not going to get on the first plane willy-nilly either. I’m going to find something that works within the known constraints.

So it’s a question of priorities, but clearly in the context of known constraints, both temporary as well as permanent. There is no point getting hassled about things you have zero ability to influence. It’s like getting upset because it’s raining. Or not raining.

I think “life balance” (as opposed to work-life balance) comes down to three things:

1. Be the same person at home and at work.

2. Have a clear view of your priorities: one list of priorities, including items from all parts of your life, principally made up of your family and work commitments, but explicitly including your values and beliefs, your community, your own dreams and aspirations.

3. Be consistent and transparent to others about how you prioritise in the event of contention or conflict.

That’s what I try. I don’t always succeed, but that doesn’t mean I stop trying.

In order to attract and retain my grandfather’s generation, a firm had to provide security of tenure. Since every firm offered security of tenure, it didn’t really matter. And since there wasn’t really a war for talent, it mattered even less.

In order to attract and retain my father’s generation, a firm had to provide quality benefits. The provision of quality benefits required scale. There was therefore a migration of talent towards firms that operated at scale. Since the war for talent was largely between a small number of scale firms, it didn’t really matter. [Except for the firms that bid up the talent using the benefits…. they’re paying some hefty prices now for the provision of those benefits. Witness Detroit.]

In order to attract and retain my generation, a firm had to provide challenging work. The war for talent had now begun, and those that were far-sighted enough to offer the right challenges attracted the right people.

In order to attract and retain the current generation, a firm had to provide equity. The war for talent was now intensifying, and talent moved to the place with the best growth prospects. But there was some harsh learning to come. People had to learn that options didn’t know how to swim.

In order to attract Generation M, a firm has to provide …. what? Values and beliefs that are congruent with the talent pool.

Security of tenure. Food, clothing and shelter. Challenging work. Ability to make pots of money. Values and beliefs. Hmmmm. Never thought that I could use Maslow to depict the motivation for people joining a company.