Will McInnes

Icon

Exploring the near-future and better ways to do business

Culture Shockers, meet Social Business Sessions

Fans-of-a-better-future: a quick note that for those of you based in the UK, we run a six-weekly event called Social Business Sessions where we discuss many of the issues covered in Culture Shock.

Next week we have three speakers:

- on Complexity & Social Movements,

- on Brands with Purpose

- on Activism and social organisations.

Hand-picked speakers, small group size, emphasis on discussion.

Do come along if you’re free, either next Thursday or at a future Social Business Session

(Book-wise, your feedback went to the publishers, along with final pre-proof edits and we’re starting to move into proper production and promotion. Book is up on Amazon, will be out in August and we’ll be doing the promotional push in September. All good!).

Filed under: Better business

Every Business becomes more Family Business

Just had lunch and another stimulating conversation with Ollie Glass, our new creative technologist at NixonMcInnes. Ollie is a very clever and interesting guy.

He passed on this ‘off-hand remark’ that someone had made about how family businesses have tended to outlast corporations where the shareholders are, I’m guessing, not tied by family. (Will see if I can dig this out, but for now I want to play with the ideas rather than get into the data).

What this got us thinking about was what is it about family business that leads to these long-lasting dynasties? And what, if anything, can non-family businesses learn?

For me, family and business are two words I’m not keen to mix! I have a strong desire to keep different parts of my life quite separate – family, work, friends. I like the clarity and the ease that I feel comes with that. And I also really need and value the sanctuary that family gives me from the mental demands of work. It helps me to have them apart.

I also hate the idea of tip-toeing around a family that work together, or worse, of me and my family inflicting our bickering onto them. Could anything be worse than that?! :)

But when I think about the potential goodness that can exist in family business I start to feel that there could be some enormous good in there for the wider business community to take inspiration from.

When Carole Leslie from the Employee Ownership Association visited us a few weeks back to talk about employee ownership she told us that one of the most common paths to employee ownership was a family business where the founder wanted to pass her or his company on to their children, but the kids weren’t interested.

In order to keep the culture and fabric they’d built, they looked to employee ownership.

So what is it they fear and resist about, say, the trade sale – the most common alternative? What is it that another business cannot provide?

And if family businesses last longer, is there something about their fabric, their shareholder mindset, the decisions they make and the priorities they place on things that the rest of us can learn from?

Thinking about shareholding in particular, is it the connections between the shareholders that do something good in family businesses, rather than the federation of individual interests all pointing towards a single objective – capital appreciation (and I guess, dividends) – with corporate shareholder bases?

Or is it the shared values? Or the drive for legacy and dynasty? Or the personal reputation, the realest of real skin in the game?

As we begin to work towards an evolved 21st century kind of business, are we actually heading full circle – returning to long-standing and long-lasting principles that millions of enterprises have been built on since civilization began? Will every business become more like the good parts of a family business?

Filed under: Better business

In the virtual organisation, where is home?

There’s this huge momentum towards fluidity at work – to remote working, to portfolio careers, job sharing, the rise of ronin / freelancing, work life balance, Skype, yammer and the Cloud and so on.

For us as individuals, as workers, there’s lots to like in all of this. We are unleashed! I can work from anywhere! When I want, how I want, with who I want (and so the dreamy hype goes).
And there are – of course – tons of benefits for organisations and businesses too who have been keen to capitalise on these.

But in this working world, if we are all remote and virtual and part of loosely formed networks around projects that quickly form and then dissolve, then where is home?
Where is the centre of gravity that binds and anchors and provides that sense of HQ, of the mothership?

We know what we gain with fluidity, but what do we lose when this base goes, both as workers and business owners?

This all occurred to me after a week where I spoke with two different Managing Directors of consulting firms, both much more fluid than NixonMcInnes.

One firm was entirely geographically distributed across the States, with 20 people peppered across the whole country. Their consultants were mid- to late-career, so pretty grown up, experienced business people and the consultancy operated a reasonably traditional ‘eat what you kill’ mode of rewards. No central staff, no support or admin people not earning fees, no geographical centre of operations. Certainly makes sense from a financial bottom-line point of view.

But not everything about the consultancy was traditional – like us they do some more radical stuff in how they work together. Their MD told me that they tried to get everyone together three times a year. THREE TIMES, I thought, as I thought of how frustrated I get when we struggle to get a decent turn out for weekly team meetings, given all of the important, useful stuff there is to relay and the constant challenge to satisfy people’s desire to know what’s going on.

