Reflections on Managerial Innovation

So for my Organizational Leadership seminar (TBD), I had to write a reaction paper on The Future of Management by Gary Hamel. It was named the #1 business book of 2007 by WSJ. Gary Hamel is also the author of Leading the Revolution and Competing for the Future. Great great books. I spent quite a while on this piece, and I’m assuming my professor will be asking me if he can publish it (kidding…maybe), so it might be worth reading. It highlights my love/hate relationship with the corporate power-monger, as well as some inquiries regarding the appropriate role of the Manager. Here’s a little excerpt:

The Future of Management by Gary Hamel has provoked notions in me spanning the entire emotional spectrum, all of which have been considered and developed with particular focus on my volatile disillusionment with current corporate orthodoxies as well as my inquiry of the proper role of the manager. I can say that this book has been an invaluable tool in my attempt at overcoming existing orthodoxies and redefining the role of the manager. The book surpassed any expectations I had by teaching me things I did not realize I needed to learn. It was also an effective supplement to a mantra from Neville Goddard that I have always tried to follow: “Learn to shake yourself loose from what the world believes is the only reality.” Prior to reading this book, I believed that certain issues were palpable obstructions to innovative management strategy that could eventually get the best of me. I now see that the issues are less than palpable obstructions. They are completely insignificant. Hamel has helped me to understand that the conventions and ideals of the world are utterly extraneous for a rule-breaking, innovation-seeking renegade that is passionately determined to change the world.

So if you like the concepts or just want to see more of my eloquent writing, then go ahead and read or skim the rest of it! I’m relatively proud. Not my best work, but it’s okay. So click on, my friends, click on.

THE INSIGNIFICANCE OF CONVENTIONS

It is obvious to some that the renegades and contrarians of the world are often lonely. They may have plenty of family and friends, but they still lack a sense of belonging. I say this with confidence only because I have spent the majority of my 22 years on earth experiencing it. In all observable aspects, I lead a good life.  Nevertheless, my incessantly inquiring mind has rendered me intellectually isolated from the rest of my world. I found solace, however, in the ruminations of Gary Hamel. Reading this book felt like a conversation with a new cohort, or possibly even a therapist. The Future of Management, by Gary Hamel, triggered in me a variety of thoughts and emotions that can be organized within two broad themes: (1) the further disillusionment with corporate orthodoxies; and (2) the unresolved question of the proper role of the manager.

The meaningful analysis of common orthodoxies found in The Future of Management significantly influenced my preexisting disenchantment with certain conventions. For quite a while, I have felt burdened, restricted, and defeated by two primary foes—the hierarchical corporation and the ignorance of society. Both of these entities have legions of followers, near-unlimited power, and pervasive influence. I, on the other hand, currently have very few of those things. For the purpose of this analysis, I will focus mainly on the tenets associated with the typical corporate structure. Throughout this book, Hamel introduced and dissected these nemeses of mine, instilling within me a disconcerting collection of emotions comprised of despair, acceptance, anger, hope, and inspiration.  Hamel immediately won my heart upon explaining for whom he wrote this book. I have frequently found myself feeling “hog-tied by bureaucracy,” worrying that “the ‘system’ is stifling innovation,” and wondering “why corporate life has to be so dispiriting.”  (Preface)

I suppose it is necessary to first identify why I have so much distaste for these conventional power-mongers. I consider myself to be something of a renegade, frequently rejecting the status quo and that which I am told to believe or do. What is more, I want to change the world. I want to achieve profound maverickdom. I want not for people to remember my name, but rather that which I gave them. I spent the majority of my sophomore year wanting nothing more than to be part of a corporation. My junior year was spent interviewing for, and getting rejected from, a long list of corporate finance positions. I was actually hurting inside—not because I was without a future career, but because I could not understand why any corporation would not want to employ a bright-eyed young innovator with an incredibly impressive resume. What was missing? Some feedback from career advisors told me that I was seen as a possible liability—describing me with terms like “a risky investment” and “potentially disruptive.” Was I indeed the “counter-productive rebel” that these advisors portrayed me as? I feared that my quest for maverickdom would essentially counteract and thwart my dreams of corporate bliss. Gary Hamel affirmed these fears as he explained why corporate America continues to reject the organizational strategies of successful organizations such as W.L. Gore. I have always been intrigued by the way Gore runs its businesses and have been perplexed by how such an effective organizational structure could fail to be widely emulated.  Having fulfilled its destiny as my friend and therapist, the text explained to me that many executives are intimidated by innovative tactics because they jeopardize the clout and cushion associated with their role in a more empirical organization. Reading the section on Gore genuinely angered me. The concept of top executives willing to put an entire company at risk to save their precious titles is deplorable, in my opinion. As Hamel suggests, these leaders are less than deserving of the positions they hold. Australian physicist Barry Marshall demonstrated a sad truth that hit close to home when asserting that “the people that have a stake in the old technology are never the ones to embrace the new technology.” (127)

