172. Christian Sandström: Why Governments Can’t Act Entrepreneurially

/0 Comments/in /by

A strange strand of thought has emerged in European political economy circles that has been given the name of The Entrepreneurial State. The headline claim is that the state (i.e., nation state governments) can and should intervene in the economy to bring about innovation, and that, indeed, it is absolutely necessary for grand, mission-driven undertakings such as climate change amelioration and the commercial development of next-generation technologies. Economics For Business talked to Christian Sandström, co-editor with Karl Wennberg, of Questioning The Entrepreneurial State, a compendium of analysis by thirty-two leading economists (including friends of E4B such as Peter G. Klein, Samuele Murtinu, and Saras Sarasvathy) to demonstrate the fallacies of the case for an entrepreneurial state. There’s a lot of sound economics to be learned from Professor Sandström’s book.

Key Takeaways and Actionable Insights

There’s a warm climate in Europe for government solutions to perceived economic problems. “The entrepreneurial state” is one of the forms these solutions take.

Entrepreneurship is well-developed in Europe, and recognized as a growth accelerator. Nevertheless, since 2008-9, country-level growth rates have been below expectations.

Professor Mariana Mazzucato originated the concept of “the entrepreneurial state”, telling fellow economists that they were all wrong in expecting growth to come from private entrepreneurship. Only government has the scope and scale to act entrepreneurially at the level of lifting the growth rate of the whole economy, overcoming the barriers to the introduction and commercialization of new technologies, and tackling the great missions such as climate change amelioration. Historically, she claims, this precedence has always applied: the state leads innovation and private entrepreneurs follow to fine tune the details of marketplace adoption and implementation.

The ongoing failure of Green Deals represents just one illustration of the errors of the entrepreneurial state.

One essay in Professor Sandström’s book spotlights what he calls Green Deals: directed investments in various technologies aiming at so-called sustainable development. Public funds distort incentives in the market, making it “rational” for firms to pursue technologies without long-term potential.

One of his examples is a municipality in northern Sweden that accumulated billions of Swedish Krona in debt investing in industrial plant aiming to create car fuel from cellulose, with the ambition of creating an environmentally friendly substitute for gasoline, which would also result in new jobs and a regional resurgence in competitiveness. The process of extracting ethanol from cellulose proved to be more difficult than promised, and no technological breakthroughs occurred. The 2008 recession resulted in falling prices for ethanol, yet more public money was poured in. The end result has been a high debt burden on the municipality, no new jobs, and no reindustrialization for the region.

As Professor Sandström and his co-author Carl Alm conclude, this case and other similar cases stand in stark contrast to ideas about an entrepreneurial state successfully taking on risk and pursuing new technological opportunities.

There are fundamental reasons why governments can’t act entrepreneurially.

First, governments don’t operate in markets and they are not subject to market tests, like going out of business if they fail to meet customer needs. They bear no genuine entrepreneurial risk. They have no competitors and so no process of competitive refinement and improvement. Their entrepreneurial actions can’t be evaluated. In effect, they want to achieve innovation without entrepreneurship, which is an impossibility.

Governments lack the required competence for the tasks they claim to be able to undertake.

Peter Klein, Samuele Murtinu and Nicolai Foss introduce and explain the economic concept of ownership competence. Entrepreneurs operating in competitive markets have strong incentives (i.e., their own property and their own funds) to allocate resources that they own or control to the most productive applications and to generating the value that the market prizes most highly. Knowing what to own, when to own it (or dispose of it), and how to create value through ownership, all under conditions of uncertainty, requires a skill set that bureaucrats and public actors don’t have and can’t exercise. Public employees can’t exercise the ultimate responsibility that comes with ownership.

Bureaucrats can’t reproduce the human factors of entrepreneurship.

Saras Sarasvathy introduced us to the entrepreneurial method of business innovation in episode #131 (Mises.org/E4B_131). Entrepreneurs self-select into the role of uncertainty-bearing, and then initiate projects and advance through a process of market co-creation, making commitments and then adjusting those commitments based on feedback loops and customer responses. They develop a lived experience that enables them to identify new goals to pursue and new means for pursuing them along the pathway. Creativity and adaptability are more relevant to success than investing acumen and planning.

Governments can’t operate in this way. They place big bets, with quantitative goals and illusions of predictability of outcomes, and they pay with other people’s money. They are not capable of finding the serendipity that guides the entrepreneur.

Governments don’t understand the innovative generativity of new technologies.

