Changing cultures

A lot of my recent refelctions have been related to the problem of creating change and introducing innovation within bureacracy...I have long seen myself as a fairly adept "change agent" confident in diverse contexts both local and international, but I know one cannot win every battle.I have been researching the links on the topic of organisational change, leadership and innovation...

At this link I found the following extracts which seem applicable...

"What lets risk-takers mine primal sources or soar with creative currents? These "on the edge" individuals: a) are not overly preoccupied with making mistakes or with social disapproval; they are able to tolerate the anxiety of separateness, b) have a strong enough ego to admit when they are wrong or in trouble, and c) analyze, emotionally experience and learn from trial and error.

Creative risk-takers don't just tolerate contradiction, uncertainty and isolation; they seem to often invite them. But why? University of Chicago psychologist Salvatore Maddi posits three personality factors that, singularly or in combination, compel creative endeavor: 1) the drive to transform the tension of unresolved emotional conflicts from childhood into individual expression, vindication and mastery, 2) the drive of a "lonely crusader" determined to challenge the group's or the organization's need to preserve the status quo, and 3) the drive of profound self-awareness and alienation: "the person (must) construct a framework of meaning that is personal rather than imposed externally."

And with this foundation, "creative persons are precisely those that take the cards that make them anxious" (May).

And more...

"Four Steps for Creative Risk-Taking

Here are key steps and strategies for developing your "Creative Risk-Taking" potential:

1. Aware-ily Jump in Over Your Head. Only by jumping into the fray can you quickly discover how adequate your resources are with respect to the novel challenge ahead. This approach precludes a strategy that eliminates all risk in advance. (Okay, check to see if there are any alligators in the water.) You may need to encounter realistic anxiety, exaggerated loss of control and even some feelings of humiliation to confront your "Intimate FOE." But often the reward for the risk is a unique readiness to build knowledge, emotional hardiness and skills for survival, along with evolving imaginative mastery.

2. Strive to Survive the High Dive. There's no guarantee when grappling with new heights or depths, but four fail-safe measures come to mind: a) strive high and embrace failure -- failure is not a sign of unworthiness, but a learning margin between perfection and achievement, especially as one explores the fine line between vision and hallucination, b) develop a realistic time frame -- recognize that many battles are fought and lost before a major undertaking is won, c) be tenaciously honest - continuously assess the impact of outcomes, changes within yourself and your environment, and the rules underlying your operation, d) establish a support system - have people in your life who provide both kinds of TLC: Tender Loving Criticism and Tough Loving Care.

3. Thrive On Thrustration. Learn to incubate or be stuck between thrusting ahead with direct action and frustration. Creativity often requires being more problem-minded than solution-focused. Increasing tension or "thrustration" (Rabkin) can shake the habituated, settled mind and may transform a dormant subconscious into an active psychic volcano -- memories, novel associations and symbolic images overflow into consciousness. You're in position to generate fertile problem-solving alternatives. Problems are not just sources of tension and frustration, but are opportunities for integrating the past and the present, the conscious and the unconscious, the obscure and the obvious. Here lies creative perspective.

4. Design for Error and Opportunity. Innovative and risk-taking individuals and organizations are more attuned to a range of possibilities than to fixed or ideal goals. These systems prefer the risk of initiation and experimentation to preoccupation over deviation or imperfection. Floundering through a sea of novelty and confusion often yields new connections, long- range mastery and an uncommon big picture. A narrow, safe course creates the illusion of achievement and short-lived control. Of course, limited predesign means opportunity for errors. In open people and systems, startup misplays are vital signs for self-correcting and self-challenging feedback.

Remember, errors of judgment or design don't signify incompetence; they more likely reveal inexperience or immaturity, perhaps even boldness. Our so- called "failures" can be channeled as guiding streams (sometimes raging rivers) of opportunity and experience that so often enrich - widen and deepen - the risk-taking passage. If we can just immerse ourselves in these unpredictable yet, ultimately, regenerative waters."

Ok, I don't subscribe to every word of the above but there is aenough there to make it worth the read...some interesting links conceptually to some of Tom peters ideas about failing big and often...cool!

More here.

Historical context of recent changes in China's economy...

Interestingly, at least in the context of this blog, the Economic Development Board fo Australia [CEDA] has recently published a report that includes some interesting material providing a little historical context...

...China's rise in the last decades of the 20th century and the early 21st century represents a re-emergence. China was easily the world's ;argest economy for most of the past 1500 years; as recent as 200 years ago, it accounted for perhaps one third of the global economic output. In the 21st century, it is poised to assume something like that importance again. But in sharp contrast to much of the previous millenium, 21st century China will most likely trade aggressively with the rest of the world as both producer and consumer...

Australia China Connections June/July 2005

Motivation, Innovation, Bureacracy

Fundamentally, state run organisations appear slow and often unresponsive to those outside the structure of the organisation. How does innovation get oxygen in this context? I have been reflecting and writing upon the topic of motivation, and how it might relate to organisational culture. In order to get some perspective and distance myself [somewhat] from my own biases, I have been conducting research to establish some idea of the work that has been done in this area. Further to this the comments regarding motivation and how it interfaces with innovation posted on cph127 have further piqued my interest...