The other MD runs a consulting firm also in Europe that does have a centre of gravity, an office with a small central staff and then consultants distributed in different countries, all working from wherever they want to work from. But we were talking about how that might not always be a good idea commercially.

The third thing rattling round in the same tumble-dryer of background thinking was the 37 Signals case study of distributed team, connected by digital tools, and their Meetings are Toxic mantra. They are world class in what they do, they seem to do ok without lots of face to face meetings – theoretically one of the key benefits of a central HQ.

And these conversations and thoughts made me think about what we’ve been doing with NixonMcInnes.

We’ve been deliberately developing a real physical heart, and so have invested our office space, in having administrative and marketing support, and in developing a cohort of people living and working in the same county, and almost entirely in the same city.

It’s like we are walking directly against the tide. And that’s confusing (although not unusual for us).

I wonder what organisational benefits we derive by having a home. Or are we just doing it because of the preferences of the people in the organisation, and if so what does that cost us and do we acknowledge that?

Also, do we gain competitive advantage? If we compete with a distributed firm, are we more likely to win or is the playing field level apart from the extra financial resources they have saved from central costs?

In theory, I would expect benefits to show up in areas like these:
- in trust, resilience and therefore quality under pressure in the relationships between team members leading to client retention, referrals and project profitability
- in people’s happiness and engagement at work (even as I write this one, I’m starting to question it) leading to talent acquisition and retention
- in communication between team members which then drives quality to clients and profits for the company through saved time (again, I can quickly think of counter arguments…)
- in pitching for clients business, and them having the comfort of the physical tangible sense of a team and a business (having seen the networked agency model many times I am actually more confident of this point for the time being though I think it will change over time)

Are there others?
Are these flawed, am I drinking my own Kool-aid?

The thing is, I know I want to be part of something and to me personally I like the physical part of that, the offline, the home. And I believe others do too.

But there is a tidal force here. And a string of benefits as well as costs that we are only beginning to understand.

Given all of this, I do wonder with some interest how the traditional physical centre of gravity at the heart of an organisation will change in this next generation of work.

Filed under: Better business, Futures

Do Lectures: the people and the music

I’ve already published my Do Lectures 2011 notes over on the NixonMcInnes blog.

Something was missing from that, though. The missing part was about the people and the music of Do.

On the first afternoon, after driving for 5 odd hours, the idea of the afternoon was to get settled, find yer tent, meet some people and have a cup of tea, with a meal and booze later in the evening. Sounds good, non?

That evening, though, we were treated to an enjoyable and challenging set from comedian Josie Long. Challenging is a word that wankers probably use when they really mean ‘shit and horrifically awkward’. But I mean challenging GOOD. What I loved about Josie’s set – apart from lots of funny bits, especially the Bronte sisters piece – was how flipping angry she is about how the Tories are behaving, and how I just let that float right past me, comfortable in my little bubble. It’s not overstating it to say that Josie’s ranting has got me feeling pissed off and political again :)

A bit of Josie’s stuff.

Then, hours later (I think) after beers and chats, we found ourselves round a lovely campfire, under a kinda-teepee roof, listening to Chailo Sim playing their first ever unplugged acoustic set. AMAZING. Totally magical. These guys have huuuuge talent, and being that close to the creation of such good sounds. Unforgettable.

We made them play this song at least 3 times during the course of the night. So so so good.

On the second night, we sang together as a Feral Choir with Phil Minton. I cannot describe how weird this was and capture the fullness of it, but imagine a large group of adults being coaxed into ‘singing’ very strange, indeed feral, noises in layers, in sub-groups and all together in a way that left you exhilerated, terrified and tired in muscles you didn’t know existed!

Like this….!

Then a local lad played another acoustic set which was – again – really good and the guy had incredible guitar and singing skills. In awe, really.

On the Friday night a mesmerising girl called Cate Le Bon played a mixture of English and Welsh-language songs in a barn up near the fforest kitchen gardens. Another wicked setting, and the music was melancholy, captivating, different.

But it was the Saturday night that blew my mind.

I’d heard from a colleague that Gruff Rhys was going to be good, and that her husband had thought Gruff – the ex-frontman of Super Furry Animals – was excellent at Green Man.

What we saw was a genius one-man-show from Gruff, bending musical boundaries and doing crazy shit with vocoders, kids electronic keyboards and little 45s of Finnish bird song.