Professor Sandström’s book includes quite extensive examination of what is identified as the Digital Platform Economy (DPE) — the digital entrepreneurial ecosystem of platform access to markets, data, algorithms, and cloud computing capacity (There’s a useful report on the DPE provided in the book at the end of episode 131. Digital platforms are enablers for entrepreneurial creativity and business building as a consequence of the access that they give to new business tools and the interconnections to resources, both human and material. The platforms are provided by private companies, and the resulting value creation is user and customer co-generated.

Governments misunderstand the Digital Platform Economy. They see platform providers as monopolistic owners of excessive market power to be regulated and taxed, and totally miss the value generation of hyper-connectivity between buyers and sellers, the complementarity of firms on both sides of the platform, the open access and the lowered transaction costs.

These digital platforms will do much more to encourage entrepreneurial growth than any government ever could.

Governments’ errors are repeated because there is no genuine evaluation of their activities, initiatives, and “missions”.

Professor Sandström investigated the way that the results of government innovation expenditures and initiatives are assessed. He found that most evaluations are conducted by consultants, paid by the hour and mindful of the opportunity for future business if their work is well-received by the government that employs them. Some other assessments are conducted by the government departments themselves.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Professor Sandström could find only 5% of these assessments that were critical in any way (mostly simply to say that the desired results were not achieved).

Moreover, the assessments were economically incomplete. There was no identification or discussion of opportunity costs (what better uses could the funds have been put to) or of administrative costs, which are high since bureaucratic infrastructure grows with each new initiative.

The government’s best role is to remove itself as a barrier, and possibly to help remove additional barriers (for which it often bears responsibility in the first place).

Is there such a thing as innovation policy? Professor Sandström says no. He does point out that, in the Austrian tradition, removing barriers to entrepreneurship can help to create the type of environment in which innovation can flourish. This might involve the elimination of legislation and regulation that gets in the way. It could also include nurturing educational institutions to bring the right kinds of thinking and learned skills into the marketplace.

Any such initiative should be general and non-selective. Picking winners should be left to markets.

Additional Resources

Questioning the Entrepreneurial State: Status-quo, Pitfalls, and the Need for Credible Innovation Policy, edited by Karl Wennberg and Chris Sandström (PDF and ePub): View The Book

“The Digital Platform Economy Index” (PDF): View The PDF

Chris Sandström on Twitter: @ChrisSandstrom

An Entrepreneurial Society Woud Be A Great Improvement Over The Political One We Live In.

/0 Comments/in /by

Entrepreneurship is love. Entrepreneurs love their customers. It’s a genuine love; the complex combination of human values in the hearts and minds of customers mesh with the similarly complex combination of human values in the hearts and minds of entrepreneurs, and that’s what makes markets.

This is the scope of Austrian economics, and why it is different from economics in all its other forms. Austrian economics is a science of personal and interpersonal meaning, of how people think and feel, of subjective phenomena. Entrepreneurship is cultural. To thrive, entrepreneurs must be particularly well-embedded in and connected with the culture, to identify which customers seek their love and the forms in which they would most prefer to receive it. That’s one of the reasons why economist Ludwig von Mises declared that

Economics must not be relegated to classrooms and statistical offices and must not be left to esoteric circles. It is the philosophy of human life and action and concerns everybody and everything. It is the pith of civilization and of man’s human existence.

Ludwig von Mises, Human Action Scholars Edition, Kindle location 17005

Central to Mises’ concept of civilization was the function of entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurial individual. They are the ones, he wrote, who

will make the life of coming generations more agreeable …they are the spokesmen of progress.

Ludwig von Mises, Human Action Scholars Edition, Kindle location 2216

Economist Jesus Huerta De Soto builds on these concepts and defines entrepreneurship as the

“set of co-ordinating abilities which spontaneously permit the emergence, preservation and development of civilization”.

Jesus Huerta De Soto, Socialism, Economic Calculation and Entrepreneurship, Ch 2 p215, Edward Elgar 2010

De Soto sees the influence of this entrepreneurial coordination function in the emergence of all social institutions, including law, money, and democracy. These are “an evolutionary product of the exercise of entrepreneurship itself” (Ibid). They arise from a vast number of people individually contributing throughout history their own small bit of practical information and entrepreneurial creativity. De Soto’s entrepreneurial society has identifiable characteristics.

  • It’s a process, defined by its dynamism, ever-changing.
  • It’s spontaneous, not designed by anyone, and not subject to legislation or top-down imposed rules.
  • Highly complex: billions of people with an infinite range of goals, tastes, values, and knowledge.
  • Composed of interaction – exchanges based on rules and standards (no violence, no fraud, etc)
  • All interactions are driven by the energy of entrepreneurship – creating, discovering, and transmitting information.
  • Consequently, the plans of individuals are adjusted and coordinated through competition – the most successful entrepreneurial plans become the most popular.
  • Individuals are thereby enabled to live in an increasingly rich and complex environment. Everything keeps getting better.