The extract reproduced here from the link above relates more specifically to the context of organisations with beauracratic structures that almost certainly, inherently inhibit innovation.It is instructive in clarifying the causes and some strategies in dealing with the problem at least from a management point of view.

Employees in most organizations would like to feel that their ideas can make a difference in their workplace. For many people, in fact, there are few things more motivating than seeing--and assisting with--the successful implementation of an idea they suggested. The scarcity of this motivational force may be one of the biggest reasons why so many government employees feel that they are powerless and unable to change "the system."

All too often, supervisors overlook the possibility that their employees may be an untapped gold mine of good ideas. Sometimes this may be out of hubris, with the manager feeling that he/she knows best. In other cases, managers may ignore line employees' ideas out of insecurity, feeling threatened by subordinates who prove to be highly competent and creative.

No one has a monopoly on good ideas, however. Managers who are aggressive about eliciting the ideas of their staff find that getting everyone involved in the effort to improve the operation has an incredible multiplier effect on the rapidity of the change process and the commitment of employees to those changes. To do this, managers need to foster a climate of openness that gets employees engaged in the process of innovation and organizational renewal.


The following two links are very clear in their assertion that beauracracy is fundamentally a block to innovation within organisational culture...

"Some confuse the bureaucracy with the cause of the success - rather than - the parking brake on that success."

"The bureaucratic obsession with rules leads to the ignoring of results."

"Classical" bureaucracy, we are told, worked well in a stable environment, when tasks were simpler and change more glacial. But bureaucracy cannot cope with our age of "breathtaking" change, with its complex and interdependent social problems, because it operates through a detailed sub-division of tasks and the constant generation of new rules.

Ends and means get inverted, as Robert Merton argued, and the bureaucratic obsession with rules leads to the ignoring of results.

For the serious design professional whose role and in fact natural instinct is to bring new ideas and impliment them, this is an eternal frustration that inevitiably requires [it appears] either a forfeiting of this professional fundamental, or a change of role to a more suitable and accomodating climate...The question remains - Can bureacracy cope with innovation?

And what kind of world are we designing?

This is not a blog entry about the London bombings per se. It is a rant about disruption, disassociation, confusion and the re-imagining of where designers fit in with things as they stand in the post 9/11, Madrid, London scenario…

I’ve been a generalist designer for about 25 years now. I have developed work in a wide diversity of locations and contexts. These days despite being busier than ever before, arguably more successful than ever before [at least in terms of income, status, responsibility, autonomy etc], I feel a sense of ennui, of dislocation from my path as a professional, a loss of direction and this is of great concern to me…

Tom Peters introduces his book “Re-imagine” with a chapter about business in a disruptive age, ranting, graphically writing “was” vs “is” scenarios, sound-bites, making challenging statements like, “If you don’t like change, your going to like irrelevance even less.” I find myself going back to this stuff and the book as a whole every few days or so. So, ok - it’s a good book, I’ve said as much elsewhere.

I was just offered a job in China, before that one in India…After careful consideration both positions aren’t quite the right fit. Don’t get me wrong – I want to be in China particularly. I have this fascination with it. I’m sure it shows through here. Just not the right fit…I’ve got a newborn son, and a beautiful partner – the most important thing in my life is my family. It’s not the risk factor – just not the right location actually [Guangzhou - not Shanghai or Beijing]. Risk is cool, but it needs to be the right risk.



Back to Tom. One of the slides in his downloadable presentations says “China should be on your mind”…Well Tom – it most definitely is. I can’t wait to return. But it has to be right for my family. Ever tried to live in a culture/community where you are just so busy working that you cannot get it together to learn the language other than to speak the basics so you can get around, buy stuff and look foolish? It’s an amazing experience but tiring. What am I trying to say here?

I’ve been fortunate to have worked long enough at my craft so as to straddle the digital divide. In this sense I mean I remember the role of designer prior to the Mac, Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver, Flash etc. – and I have been able to come to terms easily with the evolution and to embrace the whole digital workflow environment of the digital desktop studio. Hell, I even actually love computer technology. I don’t think it answers all my problems but it certainly helps in widening the scope of what is possible. This blog and my other sites are a simple, personal testaments to that. I and countless others have the ability to publish to a global audience - it's passe to assert that these days.

What I’m getting around to expressing can be summed up in one question – a question both personal and more broad in it’s application. That question is, "Where to from here?"

Did you notice how Tony Blair referred to the “design” of the terror attack on London? It’s true it was most definitely a “designed’ event. A template used perhaps in Madrid as well. Digital technology may have played it’s part in triggering the bombs themselves via the ubiquitous mobile phone – a true design icon for the contemporary era if ever there was one.

Elsewhere, there are debates emerging about the power the individual has now to participate in the documentation of “history” itself. Citing the examples of mobile phone video and images documenting the “on the ground” experience of the tragedy…

I don’t think I am alone in contemplating this paralysis at this juncture...how do we find the right "fit"?...And what kind of world are we designing?