Innovation does not mean that new solutions need to be created. Utilising existing resources differently can be innovative too. Positive deviance is a bottom-up approach which identifies and learns from those who demonstrate exceptional performance on an outcome of interest, and assumes that problems can be overcome using solutions that already exist.
Is it possible to change the mindset of a large organisation, such as a multinational? The question is, whether it is possible to scale the principles of Action Science to a larger group, such as an organisation, to change its mindset and thereby improving the actions for the intended outcomes. To understand the possibility, I will reflect on the impact of group dynamics and circumstantial influences on the application of Action Science to a larger group. These dynamics and influences – such as trust, motivation, cultural differences, distances between entities, and constant change – impact group behaviour and therefore the success rate of a collective learning intervention to achieve a mindset change, on individual level and various size levels of an organisation. My reflection.
Corporate Social Responsibility is more on the agenda than ever. The introduction of the Triple Bottom Line (1994) and the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals have pushed companies to take Corporate Social Responsibility to the next level. But are companies really committed to change their business models and 'live' Corporate Social Responsibility? Is it possible to make radical changes to their business models or are there arguments not to do it? Or is it more of a gimmick? In other words: Is Corporate Social Responsibility used by companies as a defence against making radical changes to their business?
Have you ever wondered what is going on when your successful pilot project does not receive implementation approval? Or why your performance does not land that promotion? Decoding power plays and political dynamics provides us with a working tool with which we can analyze organizational politics and orient our action in a politicized way.
In an economy where the only certainty is uncertainty, the one sure source of lasting competitive advantage is knowledge. Markets shift, technologies proliferate, competitors multiply, and products become obsolete almost overnight. Successful companies consistently create new knowledge, disseminate it widely throughout the organization, and quickly embody it in new technologies and products.
And you, as the CEO or Chief Innovation of a longstanding company, which perhaps still is an industry leader, needs to catch up with all the innovations happening. Before the disruption kicks in hard and you need to explain the shareholders why you had a kodak moment. But is your organization actually designed for integrating start-ups?
In 1997, Christopher Wallace presented his step-by-step guide to achieving success in business. The same year when he famously proclaimed that mo’ money would lead to mo’ problems. It was also the year he died.
So how would the future look like, freed from assets, but with loads of expertise and money to invest in the future? For one that’s a once in a life time 28’000’000’000 EUR or even a 64’000’000’000 CHF question... For the other it’s a weekly Monday morning acquisition update to change another market.
It is clear that the competitive arena has changed forever already long before 2015 and profitability of the past will never come back, not even when you excel in implementing the 4 strategic levers. So, If your time to you is worth savin’, then you better start swimmin’. Don’t remain STUCK.