Any restriction on the free action of entrepreneurial creativity is unethical, in this view. Ethics emerge from the pursuit of creative entrepreneurship – by billions of people over hundreds of years – as moral guides that make human coordination and cooperation possible. Ethics are not to be imposed.

The political society we live in today drives us in the opposite direction. It seeks to divide: haves and have nots, winners and losers, red party versus blue party. It replaces the entrepreneurial ethic with redistribution, freezing “what exists today” and dividing it up irrespective of who created it. It wants to judge the social process irrespective of the individual behavior of those who participated in it. This is termed social justice. But in fact, it is an immoral violation of justice. It tramples on the property rights of those individuals who are producers, it prevents the free practice of entrepreneurship that makes the dynamic development of civilization possible, and it violates the entrepreneur’s right to the results of their own entrepreneurship.

In an entrepreneurial society, individuals will strive creatively and energetically to improve others’ lives. They’ll seek, discover and alleviate any situations of urgent need into which other human beings may have fallen, because entrepreneurship is love. The entrepreneurial society will be just, mutually empathetic, and beneficial for all. The best society promotes and rewards the entrepreneurial creativity of everyone in it.

171. Ben Ford on Situational Awareness and Managing for Constant Change

/0 Comments/in /by

How do businesses actually manage — rather than plan for — continuous change?

The increasing adoption of systems thinking in business tells us that the world is changing very fast, and companies need to change at least as fast as their environment in order to thrive. It’s comfortable to talk about but hard and uncomfortable to do. Most people prefer to continue to do what they’re used to rather than embrace change and constant experimentation.

There’s a lot to be learned from the military where special forces are trained to specialize in rapid reaction in chaotic or VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous) worlds. They face an ever-changing environment (often described as kinetic). They have a very pure evolutionary process: what wins, survives. While the military organization is hierarchical, military operations are flat so that tactical decisions can be made by the people on the ground.

While we are anti-war, we can nevertheless recognize that the military has experience and expertise in managing and organizing for continuous change. We can learn from it.

There are significant barriers to overcome to implement rapid change management in business.

Certainly, the time scales are different. Companies change at an intergenerational pace, one generation of managers (or managerial techniques) learning from the last one. In hierarchical organizations, people reach managerial and executive positions by accumulating experience. By the time they get to their high position in the hierarchy, they have locked in an old mental model. They miss the signals of change and fall back on preconceived ideas and notions and methods.

In addition, there is considerable inertia to overcome — a resistance to change that acts as a blocker to agility. It’s human nature to resist change. Once a company has established a niche or a market share, it’s genuinely hard to abandon the strategy or the tooling or the products and services and the marketing that got them there.

To put it in military terms, change is a constant battle.

Situational awareness is a set of tools that are transferable from military to business to improve management of change.

Situational awareness governs how well your understanding of the world maps to reality. It operates along two perspectives and 3 time frames.

Internal situational awareness concerns the orientation of your firm, resources, capacity, the capabilities of your team, morale and so on. External situational awareness concerns markets, competitors, customers, trends, technologies, and all the environmental factors that are subject to change.

The three timeframes in military terminology are tactical, operational, and strategic.

The tactical timeframe concerns people on the ground in contact with the environment. In business, this can be the sales team or customer service or engineers in direct contact with customers. They’re doing implementation work but they are also the sensing mechanism. They may have daily or even hourly cycles for intention to change, making the change, learning from the consequences of the change and moving forward to the next change. They must be empowered, trained and equipped, and confident about their freedom of action and adaptation.

The strategic timeframe is the macroeconomic scale of what the firm is trying to achieve for the customer. This frame may be months or years, and dictates how to organize, how to invest, and where to allocate resources.

The operational timeframe is between the other two. How does the firm integrate short term implementational excellence with long term strategic engagement with a changing environment? How does the firm integrate all the hourly and daily information coming from the front line with the long-term investments and resource allocation projects? In a software business for example, there may be a trade-off between building new tooling, which takes time, and rapidly delivering products from established tooling.

How to apply situational awareness.

Actively use the 6-box framework (internal /external perspectives, tactical/ operational/ strategic timeframes.

