Thursday 29 November 2007

… breaking through paradigms?

This is not a resumption of full time blogging... but:

A reader of one of my earlier posts asked “What is your opinion… upon the focus of The Sussex Centre for the Individual and Society (SCIS) as one example of breaking through paradigms”.

Not actually being familiar with The Sussex Centre for the Individual and Society (SCIS) I decided to look them up. What follows in response, is therefore a mere reflection of a first impression.

I quote from the SCIS web site. ‘…The terms "individual" and "society" have given rise to many definitions and conceptualisations. Manifold are the proposed interconnections and causal relationships between the two… [The SCIS] think that "the individual and society" does not narrow down possibilities as much [as the individual in society].’ The “individual and society” or the “individual in society” that is the question…!

What I see here is the SCIS choice, at a conceptual level, to reify (in some way) the conceptual position of the conjunction “and” as superior and more all-embracing than a consideration of the conjunction “in”. An interesting and, to a point, noble attempt at a new focus. But is this, as my questioner suggests, in any sense “breaking through paradigms”?

The positioning of the individual in society, as SCIS relates, ‘…assumes a number of things and prioritises certain theoretical bases…’ Yes (perhaps)! But cannot the same be said about the individual and society? Conceptually, is not a society to be wholly construed as a conjunction of many individuals and “the” individual therefore exists wholly within “a” society? If this is the case does not the individual and society pose a problematic relationship of the individual in a sense comparable with society on its own terms?

If we consider the two objects of our interest, there are in fact four logically possible states of interest. Firstly, we have the state where neither the individual nor society exists. Of course this state provides little of real interest in the context of this present discussion. In the second and third states we may consider each object separately from its other: that is to say, secondly, we consider merely the individual without regard to society and, thirdly, we consider society without regard to the individual. In the fourth state we place the individual “and” society in conjunction.

To turn to my reader’s question: In my own opinion, consideration of the “individual in society” is the difficult task of the holistic, non-separate, consideration of both the individual and society in this conjunctive, fourth state. Any separation of the “individual” and “society”, beit in the second or third states, is no more than a function of a rationalistic drive for determining characteristics of the individual and society that will provide insight into the “proposed interconnections and causal relationships between the two”.

I think, therefore, that what is proposed by SCIS is no example of “breaking through paradigms”. Yet SCIS does propose a valid attempt at reconciling rationalistic thinking to a new whole; the problem being that this new whole is a socially constructed ontology of rationalistic abstractions; it does, in my belief, miss something of the richness of context that can only be retained by studying the “in” that cannot be resolved to any set of constitutive elements.

Without the “one” there can be no “other” and the problematic might be seen, not as a narrowing of possibilities of a study of the in, but as a lack of an effective paradigm for its realisation.

Tuesday 9 October 2007

A temporary pause in activity...

After operating with this blog site for a few months, it has become quite clear to me that - in terms of priority - I have many activities that require my resource and that this blog quickly falls down the list of "must do" tasks, particularly as I contemplate the launch of a new business venture.

I do hope to come back to these pages in the not-to-far-distant future, but for the time being - rather than give the impression of having just faded into nothingness - I felt some form of post appropriate at this juncture!

Wednesday 18 July 2007

A (personal) view on Imagination@Lancaster...

Kevin Roberts of Saatchi and Saatchi has written on his involvement with a new project: Imagination@Lancaster. I have commented that this is a worthwhile and potentially exciting project and one that I look forward to seeing its products and progress with some eager anticipation. However, call me skeptical if you like, but do I detect something of a recent drift in emphasis? Certainly, I do if I read Kevin's recent post literally.

Initially we were treated Friday, June 22, 2007 to the possibility that Imagination@Lancaster would provide a forum for the reimagination of '…the way universities interact with industry and government, and the impact we could all have by pooling resources in one university'. This is, from my own point of view, a noble and worthwhile aim that seeks to adress a specific area of social reality - the boundary between diverse yet socially critical realities. It is an aim with at least a focus.

We are now (Tuesday, July 17, 2007) treated to a process of translation and diffusion – where the dream for Imagination@Lancaster is apparently now '…to be a global leader in imagining new concepts and new collaborations for the common good'. Are we missing something in translation? I fear we have at least (from my own point of view admittedly) lost the noble focus of our noble cause.

