Because it lays out his business principles tweaked so a person could build a personal culture that would assure happiness.
When the members of the [HBS] class of 2010 entered business school, the economy was strong and their post-graduation ambitions could be limitless. Just a few weeks later, the economy went into a tailspin. They’ve spent the past two years recalibrating their worldview and their definition of success.
In the spring, Harvard Business School’s graduating class asked HBS professor Clay Christensen to address them—but not on how to apply his principles and thinking to their post-HBS careers. The students wanted to know how to apply them to their personal lives.
The students had a front row seat to watch the economy go from hot to frigid, which taught them that careers weren’t everything.
On the last day of class, I ask my students to turn those theoretical lenses on themselves, to find cogent answers to three questions: First, how can I be sure that I’ll be happy in my career? Second, how can I be sure that my relationships with my spouse and my family become an enduring source of happiness? Third, how can I be sure I’ll stay out of jail? Though the last question sounds lighthearted, it’s not. Two of the 32 people in my Rhodes scholar class spent time in jail. Jeff Skilling of Enron fame was a classmate of mine at HBS. These were good guys—but something in their lives sent them off in the wrong direction.
Three simple questions, but three that few people, let alone MBA students, especially those at Harvard, focus on.
But what kind of life is it, if you are unhappy or have bad relationships with your family or cross the line, when with a little effort and planning you can avoid all three?
While Clay Christensen isn’t a silver life bullet, his thinking and approach come close.
Jim Heskett is a very smart guy. At the beginning of each month he asks a question of his readers, then publishes a summation of the general ideas expressed the comments at the end of it.
The topics are always timely, of great interest and the conversation lively.
This month he asked about something that is on many founders’ minds thanks to Tony Hsieh actions at Zappos.
Here is the summary. I believe you will find it of great value to read all the comments if you are considering adopting/adapting it for your company or just intrigued by the idea.
When and Where Will Holacracy Work Best?
Holacracy, or self-management, is an interesting concept and not entirely new. It can work, but only under the right conditions. And its applications will be limited. That’s what one might conclude from reading responses to this month’s column.
The more thoughtful of them provide a primer on applying the concept. Deborah Nixon’s comment echoed several others when she said the idea has been around a long time in other forms, by other names. “The larger an organization becomes, the tougher one model is to implement. The time has always been ripe for self-management and there are always people who will poke up their heads and insist on managing themselves. But it isn’t a quick fix.” Others cited its long-time application in the London taxi system (Andrew Campbell), the hospital ER (M Iqbal Gentur B), and even Aboriginal societies in ancient Australia (Kai Akerberg).
Stephens Jr., who loves the idea, said, it does not come without extensive time, cost, and involvement in employee development. “I not only say yes (to the question of whether the time is right for self-management), but ‘it’s about time.'” Dyan Porter added, “Holacracy strikes me as a positive way to manage professionals, especially in flat organizations where job advancement is limited.” Brooks Tanner commented, “Regardless of its level of success at Zappos, this form of organization is the way of the future. The rapidly increasing complexity and unpredictability of our world is such that only a highly distributed decision-making structure will be able to adapt and respond effectively, she continued. “Most of us don’t think a centralized planning type economy makes sense. Why should it make the most sense for organizations?”
Others saw limited potential in the concept. As Edward Hare put it, “There are some people capable of managing themselves in a larger organization … but many who can’t… This strikes me as another of those ‘ideas’ promoted by consultants and academics. ” Frank Fabela added, “Holacracy in its form of each individual taking responsibility for their own self-management is absolutely necessary, however it is the responsibility of ‘managers ‘ to ensure effectiveness of the organization through coordination of those objectives. Pure holacracy … absent management is destined to fail.” Krishnan Mak was more succinct when he said: “Culture will eat Holacracy for breakfast.”