To achieve better alignment of internal / external timeframes, look for mismatches across boundaries in the firm. Do the people working on the front line have the same understanding of the importance of the work as the managers and executives. Does getting thing done seem more difficult than it should be? Are the feedback loops fast? Is the information in the feedback loops spread throughout the firm, through multiple teams, divisions and silos? What’s the gap between perceived ideals and actual experience?

To implement across three time frames is an exercise in portfolio balancing and active discovery, with a high premium on sensing skills.

How much time and resource effort should a firm spend on refining its tooling (the operational timeframe) so that every produced end-product is exactly the same (the tactical timeframe) while keeping an eye out for environmental change, when a future competitor might introduce a faster cheaper product (the strategic timeframe)?

As Austrian economics always stresses, there’s no objective answer, just subjective learning from experience. For example, Netflix was part of the strategic timeframe that Blockbuster failed to manage. Blockbuster was operating its stores in a proven fashion (tactical) and adding new stores (operational), while rejecting the implications of the Netflix model. Today (May 2021), Netflix shows signs of missing some strategic signals. They made content their focus (tactical) and built original production capability (operational) but may be finding that customer tastes are changing and the appeal of their produced content is in decline (strategic).

Similarly, for the last few years, funding has been easy for startups (tactical) and so they have focused on long term market development (strategic) without hitting profit and cash flow milestones (operational). Now that funding is drying up, they are having to shore up their operational capabilities.

There are a couple of techniques that are helpful. One is Horizon Scanning: allocating some resources to identifying and picking out future external scenarios that represent potential change or strategic threats and building a response in advance. Another is red team thinking: mapping out future internal failure modes and then working backwards from them to identify the trip wires to look out for, and to nip emerging issues in the bud.

The after-action review (AAR) is an important element of situational awareness.

The AAR is applied not just in the military but in fast change business environments such as agile software development. It’s a tool to separate the quality of the decision you made from the outcome of the action that you took. We tend to get attached to our decisions, even if they were based on poor principles.

The components of an AAR include:

  • What was expected to happen?
  • What actually happened?
  • What went well and why?
  • What can be improved and how?

The discussion must be open and honest without hierarchy or blame. As far as possible, everyone on the team should participate so that all perspectives can be included. The focus is on results and identification of ways to sustain what was done well as well as the development of recommendations on ways to overcome obstacles. It’s really important to identify with high fidelity what happened because only then is there a good chance to identify new opportunities or trends with equal fidelity. In situations of uncertainty, it’s important to identify “what happened” accurately, in order to be able to identify what it means and what it implies for future actions.

AAR becomes part of disciplined execution.

The Economics For Business community is familiar with the explore/expand method of managing business complexity: explore many options through experimentation and expand (by allocating more resources) those that show good results. Annika Steiber in episode 170 called this capability “ambidexterity” — combining two logics of business in consistent and reliable execution on one hand and openness to change and exploration on the other.

Ben expands this thinking into the concept of disciplined execution. Once a process is proven and is producing reliable results, map it out carefully and then take individual steps or parts of the process and see if they can be further improved, e.g., by automation, without changing the outputs. Processes thus become more resource efficient in producing their output. Always be trying to improve what you already do well.

Similarly, once an “explore” project starts to become productive, apply the same continuous improvement standard. Map the process, examine parts that can be improved, and do so part by part so production is maintained and efficiency is increased.

All of this change dynamic should be driven from the bottom up.

Process improvements, fast responses to feedback loops, experimentation and rapid change are all insurgencies — the established hierarchy and mental models will often find them hard to embrace. Insurgency is a bottom-up dynamic. When transformation is pushed from the top down, it often happens that the territory changes before the consultants have drawn the new map. The hierarchy’s role is to provide strong alignment with the orientation of the firm and its culture and vision-mission, alongside loose control of front-line action.

Additional Resources

“Apply Situational Awareness To Manage Change” (PDF): Download PDF

Ben Ford’s website, where you’ll find his Mission Control services: MissionCtrl.dev

Ben Ford’s LinkedIn page, with a lot of presentations and recordings to learn from: Visit LinkedIn

The 3-Body Problem: Big Business Can’t Serve Both Customers And The Financial Sector.

/0 Comments/in /by

In Newtonian physics, if there are two bodies that interact gravitationally, and an observer knows their positions and velocities at a given point in time, it is possible to predict all their future positions. However, the introduction of a third body surprisingly leads to an analytically unsolvable problem. This suggests that if there is a system of two bodies that are unsettled with respect to one another, there may be a hidden third body lurking around that, if identified and understood, could help us make better sense of the system as a whole. This metaphor of the three-body problem (which I borrowed from Henrik Berglund) can help illuminate a nagging problem in the economics of business.