The world (we might assume from Kevin) is clearly bereft of creative ideas and our potential saviours are – we are encouraged to read – a '...bunch of collaborators with a total commitment to sustainability'. A noble cause, yes! But the mere possession of a strong will to act as passionate catalysts to bring the future into the present simply introduces a design for some new grand narrative. Is the pooling of this '...intellectual, passionate capability...' a rejection of the “potential of all” to contribute to '...the brining of the future into the present'? This might unfortunately be read as a rejection of social potential of “Stalinist” proportions.

Kevin Roberts writes that core to the Imagination@Lancaster team is the belief that '…creativity happens at the boundaries, the exceptional is in the everyday, and that uncertain ground is the place to be if you revel in a challenge.' We do not want, may I suggest, that the Imagination@Lancaster team become '…a global leader in imagining new concepts and new collaborations for the common good'. Neither do we need the application of their power, and their clear potential, to show how others can begin to imagine new concepts and new collaborations for the common good – we are all capable of creativity and using our imagination.

What is really required is a focus for the facilitation of collaborative government/industry/academic strategies, policies and action for the creation of new spaces for play; space within which all of society can participate (voluntarily) if they so wish, rather than the apparent suggestion that our future is to be created by only a select few!

Actually, I have a strong belief that Kevin's intention was not to suggest that the Imagination@Lancaster team was, in some way, a reified collection of individuals with some grand design on the world. I still await more on this potentially groundbreaking idea! The question for me remains the retention of an appropriate focus.

Saturday 14 July 2007

A View from Wien (2): On Dancing Organisations!

In this second post relating to my attendance at the 23rd Colloquium of the European Group for Organisational Studies: Beyond Waltz – Dances of Individuals and Organisation, I want to look at the notion that organisations might be brought to dance to their own melody.

I have written, in a work-in-progress essay, that the synergy and rhythm that might be identifiable in the social negotiation of an organisation’s common purpose can be metaphorically likened to an organisational performance of dance. Here I use the concept of “dance” as it generally refers to patterns of human or animal movement occurring in a form of expression, social interaction, or some other form or method of non-verbal communication.

The associated concept of “rhythm” within a dance can be interpreted as the variation in length and accentuation of a series of sounds or other events. Here rhythm involves patterns of duration that are phenomenologically present in such events and, seen in this light, both the concepts of rhythm and dance are inextricably linked. I might therefore surmise that forms of “dance” may be seen as being dependent on social, cultural, aesthetic, artistic and moral constraints. They range from functional movement (such as Folk dance) to virtuoso techniques (such as ballet).

Within the colloquium, a number of people sought to draw correlations between organisation and various forms of dancing; they sought to provide insight into how organisations might be read through these forms. Thus, taking one case in point, I was party to a basic lesson in the Argentinean Tango: a dance of passion! Here I was encouraged to think about how entrepreneurial managers are required to lead their organizations through exploring the passion implicit in that dance. Other dance forms were discussed. However, perhaps the most enlightening experience for me was a session with Aurelia Staub, the Artistic Director of the Konnex Dance Theatre.

With Aurelia, our colloquium sub-group of some 20 people were not so much introduced to additional and specific dance forms, but more to the basic concepts of movement in space and time within a group environment. In a simple exercise, we were all led to the “dance floor” – a lecture room where tables and chairs had been cleared away. With only the simplest basic movements (forwards, left, right and backwards) and constrained by the boundaries of the room and the proviso that no collisions were allowed between people, we proceeded to move – in our own choice of direction – around the room. Observable from this exercise was the distinct possibility that people, given a degree of freedom, yet operating within certain basic protocols, could generate new and meaningful patterns of movement in which co-operation was implicit and the patterns themselves indicated a form of natural rhythm.

Can organisations be made to dance? Yes! My own belief is that the question for organisational research is not what dances are being practiced but, in order to better support managers in practice, how can we encourage the emergence of an organisation’s natural “dance” movement, and how might this dance then be choreographed within a shared common purpose.

Tuesday 10 July 2007

A view from Wien: The Death of an Art?