However, the disparagement I felt was replaced with hope and inspiration as Hamel began to divulge how companies like W.L. Gore operate. I found myself actually beaming whilst reading about the ideals garnered by these management innovators. I was so impressed by their ability to create brilliant strategies and hopeful that I could, one day, potentially implement these tactics in my own organization. A theme that was widely prevalent in each company was the authenticity of purpose. The company vision was focused on change, rather than profit. The company insisted on hiring only those that shared the passion and drive on which it was founded—something that I have always been very passionate about. The hiring policy in place by the company reminds me of a certain Guy Kawasaki lecture in which he stressed that unless the employee is intrinsically motivated to perform the task at hand, he will forever be limited in his capabilities. The degree of intrinsic motivation seen at Semco, however, was almost too radical for me to comprehend. It was so utopian in nature that I could not imagine how this idea could ever be emulated elsewhere. Although I suppose that is part of the general strategy. Even more encouraging was the fact that the employees in these model organizations were not the faceless paper-pushers of the typical corporation, but rather they were a dynamic set of A-teamers who “don’t like authority and…don’t like being told what to do.” (109) I found it amusing and inspiring when Pixar’s Brad Bird explained that he was brought to the company to “cause a certain amount of disruption.” I was very impressed and intrigued by Hamel’s thoughts surrounding human capital as one of the most valuable assets of an innovative group. In reading more of the The Future of Management, I realized that those corporations that had failed to hire me would undoubtedly suffer by continuing to overlook the wild card and gladly hire the loyal follower. I was then confident that those companies would be kicking themselves (or rolling over in their graves) when they read the Harvard Business Case written about the great changes made by the young Diana Mayland. My initial intention was to read the text to learn more about my archenemy, the bureaucracy, in an attempt to eventually triumph over it. I was instead taken on a journey that forced me to rehash memories of the rise and fall of my corporate dream world. The journey ended with the realization that the orthodoxies celebrated by the average corporation, while far-reaching and deeply rooted, cannot be accepted simply the “system” says so. Hamel’s contention that these dogmas can and should be dispelled gave me the motivation and encouragement needed to continue on my path to strategic immortality.

After digesting Hamel’s concepts and consequently realizing that those existing orthodoxies no longer posed a serious threat, I was finally liberated—free to lead according to my rules. I was now faced with a new conundrum: If I’m following my own set of rules, how will I define the identity of the manager? The proper role of the manager is a question with which I have struggled in the past and may never fully answer, but The Future of Management has provided me with an additional set of ammunition with which to continue my internal fracas. Based on all that I have seen and read pertaining to managerial strategy, a manager will lead innovation in one of two ways:

1. The Employer—Feels he is personally responsible (along with other managers) for orienting and initiating growth and change throughout the company and will utilize the skills and resources of his subordinates in order to further develop the project
2. The Facilitator—Feels he is responsible for enabling employees to come up with the ideas themselves, after which he will assist them in whatever way possible.

I think about this concept all the time. While I am still completely unsure of my position, Hamel’s various illustrations of what an ideal manager is and is not played a large role in developing this question on a far deeper level. According to Hamel, “most managers see themselves as pragmatic doers, rather than starry-eyed dreamers.” The text further emphasizes the point in saying that “managers are not expected to be inventors. Rather, they are expected to turn other people’s ideas into growth and profit.” I interpreted this as I felt it aligned with some of Hamel’s other concepts. Creativity can, in theory, come from anyone in the company. However, the creative one may not always have the resources available to complete the task. I will always hold dear a concept introduced to me by Dr. Richard Lester in his introductory entrepreneurship course: “Entrepreneurship is the process by which individuals pursue opportunities without regard to resources they currently control.” (Barringer and Ireland, 2008) I feel that creativity and imagination can be explained in the same way. Anyone can create, but not everyone can allocate resources. I feel that a manager must also concern himself with the organization-wide impact of the creation. Although I am constantly questioning myself, I feel that a visionary cannot and will not be a successful manager without being severely concerned with cost controls. While I feel that the manager should emanate an overriding love and concern for his company, I believe that a manager should want the same things as his individual employees. I enjoyed considering the implications of the Gore leadership election strategy. It is almost idyllic in nature—a community of great minds all capable of great leadership. The book mentioned that those companies finding success with this concept are of a high-trust, low-cost nature. Realistically, I feel this is hard to initiate with a new venture, but even harder to implement in an existing organization. I realize, however, that this opinion goes against Hamel’s can-do attitude towards inciting management innovation. The final concept that I found to be especially significant was one of the most pervasive themes in the entire book: The importance of creating an organization that is fully humanized. I can see endless potential for the application of this idea. Breaking down the barriers imposed by the intangible hierarchy would effectively end the reign of “the corporate machine” and leave in its place a community of minds working towards one goal. As I delved deeper into developing my thoughts concerning the ideal role of the manager, I again strayed from my original intention. I still cannot say which manager would be best, but Hamel’s insights led me to discover some characteristics of the ideal, or utopian, manager, as well as principles this wonder-leader might follow.

The Future of Management by Gary Hamel has provoked notions in me spanning the entire emotional spectrum, all of which have been considered and developed with particular focus on my volatile disillusionment with current corporate orthodoxies as well as my inquiry of the proper role of the manager. I can say that this book has been an invaluable tool in my attempt at overcoming existing orthodoxies and redefining the role of the manager. The book surpassed any expectations I had by teaching me things I did not realize I needed to learn. It was also an effective supplement to a mantra from Neville Goddard that I have always tried to follow: “Learn to shake yourself loose from what the world believes is the only reality.” Prior to reading this book, I believed that certain issues were palpable obstructions to innovative management strategy that could eventually get the best of me. I now see that the issues are less than palpable obstructions. They are completely insignificant. Hamel has helped me to understand that the conventions and ideals of the world are utterly extraneous for a rule-breaking, innovation-seeking renegade that is passionately determined to change the world.

Did it warrant some tears? Are you feeling like you should get out there and change the world? Do you feel like you’re back in grad school? Are you pissed that you just wasted 10 minutes of your time reading this? Let me know!

Tags: corporate entrepreneurship; leadership, creativity, entrepreneurship, leader, management, maverick, Strategy, success, wise words