Business exists to generate value for customers. This buyer-seller, user-maker, demand-supply 2-body relationship has been established in economics and business from the earliest days of both disciplines. Today, sophisticated analysis of economic systems and markets and the emerging new structures and arrangements of the digital world serve to emphasize more than ever what Steve Denning refers to as Customer Capitalism and Customer Primacy. As the digital age of business has evolved, there is an ever-greater shift of balance in the two-body system of business and customers to the latter. The power of search and knowledge and universal connectivity and ranking systems and all the other digital developments we have come to utilize for identifying and comparing choices have cumulatively empowered the customer and created winning businesses out of those who are most cognizant of and responsive to the changing balance of power. The most recent business organization innovation to emerge from China, Rendanheyi, calls for zero-distance to the customer – bringing the customer inside the firm for co-creation of value, shared engagement in service models and the development of new value scenarios.

Over time, the customer is becoming more and more influential in how business is done.

Except, that is, in the largest of corporations, the ones that are quoted on the most significant stock markets and are included in indexes like the S&P 500. These corporations practice something other than customer capitalism, with a different rule-book than customer primacy. There are several overlapping models.

Shareholder Value Maximization

The concept of maximizing shareholder value via total shareholder returns (stock price appreciation plus stock dividend payments) is often attributed to Milton Friedman of the Chicago Schol Of Economics and his 1970 essay in The New York Times titled The Social Responsiblity of Business is To Increase its Profits. Friedman’s position was a little more nuanced than his detractors allow, since he stressed legal and ethical norms and the expectations of society. Nevertheless, the Wall Street crowd who profess to pass judgment on the performance of corporate Boards and CEO’s habitually use total shareholder returns as their benchmark metric. Whatever else this is, it’s not customer primacy. If, for example, corporate resources are used for stock buybacks in order to better assure stockholders of their short term valuation gains, then these investment resources are not being used for building and combination of capital assets that will assure future perofrmance, nor are they being invested in innovations to further improve customer value. Shareholder value maximization puts shareholders and investors first, not customers.

Stakeholder Return

A slightly modified version of shareholder value maximization is the concept of stakeholder return, whereby the corporation is advised that they will be judged by their contributions not to customer value and customer well-being, but to a much wider range of claimants. These may include employees and unions, the members of the community in which the corporation’s offices or plants are located, the government, the environment, the planet, the global poor, religious groups, or any selection from a wide range of constituent parties that stakeholder activists assert have a claim on corporate resources.

Many corporations claim to adopt this so-called stakeholder capitalism, but in reality, it’s just a PR stunt, a public front of social sensitivity and purported altruism. There is no substance behind it, although there is a herd of consultant companies who emerge from the swamp to join the feeding frenzy of advising corporate clients on how to maximize stakeholder returns (and escape the censorship and lawsuits of activists and governments).

Business has suffered a PR crisis, caused in large part by shareholder value maximization, which was perceived as favoring a few plutocrats over the broader mission of business to improve lives of customers and thereby improve society. The purpose of a firm is to satisfy the needs and wants of customers. If they do so successfully, then society, as well as the lives of individuals, are improved.

ESG, DEI and Other TLA’s.

Overlapping the stakeholder capitalism movement, and perhaps embedded in it, are the assertions of additional claimants on corporate resources. ESG asserts the primacy of claims concerning so-called sustainability, expressed in Environmental, Social and Governance concerns. DEI (Diversity, Equity, And Inclusion) asserts the claims of almost everyone on corporate resources: according to dei.extensio.org at Tuskegee University, individuals of diverse race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, nationality, socioeconomic status, language, (dis)ability, age, religious commitment or political perspective must not be under-represented. And that’s just the D in DEI.

There are more TLA’s (three-letter acronyms) to choose from, including CSR (corporate social responsibility), NZC (net zero carbon), and even IMP (integrity in management practices). There is an explosion of claims on corporate spending, corporate staffing and corporate resources in general from all over the parts of society that seek to benefit from the production of others, rather than produce for themselves.

The Third Body: The Financial Sector.

Why does financial sector growth crowd out real economic growth? That’s the title of a paper published by the Bank For International Settlements (the central bankers’ central bank) in 2015. It noted that growth in the financial sector of an economy reduces total growth – a fast-growing financial sector is a drag on total growth. The financial sector grows at the expense of the real economy, and financial growth disproportionately harms R&D intensive industries, i.e. those investing in future innovations. One of the reasons given in the paper is that skilled labor (all those graduates who take jobs at Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan) is attracted to the financial sector at the expense of other sectors like computing and transportation and health care.