It was, truly, a jaw-droppingly piss-takingly brilliant piece of musical mastery, and one I hope I will never forget.

This track was wicked:

Also check out Documentally’s storify of the Do Lectures. Audio-visual-niceness.

That’s the music bit.

Then I just feel like I need to say thank you to some of the people that made Do happen. I don’t know many of them, and so will inevitably miss people out, but especially:

- Andy Middleton

- David Hieatt

- Jon Heslop and Alex Heslop

- Anna

- Anya and her team of delicious food creating wizards

- James & Sian fforest and their boys

- All of the many other people that helped make it happen

The effort and thought and character that goes into the Do Lectures is astonishing. As author Les Mckeown put it: The Do Lectures was hands-down the best event I’ve attended in around…oh…30 years or so.

Reaching that standard is no accident. It is a triumph of careful though put into action and an amazing committed group of people working together.

So that’s it. I’m done now on Do eulogising. At least in writing. So soo so brilliant. Thank you.

Filed under: Better business

List of Meaning Organisations

Pre-reading! More about Meaning Organisations here.

An evolving and very incomplete list of for-profit businesses whose meaning obviously transcends just making profit:

Canada
- Mountain Equipment Co-op

Denmark
- Groundfos
- Noma
- Specialisterne

India
- The Tata Nano
- Unilever Shakti

UK
- Howies
- Participle

USA
- Interface
- Google
- Gore
- Threadless
- Kiva
- Kickstarter
- Patagonia
- Pixar
- Threadless
- WorldBlu
- Zappos

Please comment or email me with suggestions to add to the list.

Filed under: Better business, Global

The Better Business School

For a while I’ve had a hankering to establish some kind of centre of learning here in Brighton where we can gather, share and learn about new better ways to approach business. (And with a Wired Sussex hat on, we’ve had in parallel conversations with the University of Brighton discussions about how we could collaborate on something like this – but here I’m just thinking about what this could be like started from scratch).

This thing would be or lead to a school of thought as much as a physical school.

Where the learning blends the following influences:

  • Semco
  • Cluetrain
  • WorldBlu companies (inc. Zappos, Namasté Solar, DaVita etc)
  • Rebuild21
  • Umair Haque
  • SeeStep / Conscious Business
  • Design thinking
  • Permaculture and systems thinking

I have been thinking it might be good to start with a summer school approach, a bit like d.school.

The buzz words and values would be along these lines:

  • Towards a sustainable world
  • Design – matters
  • Innovation – in all things
  • Peer learning – we learn from one another
  • Learning by doing – yup
  • Diversity – in the search for the best possible results
  • Open – in all things
  • Different – always and above all

It’s definitely not a CSR thing. It’s a business thing. A better business thing. The Better Business School?

Filed under: Better business, Ideas

Missions with meaning

Last week I was delighted to join in proceedings at Rebuild21 in Copenhagen.
And, due to speaker shenanigans, I ended up opening proceedings. My topic was Meaning Organisations.

This is about 19 minutes on the topic.

The Meaning Organization, Will McInnes, NixonMcinnes from Rebuild21 on Vimeo.

The Meaning Organisation, so coined – at least according to my research – by the inimitable Umair Haque in his post The Shape of the Meaning Organisation, is “built not just to learn (and then do “business”) but, more deeply, to redraw the boundaries of prosperity, by doing meaningful stuff that matters the most.”

It is an organisation, and in particular for me a business, with a clearly expressed higher purpose that goes beyond accomplishing commercial goals, and in particular where that purpose solves a real-world problem that makes the world a better.

And it is still a business: for profit, agile, independent, effective, focused on results.

Umair himself describes Meaning Organisations in this second blog post as having the following characteristics, and though they’re nice I see this as one of the great man’s  quick splurges than some of his more carefully refined thoughts (so what I take from them is the feeling rather than the specifics):

- Significance
- Outcomes thinking
- Harmony
- Purpose
- Peace
- Love
- Ambition

It struck me that outside of the business world, it’s much easier to find Meaning Organisations. Most charities, not-for-profits and religious organisations are mission-led and have missions with meaning.

So why do we need Meaning Organisations?

I think it’s pretty obvious why we need Meaning Organisations, but for the sake of completeness here’s some context from my perspective.