Many comments addressed conditions under which Holacracy might work best. “It might not be for everybody,” wrote Maria Rosa Serra, “but if you hire employees aligned with your values and pay them fairly, it seems an interesting proposal for both the company and the individual.” Juan Manuel Salas Guevara commented that the challenge in Holacracy “is a strong communication process from the top level of the organization that enables each member to understand the company’s vision.” Charlie Efford added that “The key to self-management becoming embedded is changing the mindset of the management team. Most corporations haven’t made this shift.” Denis Collet suggested “it’s all about clear goals and deliverables, and the metrics for success. Absent of these it’s bound to fail.”
Personally, I agree with Krishnan Mak when he said, “Culture will eat Holacracy for breakfast.”
I’ve often cited Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers regarding right time/right place luck—often an accident of birth. For example Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Steve Jobs, Bill Joy and Scott McNealy were all born between 1953 and 1955
Another example of right time/right place is found in Harvard’s MBA class of 1974 as chronicled by Laurence Shames in The Big Time: The Harvard Business School’s Most Successful Class & How It Shaped America, originally published in 1986 and being republished now.
1974 was probably the most successful single group of MBAs ever graduated from any school; further, this class actually did stuff and built things, as opposed to shuffling money around.
But they also worked their tails off. They didn’t expect anything to be handed to them. They always asked for more work, not less. They were a very competitive, driven group. But, again, not only for their own monetary gains. They wanted to excel. They wanted to be leaders.
When the ’49ers graduated, I think there were 653 graduates. Only six guys went to Wall Street –less than one percent of the class. It just wasn’t considered where the action was or considered a place where you could make a meaningful difference.
Learning about that class makes you wonder what happened. Where did the drive for more than money go?
What happened between 1974 and 2008 that so changed the attitude of our best and brightest? Why did money gain primacy as the only thing that matters?
The funny thing is that if you ask the folks who actually are changing our world, such as Larry Page, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg or Kevin Systrom, they’ll all say the same thing—they didn’t do it for the money.
“All these new companies — Facebook, Google, Twitter — benefit from this. They grow, but they don’t really need to hire much.” –Jean-Louis Gassée
In particular, companies say they need engineers with more than high school, but not necessarily a bachelor’s degree. Americans at that skill level are hard to find, executives contend. “They’re good jobs, but the country doesn’t have enough to feed the demand.”
Then, of course, there is the ongoing debate on the effectiveness of managers; it started around the time the first hunting party organized to go after a wooly mammoth.
“It’s very tough to believe that there are such wide differences in management out there.” –Raffaella Sadun, assistant professor at Harvard Business School.
(Only someone who has never been in the workplace could make that statement with a straight face.)
The list of companies, not to mention executives, that have crashed and burned as a result of their lies is extensive and very public, while the number that are more or less opaque is uncountable. Is there truly a benefit for those that practice candor?
“In fact, the share prices of survey companies in the top quartile of CEO candor outperformed companies in the bottom quartile by 31%. For nine of the past 10 years, top-ranked companies have outperformed bottom-ranked companies on average by 18%.”
Finally, a disturbing look at the meritocracy called Silicon Valley.
“Silicon Valley is indeed a meritocracy for those to whom these criteria are not hurdles. But others—the blacks, women, and Hispanics whom it overlooks—find it an elite private club from which they are excluded.” –Vivek Wadhwa
(Hat tip to Emanio CEO KG Charles-Harris for sending this to me.)
I owe my Saturday readers an apology. Expand Your Mind was absent last week and I have no excuse; worse, I have to admit I just plain forgot. That is embarrassing. I hope today makes up for it.
A rude awakening for all the companies and managers who believe they can treat their people any way they choose comes from an Aflac survey-based report saying otherwise.
77 percent of adults employed full/part time, and not currently self-employed, stated they would leave their current position to become an independent entrepreneur.
…more employees intend to stay with their employer, feel motivated to put forth extra effort, recommend their companies as a great place to work, and say they love their current organization.
What’s the difference; why such disparate results?
More research from Harvard shows that what excites and engages people has nothing to do with money and everything to do with managers (you knew that).
According to recent research, the single most important factor is simply a sense of making progress on meaningful work.
Next, two excellent survey-based articles about women and work.
First, research from Harvard Business Review, looks at the factors that impact both women and men when competing.