But another reason surely is that financially-dependent industries (a term from the paper signifying those industries that depend on help from the financial sector with borrowing, debt issuance, M&A and other financial transactions) must accept the constraints the financial sector applies alongside their expert assistance. A perfect example of this phenomenon is found in the shenanigans of Larry Fink. He is the CEO of BlackRock, a financial asset manager with 10 trillion US dollars under management and 20 billion dollars in annual revenues. BlackRock is usually one of the top 3 institutional investors for every large company in the US, and therefore has the ear of the CEOs. He regularly writes threatening letters to those CEOs to press them into Fink-approved ESG and CSR activities and investments (and divestments). It’s an unveiled threat that BlackRock can take actions that will be detrimental to the stock values of those CEOs’ companies.

Fink is a large mountain on the big planet that is the third body in our Newtonian metaphor – the one that unsettles the behavior of the original two bodies towards each other. Left to their own devices, corporations would compete to succeed in serving customers’ needs better with valued services and value-enhancing innovations. The intervention of the third body diverts them.

As the financial sector gets bigger and bigger, it will distort the customer-oriented behavior of the largest corporations more and more. That’s why the future of business lies with the SME sector and the new evolution of networked decentralized production.

170. Annika Steiber: Rendanheyi is the Most Radically Disruptive Organizational Innovation

/0 Comments/in /by

Innovation in organization is at least equal in importance to technological innovation and product / service innovation. It tends to get less attention, which is a great opportunity for imaginative entrepreneurs to implement change for competitive advantage. Dr. Annika Steiber has studied organizational innovation for over twenty years and is a global authority. She shares her insights with Economics For Business, including her analysis of the most dramatic organizational innovation of all, Rendanheyi.

Professor Steiber’s most recent book is Leadership For A Digital World, and is her most comprehensive guide yet for business management in the digital age. She’s the author of eleven books, including The Google Model and The Silicon Valley Model.

Her Menlo College Rendanheyi Silicon Valley webinars are available at Menlo.edu/Webinars.

Key Takeaways and Actionable Insights

Organizational innovation doesn’t get the attention it merits, even though it can contribute greatly to customer value generation.

Innovation thinking tends to focus on technology innovation and product/service innovation, with the definition of innovation as the successful introduction of new customer value to markets. Organizational innovation is not often seen through that lens. But it should be. We can reframe the problem this way: does bad organizational structure subtract from the customer value experience? We can all think of ways in which it might do so: for example, poor customer service when customer-facing employees are not empowered, and layers of bureaucracy that impede responsiveness to customer needs. In those cases, organizational innovation could readily generate improved customer experiences and enhanced customer value.

Dr. Steiber had made organizational innovation her research focus for over two decades.

There are a small number of organizational innovators, and a lot of imitators. Google has been one of the originators of new organizational models.

Many organizational innovations are pre-packaged — LEAN is an example — and implementers are following someone else’s lead. Others are long drawn out evolutions of incremental improvement without a great burst of innovation.

One example of what Dr. Steiber calls “an entirely new animal” in organizational innovation can be found in the early years of Google, which she studied first hand — she was embedded in Google as an independent researcher. She observed a different management model than anything she had seen before anywhere in the world. From this research, Professor Steiber developed six new management principles, published in her book The Google Model, and summarized in our free PDF.

Silicon Valley companies employed and expanded on the Google Model.

Dr. Steiber studies the peers of Google in Silicon Valley and found that they all adopted the Google Model and its six principles, some more slowly than others. Interestingly, her research pointed to a DNA advantage for Silicon Valley going back to the gold rush: it was a location that attracted and was populated by innovative and entrepreneurial people who were capable of building businesses and new institutions from scratch in the late 19th Century, and in the 20th Century, it was the place where Information Technology emerged, was expanded and accelerated and first put to use in business. Knowledge and knowledge flow replaced management structures and face-to-face administration, including at early pioneers such as Hewlett-Packard.

Read “The HP Way”—an early Silicon Valley organizational innovation manifesto.

The six management principles Dr. Steiber describes are:

Dynamic capabilities.

Ability to integrate, develop, and reconfigure internal and external competencies in order to meet rapidly changing surroundings.

A continuously changing organization.

Instead of waiting and springing into action after needs become pressing, a company should ensure that its organization is permeated with a proactive approach to change.

A people-centric approach.

People-centric, focusing on the individual and liberating their innovative power and providing them with a setting in which they can express their creativity.

An ambidextrous organization.