Firstly, for many of us the meltdown in business and government over the past few years is the start of an unstoppable shift away from hollowed-out, profit-at-all-costs businesses which squeeze value out of people and the planet. As citizens, we’re sick of it. Business needs rebooting and rebuilding. (And some of the aspects that need rebooting are those I tried to convey at the Brighton TEDx talk on Radicalising Business).

Secondly, the workforce of today, embroiled in this changing, shifting world, needs to be thought of more as volunteers rather than military recruits. Gen Y want to know WIIFM. Everyone older than Gen Y has seen experienced redundancies in some shape or form, and knows that people have been expendable, there is no job for life, and are conscious of opportunities to become freelance (or Ronin), to manage portfolios of work, to take career breaks and all that other good stuff. In parallel, there has been a sustained trend towards more volunteering, towards coaching and mentoring – these and more I see as signals of our quest for greater meaning.
So today, if you want to the best talent, there needs to be Meaning as well as money.

Thirdly, because both of the above influence us as consumers, and it is my belief that consumers in Europe and the US (which is the extent of my cultural knowledge, and even then at a reasonably shallow level) are increasingly seeking out experiences, services and products with a narrative that is authentic, sustainable, stuff which has provenance. See the growth in sales of Freedom Food chickens, the rise of the micro-brewery, the niche bicycle design company, the resistance towards Tesco and other powerful supermarkets in small towns and villages, the Buy Local movement, the gastro pub.

So what are good examples of Meaning Organisations? Well I spent a reasonable time researching the topic of meaning organisations for the talk, but really I’ve only just started as everywhere I look I’m starting to find them. But what I’ve come across so far is that old nemesis from our days helping pioneer social media marketing in the UK: the whole ‘same old brands wheeled out as examples of excellence’ problem. Too few people doing it well?

Some of those regularly trotted out examples include:
- Interface
- Google
- Threadless
- Kiva
- Unilever Shakti
- Zappos
- The Tata Nano

In Copenhagen at Rebuild21 several Danish examples were repeatedly mentioned:

- Groundfos
- Specialisterne

And then there was a stirring and hilarious speech from co-founder of Noma, the world’s best restaurant, Claus Meyer, on the New Nordic Manifesto which he co-authored and which has given confidence and purpose to thousands of Nordic food producers in the region. That manifesto and movement is abundant with Meaning Organisation-ness.

On great examples of Meaning Organisations, who are the British examples I wonder? Do let me know who comes to mind.

What is interesting is that many of these few examples are incomplete in their Meaning-ness. So Tata is the huge Indian conglomerate, but its Nano car is a business line that has provided the means to own their own transport to a huge new swathe of the Indian population by consciously designing a car that hits a $2,000 price point. There is rich meaning here. But this is not to say that the whole of Tata is therefore a Meaning Organisation.

Google has its underlying principles, one of which is ‘The need for information crosses all borders’. There is a sense, in this one principle alone, of a unifying goal, a purpose beyond making profits, a higher-order mission for people in the organisation to work towards.

Zappos would otherwise just be a shoe-selling business if it wasn’t for its brilliant, whacky, human colour and personality. A website, a warehouse and tons of shoes. Instead, it is an exemplar for us all in how progressive and radical culture can be scaled. If I had to reverse engineer Zappo’s meaning as an outsider I would have to stump for something around humanity – they celebrate weirdness, use the word ‘family’ frequently and have a strong emphasis on the individual being themselves and developing themselves.

It’s worth also mentioning Social Business and Conscious Business as other terms knocking around this area. I won’t go into them in detail here, but my feeling is that Social Business is confused between the Yunus school of Social Business and the Dachis/IBM school, so I can’t quite get behind that.

Conscious business, at least the definition developed by my friends and colleagues at SeeStep, I like for its wholeness. Whereas Meaning Organisation seems to sum up the purpose and meaning part of a contemporary business, there’s more to look at, and that’s where I feel Conscious Business is worthy of more attention and really comes into its own.

I guess the last thought I have is that Meaning is in the eye of the beholder.

What means something to you might not to the person next to you. So there is something about finding ways to attract people to our organisations who share the same Meaning, but also repel (or expel) those that don’t. Zappos famously have the bounty they offer to people to leave after their initial induction – not often taken up, but a clear and powerful signal that you should chose to be part of their organisation.

I have no idea how to end this post, other than to thank Sofus Midtgaard, the organiser of Rebuild21 for giving me the chance to investigate and learn more about this area further.

Onwards!

Filed under: Better business

Follow me on Twitter

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 54 other followers