It’s a cruel dilemma that all decision-makers are constantly faced with: there are some changes that we feel are vital. Worse still, expert consultants and analyses of all kinds tell you that these changes are inevitable, and that in the long run the only alternative is to change or disappear.
But here’s the thing … when you change, you often encounter turbulence. When you don’t change, you can only blame yourself the day you hit the wall. And in that case, you can always say that you “followed the usual rules of common sense”, or that “nobody saw it coming”… or that by the time the wall comes, you’ll have changed jobs a long time ago. In conclusion, it’s far more acceptable morally and in everyone’s eyes to “do as we’ve always done” and take the risk of a serious crisis, than to cause turbulence today to avoid a crash tomorrow. Individuals, most of whom are competent, are in no way to blame; it’s the system that frames them in this way that is.
In any case, here we are at the heart of a very topical issue, with the announced inevitable transition to “enterprise 2.0”. Peter Sondergaard, one of Gartner’s most eminent figures, recently made this point to an audience of business leaders who, if they saw the opportunities of such developments as he did, would often reply, “He’s a consultant, I’m a business leader and I’ll be the one in trouble if things get out of hand”. This was not a question of the company’s social equilibrium, but of the criminal liability of its directors in the event of unfortunate disclosure of sensitive financial information.
The role of a decision-maker is, in fact, to find the right timing for the necessary changes, not too early so as not to upset the organization’s equilibrium, but not too late to avoid hitting the wall. By “moving”, if possible, the famous rules to prepare the company for change.
Clearly, for some, the time is now. Indeed, Manfred Reif, head of HSH Nordbank, an investment bank in Luxembourg, decided to launch an internal blog to let 130 employees discuss….the way the bank was run. Nothing less. So, not only did it decide to go 2.0, but it did so on the side that might seem the most perilous.
This was done by the book, since the unions were also involved in the operation.
Financial institutions, because of the specific rules that govern them, are certainly those where the barrier to “2.0” is the strongest, for reasons of simple common sense. For his part, Manfred Reif believes that innovation is a vital need for business, and that if you simply apply the rules, you’ll never innovate. His credo: “look for ways to innovate first, then think about respecting the rules, otherwise we’ll never make progress”.
Sondergaard’s final message: “Digital natives will soon be on the job market. Companies today need to learn how to use 2.0 tools internally, because tomorrow it’s these natives who will decide who they want to work for and do business with.
Source : Digit Online via FrogPond
Related articles:
Reinventing management according to McKinsey
How Finaref managed to get both innovation and web 2.0 within the organization
Serendipity doesn’t preclude control : a few rules to manage fate within informal networks
Developing and managing information capital to support strategy : can enterprise 2.0 help ?
Is web 2.0 dead or is business replacing buzzyness ?
How to integrate innovation in your organization…with your IT dept.