Two different forms of organizational logic within the same organization: daily production, which works best with a conventional planning-and-control approach, and innovation, which requires greater freedom, flexibility, and a more open attitude toward experimentation. An ambidextrous organization must successfully handle and utilize the energy inherent in the contrast between these two forms of logic.

An open organization that networks with its surroundings.

Permeable boundaries and a constant and conscious exchange of information with the surroundings. Long-term survival requires that companies develop into more open networking systems.

A systems approach.

A holistic view of the system and understanding that the system can spontaneously develop new characteristics that can be difficult to predict. These new characteristics can be positive, negative or a combination of the two, creating a demand for additional measures, such as decreasing the fallout from unexpected negative system effects.

We highlighted a couple of these new management principles.

A continuously changing organization

The most successful companies are designed for constant renewal. They expect change all the time, and they lead its development. They aim for excellence on every dimension, applying three layers of expertise:

  1. Be proactive: Search for change internally and externally. Embrace it and practice it.
  2. Experimentation culture: Try every initiative assuming that it could be a new opportunity. Mobilize fast.
  3. Don’t follow. Take the lead, change the standard, be disruptive rather than disrupted, practice creative destruction.

These companies never lose external focus, continuously monitoring developments and competitors that could disrupt them, and constantly market-testing new initiatives. They have highly developed sensing capabilities.

An ambidextrous organization

Combining the two logics of flawless daily execution for known established businesses and exploratory experimentation seeking unknown new business innovation is an organizational breakthrough. It’s a systemic view of an organization combining different kinds of leadership for the two styles, different cultural signals, different milestones, different incentives, and different evaluation criteria. One system is designed for stability and one for change.

Rendanheyi: the most radically entrepreneurial organizational innovation.

True organizational innovation is very rare, but there is a new one that Professor Steiber described for E4B called Rendanheyi.

Rendanheyi is an organizational innovation for the network age in which a large company (Haier, the Chinese company that first instituted the model has 70,000 employees) splits itself into hundreds of microenterprises of averagely 60-70 people — but could be as low as 10 or so – each enterprise performing as its own entrepreneurial business with its own P&L, its own customer base, and control over hiring, budget, and distribution of profit, and over its own value-adding line of business. Defining characteristics include:

  • No bureaucracy, hierarchy, or pyramid forms of organization; no managers.
  • Employees are not referred to as such — everyone can be an entrepreneur is the mantra; they choose which microenterprise to work in. The focus is on the customer or end-user and not on pleasing the manager above. Incentive systems reward all employees for value creation, and all individual employees are constantly trying to understand how to increase value for customers. Increased value creation is rewarded, and so wealth generation is democratized.
  • Zero distance to the end-user: this is a Rendanheyi principle that brings the consumer or customer inside the microenterprise to co-create new value in the form of new products and services and solutions. Wholesalers and retailers, for example, can inject distance between a Haier micro-enterprise and its users; the enterprise might look to digital solutions to eliminate that distance. Generally, they seek to identify barriers to zero distance to the users and get rid of them.
  • End-user is a general term, so that those micro-enterprises that are serving other businesses rather than consumers can nevertheless practice the zero distance principle. For example, there may be a marketing micro-enterprise within Haier that serves a manufacturing micro-enterprise and a sales micro-enterprise. All can be aligned with zero distance and can work to fulfill end-users’ needs.
  • Paid-by-user. This principle focuses micro-enterprises on end-user value by emphasizing that all businesses live or die based on whether the end-user pays them for value perceived, or not. It’s Austrian customer sovereignty in action.

The general tendency in paid-by-user is away from transactional relationships to extended relationships across multiple purchases in ecosystems and via subscriptions and memberships. Relationships are an important focus, and the focus is on creating life-time users.

A sports team on the playing field is a sound analogy for Rendanheyi. There is no central control, each team member is collaborating and combining specialized skills for a team result.

There is only limited call for corporate functions at the center of the Rendanheyi organization. There is a role for developing and furthering vision that crosses multiple micro-enterprises, and for portfolio decision-making as to where to invest resources. Some orchestration functions can be assigned to the center — for example, furthering ecosystem thinking whereby micro-enterprises serving a consumer domain such as the kitchen can develop multiple services including information services and integration services across multiple appliances, tasks, and problems for the kitchen ecosystem.

The result of the Rendanheyi model is the animation of a living system, a superorganism. Rendanheyi provides a genuinely new and different perspective on entrepreneurial organization at scale.