…how women and men perform at work may be strongly linked to the gender of the person they are competing against.
And from McKinsey comes advice based on feedback that focuses on changing deeply embedded attitudes.
…a survey we conducted earlier this year indicated that although a majority of women who make it to senior roles have a real desire to lead, few think they have meaningful support to do so, and even fewer think they’re in line to move up.
He simply pursues his vision of excellence in whatever he does, leaving others to decide whether he is working or playing. To him, he is always doing both.
From Mark Suster via TechCrunch talking about an important CEO role that is rarely mentioned—Chief Psychologist.
My primary role was “chief psychologist” and as I’ve learned over the past few years the same has been true as a VC. Both are basically people businesses.
But then there are the introverted CEOs—calm, eremitic, and observant—who prefer flying below the radar. You’ve never heard of them because they don’t like the spotlight.
Ask any leader, CEO or not, about the power of stories and they will tell you that stories are critical to any effort at engagement. And how better to learn the fine art of storytelling than through improv, which is available to all?
Improvisation (or improv, as it’s commonly called) is becoming increasingly accepted as a method to teach business skills; in fact, many of the country’s top business schools are including lessons on improvisation and its use in the world of business…
After all that reading you would probably appreciate a good video and what better subject than watching these experts Talk about the biggest mistakes a leader makes? Bill George, Professor, Harvard Business School and former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Medtronic Evan Wittenberg, Head of Global Leadership Development, Google, Inc. Dr. Ellen Langer, Professor, Harvard University Andrew Pettigrew, Professor, Sïad Business School, University of Oxford Gianpiero Petriglieri, Affiliate Professor of Organizational Behavior, INSEAD Carl Sloane, Professor Emeritus, Harvard Business School Jonathan Doochin, Leadership Institute at Harvard College Scott Snook, Associate Professor, Harvard Business School and retired Colonel, US Army Corps of Engineers Daisy Wademan Dowling, Executive Director, Leadership Development at Morgan Stanley
A new study at Harvard talks about “power posing.”
New research shows that it’s possible to control those feelings a bit more, to be able to summon an extra surge of power and sense of well-being when it’s needed: for example, during a job interview or for a key presentation to a group of skeptical customers.
It ties in with a post I did a few years ago that’s worth sharing again.
Defined by action—or thought?
As studies on corporate culture and the psychology of managers and workers proliferate, people spend more time and energy tracking themselves in an effort to “know their place” than ever before.
You are what you eat; you are what you wear, and now, you are where you sit. Far be it for me to pooh-pooh any of these findings, I’ve been around long enough to see them in action.
However, I have a passionate belief that you are what you think and an equally passionate belief that you can change what you think if you so choose.
My attitude towards, and development of, MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy)™ throughout my working years has it’s underpinnings in the writings (sans the religious parts) of Napoleon Hill, author of Think and Grow Rich, to which I was introduced in my late teens.
His writings predate, and are supported by, much of the current research, so if you want a synopsis of great thoughts on which to build your MAP and guide your organization, here are ten of Hill’s greatest (and best known) quotes.
“Whatever the mind of man can conceive and believe, it can achieve.”
“What you think, so you will become.”
“If you cannot do great things, do small things in a great way.”
“Your big opportunity may be right where you are now.”
“Desire is the starting point of all achievement, not a hope, not a wish, but a keen pulsating desire which transcends everything.”
“A goal is a dream with a deadline.”
“Thoughts mixed with definiteness of purpose, persistence, and a burning desire are powerful things.”
“Perseverance: The majority of men meet with failure because of their lack of persistence in creating new plans to take the place of those that fail.”
“Every adversity carries with it the seed of an equivalent or greater benefit.”
“Lack of loyalty is one of the major causes of failure in every walk in life.”
Print them out; share them with your people; discuss them; embrace them; practice them; and watch the benefits roll in for your company your people and you.
Hill and Harvard agree—it really is all in your mind.
Whether you consider your boss, or yourself, a leader or a manager you should find today’s offerings of interest.
