Originally circulated on 8 January 2021
Aweh fellow Ruminants & Groupies in Modified Lock Down Level 3.
Best wishes for a better 2021.
Aweh from day 286 of lock down – now modified level 3.
First news of the year is that I have the Pox. I have just received the result that I have tested positive for Covid 19. I started feeling sick on 28 December, got better and then worse. I am now feeling much better and ready for 2021. I went for a test yesterday after a number of my family tested positive and the doctor recommended I be tested.
An appropriate theme for the first Ruminant Pink Friday ™ submission of 2021is the topic of disruptive change and the innovation this spurs. I thank one of my anonymous contributors for suggesting this topic and providing the fascinating reference material.
When faced with disruptive change some organisations innovate and thrive while other very established organisations are unable to adapt and implode. Kodak was unable to adapt to digital photography and Nokia and Blackberry were unable to adapt to the new smart phones introduced by Apple.
The fossil fuel based petrochemical industry is facing its own period of disruptive change. Climate change and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is steadily gathering momentum. The coming age of the battery electric vehicle is upon us. Elon Musk, the founder of Tesla, has just become the wealthiest person on the planet with a net worth of $188 billion. This is a man who is at the forefront of disruptive change and innovation.
It is often very difficult for established players to adapt to disruptive change. Their organisational structure and culture are not set up to effectively deal with disruptive change and although they try very hard to adapt they fail. Research into the Nokia case study provides fascinating insight into the very painful implosion of the once mighty Nokia. https://knowledge.insead.edu/sites/www.insead.edu/files/images/asq_2015_print_vuori_huy_distributed_attention_and_shared_emotions_in_innovation_process.pdf.
This is a fairly lengthy article but is worth the read.
The study shows that the Nokia culture and organisational structure created a dominance hierarchy with a good news culture. The unhealthy dynamic and fear culture between middle management (MM) and top management (TM) is explored. Experienced middle managers who expressed reservations about unrealistic targets, schedules and budgets were side-lined and replaced with younger less experienced managers who said yes.
There were rounds of painful restructurings and job losses and MM were acutely aware that their continued employment required obedience to the good news culture. In Nokia’s home base, Finland, Nokia was a giant. For middle aged middle management in Nokia equivalent job opportunities in Finland were limited. Many decided to try and stick it out and try to give TM what they asked for.
For those of who don’t have the fortitude to read the fairly lengthy study I have put a few interesting quotes below to stimulate rumination:
- ‘‘The people who told the truth [about the feasibility of schedules put] their reputations on the line. They ran that risk.’’
- [The chairman] had the habit that if someone said that ‘‘things aren’t going so well,’’ then after that the person would be doing very poorly. [The chairman] had a distinctive style so that everyone had to tell him that things were going very well.
- “I should’ve been much, much more courageous. And I should’ve made a lot more noise, should’ve criticized people more directly. . . . I could’ve made more of an impact. And it would’ve been breaking the consensus atmosphere. . . . Nobody wanted to rock the boat, especially [among] the middle management [level]. …I didn’t want to be labelled as a mean person who was constantly criticizing the hard work of others. . . . I should have been braver about rattling people’s cages.”
- “[Nokia’s status (in Finland) was so high that] if you had a Nokia business card, you could get a meeting with any CEO. Any CEO. . . . Everyone had good jobs; no one wanted to leave Nokia at that point. . . . Critique [of the company] was seen as negative; the mind-set was that if you criticize what’s being done, then you’re not genuinely committed to it.”
- “One software leader who had worked at Nokia for over 15 years, made ground-breaking innovations, and earned millions of euros was one of this select group (who confronted senior management). He was described by several informants as very direct in confronting TMs, and our interview with him confirmed this perception. But he was ‘‘completely side-lined’’
- There were situations where everybody [on our level] knew things were going wrong, but we were thinking, ‘‘Why tell TMs about this? It won’t make things any better.’’ We discussed this kind of choice openly. And it was possible to give them embellished reports because they did not understand the software.
- “TMs’ low technological competence made them more dependent on MMs’ communication and thus amplified the effects of the fear-based communication on TMs’ perception of organizational capability. When MMs showed them technological demos or early prototypes, TMs were not able to directly assess what progress was truly being made and had to rely on what MMs reported”
Thank you very much for the many helpful suggestions and input which I’m researching and please keep the submission ideas flowing.
Regards
Bruce
Ruminant Pink Friday 