Additional Resources

“Six Organizational Principles for Adaptive Entrepreneurial Models” (PDF): Download PDF

Rendanheyi Silicon Valley Center: Explore the Center

Menlo College Rendanheyi Silicon Valley Webinars: Menlo.edu/Webinars

Menlo College Digital Management Courses and Webinars: Executive.Menlo.edu

Removing Barriers Is The Pathway To Value Creation.

/0 Comments/in /by

The purpose of every business is to create new value for customers. The people and institutions who purport to teach us how to do it try to make it very complicated. You’ll need a creative idea, a new business model, technological innovation, new distribution methods. There’s a nine-box business model canvas template to fill out. Consultants are needed to get the process right, and a marketing agency to craft a promise to potential customers and spend advertising dollars to put the persuasive word out. They say that customers can’t imagine how the new value will benefit them, and so innovative new products and services and creative communications are a business imperative.

The great challenge, the great creative difficulty is presented to businesses as the need to establish something completely new, never known or done before. That’s intimidating. Given all the smart people, successful entrepreneurs, highly-resourced corporations, and well-funded R&D projects that have gone before, how can a business feel confident about coming up with something entirely new?

Happily for the future of value creation, that is not exactly the challenge. The true need is not for creation but removal. And the act of removal takes us in the direction of simplification.

How do customers think about pursuing new value? To begin with, they probably don’t use that word or that terminology. They think about goals – what they want to have happen in their life, the experiences they want to enjoy, the hopes they have for themselves and their kids and their companies and their projects. They think about the values that are most important to them, like family relationships, economic security, achievement, wealth, health, and social standing (there are many more, of course). Then they think about the barriers to the realization of their goals and values. What is getting in the way? What’s preventing them from accomplishing what they want to accomplish and from experiencing what they want to experience?

Here lies the key to the challenge of value creation for customers. It’s the barriers. If businesses can identify the barriers that people feel are in their way, and can help remove them or navigate around them or render them inoperative, then new value is created. No brilliant new invention is needed, no creative ideation that has never before been conceived, no light bulb going off.

The trend towards convenience provides an example. Amazon is increasing its revenues and serving more customers on more occasions by giving the gift of convenience – order online with a minimum number of clicks and delivery to your door could be same day or certainly much faster than in the past. There’s no great creative insight here. People would rather receive things they’ve ordered sooner than later. They’d rather have the shopping experience be faster rather than slower. They’d rather have a wide selection than limited choice and they’d rather not be frustrated by out-of-stock conditions. What’s getting in the way of these preferences? What are the barriers that customers encounter? Amazon has built a business that approaches $500 billion in revenues by removing these barriers. They call it “Working Backwards” – identify what gets in the way of desired customer experiences and work backwards from there to fix them. (Former Amazon executives Colin Bryar and Bill Carr wrote a book by that title to help you learn all about the approach.)

The process of removing barriers is inherently simple. Just talk to customers. What do they feel is getting in their way? What’s frustrating them? What’s driving them crazy? They can’t invent new solutions but they most certainly can tell you about barriers that they face – and they’ll probably do it passionately and with vehemence (which is a good gauge of how important the issue is to them, and how grateful they’ll be if you remove the obstacle).

B2B value creation is just as much about barrier removal as B2C value creation. What are the goals and aspirations of your business client? What’s impeding achievement? If they are facing difficulty in identifying barriers in the first place, offer them help with research or analysis or consulting. In this case, their barrier is unclear understanding and you can help get over it. If they’ve shone their own light on the causes for under-performance, go to the next step of analysis for them and help them identify removable obstacles. Often, the term “solution” – as in solution to a problem – is the wrong framing. Your client might more readily accept your value proposition of removing obstacles so that they can make forward progress on their own terms than they would adopt your solution to a problem that implies that they’re not smart enough to figure it out for themselves.

Rather than formulate value creation in terms of inventing never-before-conceived benefits for customers – which can tempt businesses into making excessive claims for their value propositions – it’s often a better pathway to effective innovation to focus on removing barriers, lowering obstacles and eliminating constraints. You are not then putting customers in the position of having to learn new things to want, things that they weren’t previously aware were on offer. Your business will be in the much more advantaged position of helping customers attain what they already want and have been denied or have deemed unattainable or unreachable. Removing barriers is a much more credible value proposition – customers already have a clear picture of the barriers that are in place for them, and therefore can easily envision a world without that barrier. It’s freeing, empowering, enabling. On the other hand, any proposal you make about your innovative introduction of new benefits requires a much greater cognitive effort on the customer’s part. You’re asking them to evaluate a world they can’t imagine, as opposed to one they can.

Let the customer experience a world without barriers. They’ll love you for it.