Most of you know that I firmly believe that good managers must also be leaders, and vice versa, in order to get the best from today’s uber-savvy workforce, but that doesn’t always happen. This interview with Randy Komisar, who has been launching startups for 25 years, both as an entrepreneur and a VC, talks about the difference and what needs to be done.
Next is an interview with Aaron Levie, co-founder and C.E.O. of Box.net. Levie talks about how he manages, leads, hires and his company’s culture.
Our third interview today is with executive coach Liz Wiseman, Co-author of Multipliers: How the Best Leaders Make Everyone Smarter, discussing the difference between ‘multiplier’ and ‘diminishers’ (I sure hope you work for the former!)
In a great column, Bill Taylor, co-founder of Fast Company and co-author of Mavericks at Work, considers the idea of corporate heroes from a different point of view—not are there any left, but rather how do we recognize one in today’s business climate.
Finally another look at Mark Hurd—two, actually.
The first, from Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Harvard Business School professor and the author of Confidence and SuperCorp, considers a question we’ve all been asking: “How can very smart, accomplished people do such stupid things?” The second, from Stanford professor Jeffrey Pfeffer, the Thomas D. Dee II Professor of Organizational Behavior and author of a new book, Power: Why Some People Have It and Others Don’t, sees Hurd as a teaching moment on the subject of power.
Last week I wrote about HBS’ effort to legitimize leadership as a multi-faceted function worthy of scholarly pursuit as opposed to anecdotal advice.
Back in 1994 Joel Kurtzmen coined the term “thought leader” and defined it as follows,
“Thought leader is a buzzword or article of jargon used to describe a futurist or person who is recognized among their peers and mentors for innovative ideas and demonstrates the confidence to promote or share those ideas as actionable distilled insights (thinklets).”
Back then it may have had meaning, but 16 years later its frequent use in conjunction with the leadership flavor-of-the-month has reduced it almost to meaninglessness.
“Innovative ideas” doesn’t mean restating old stuff in new ways or recycling ideas the way the fashion industry recycles styles.
More importantly, truly innovative thinking is not tied or constrained by ideologies or past actions.
A great number of leadership fundamentals were first stated 2500 years ago in China by Lao Tzu and others of his ilk.
It is good to restate them in language current to the time and place, but presenting them as original or innovative and then claiming, or accepting, the mantle of thought leader is not.
It’s Saturday, so grab a cup of your favorite brew, settle back and enjoy some really interesting stuff.
If you are considering a move into management check out this article for, if not answers, direction on what you should consider.
Some people are natural managers. They love to lead, drive performance and contribute to the broader goals of a company. … Yet, management isn’t for everyone. It requires a unique set of skills to get the best performance out of all employees and to juggle a number of tasks all at once.
If you do decide to take the step to management, or it you are already there, Inc. says that leadership has changed and offers you a look at what they thing is needed not.
…the rules of great leadership have changed. So to guide the contemporary leader, Inc. has compiled 13 unconventional and surprisingly effective leadership ideas…
Anytime the talk turns to leadership Steve Jobs is usually mentioned. Harvard Business School professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter takes a different look at Jobs—v1 and v2.
…a remarkable leadership phenomenon: a founder who returns after a long pause to rescue the company, bringing a new mindset rather than trying to restore former glory.
Finally, a look at denial, the damage it does and why it happens. And while it’s a giant problem for business, it’s also a problem for individuals.
“Denial has always been a problem,” writes Harvard Business School historian Richard S. Tedlow in a new book, Denial: Why Business Leaders Fail to Look Facts in the Face-and What to Do About It. “What is different today is that the cost of denial has become so high. We are living in a less forgiving world than we once did.”
Entrepreneurs face difficulties that are hard for most people to imagine, let alone understand. You can find anonymous help and connections that do understand at 7 cups of tea.
Crises never end.
$10 really does make a difference and you’ll never miss it,
I’ve often cited 
Certain subjects have been discussed and debated constantly over the years; today’s links are updates on four of them.
A new study at Harvard talks about “
Back in 1994 Joel Kurtzmen coined the term “thought leader” and 