Last week I had the good fortune to enjoy a formal reception and dinner in the roof-top Justizcafé of the Justizpalast in Vienna. I dined in the company of some bright new minds in management and organisational research, drawn from many of the top universities of the European states, and including some others from around the world – from Australia, Brazil, USA, and Canada.

While – like me – there were a few older “newly qualified” academics, the majority demonstrated the real potential of a younger generation to contribute many, many years of dedication to developing the body of management and organisational knowledge. The diversity of talent at that dinner was impressive; like children, their futures stretched out before them. Talking to a number of them, both during the reception and dinner and before, during the earlier events of that day, you could see and hear the passion they held for their subject matter.

Following that dinner, and in a less formal grouping – enjoying a simple meal and beers in central Vienna – I reflected on the prequel to the 23rd Colloquium of the European Group of Organisational Studies, in which newly qualified PhD graduates, and those still in the process of study, had been given the opportunity to discuss their work with a faculty of established European academics. I recalled – not for the first nor, I doubt, the last time – Picasso’s notion that every child is an artist; the problem is how to retain the artist in them once he or she grows up. Here, to be metaphorical, in my presence were some of the talented child-artists of the academic world.

It is ironic that, given the state of funding of academic institutions – particularly in the business and management schools into which these new academics are beginning to find their way – the expectations placed on academics to publish in only “certain” recognised A grade publications, or to produce research output that meets the “requirements” of sponsors, can seemingly act to constrain the freedom of thought and interpretation that acts to reveal new knowledge. Is the space between the academic world and the business world being eroded to such an extent that it is no-longer a space for creative play? If we lose this space at the expense of making the academic world a potential profit centre – as with any other market place – are we seeing the death of yet another artform?

Friday 29 June 2007

No bigger idea than advertising?

In “A bigger idea than advertising” Kevin Roberts (June 26th) wrote:

“Slowly. People are no longer interested in being preached to about functional benefits and features [of products]. In their lives they are looking for connections and that’s what they expect from brands they care about. We call those brands Lovemarks. We are heading from the Attention Economy to the Attraction Economy where Lovemarks thrive. In the Attraction Economy, advertising agencies have to step up and out, or be buried.”

My own view is that people have never been interested, whatsoever, about being preached to about anything, unless of course – and the BIG example here is religion – those people are fully engaged (read “connected” if you like) with a product in the first place (and I use the word product in the broadest possible sense).

It is not “slowly the people” but “slowly the advertisers”. It may well be “a bigger idea than advertising” but it is not Kevin’s, Saatchi & Saatchi’s or any other “ex”-advertising executives’ idea that people are looking for connections in their lives. If it were, some of the real social thinkers of this world (may I mention Weber?) might need to be reassessed! I think not!

Is it really a case of Kevin’s notion that:

“…it’s not about what brands can use to reach consumers, it’s about what consumers are prepared to engage with…”?

Or, is it merely a case of:

“…it’s about what brands can use to reach consumers WHO they BELIEVE are prepared to CONSIDER an engagement with them”?

I would contend that the concepts of Attention and Attraction Economies are not a feature of social evolution but a particular “social construct” of the “marketing world” itself. More accurately we could perhaps talk of Attention Marketing and Attraction Marketing. But then what is the difference behind these two signs?

Are we “grabbing” social attention or do we simply start with attention as a given? If we have attention we are in a de facto position of engagement, where the “consumer” is implicitly seeking more knowledge about “…functional benefits and features [of products]” Call this preaching to the converted if you may! As an “evolutionary process” we may look back in time and note that the “Attraction Economy” could simply be a reflection of a world in which far fewer products existed and where any product would, if highlighted to the consumer in some way, “demand attention”. In contemporary society where we now know everything, where we can now “buy” anything and everything, where the range of products, prices and quality create confusion no product “demands attention”.

The brand issue is, if we do not have attention, we must seek to attract!

The evolution? The evolution is the realization, within the marketing world – not the consumer – that before a consumer’s Kantian “disinterested” engagement with the brand’s world – they (the “marketers”) need to establish the “beauty” factor!

After the attraction, the engagment and the marriage! The brand's products, their “…functional benefits and features...” will be King. (Even if - in an increasingly dispoable society - they are King for only a day!). But before love comes beauty! And the cynic in me tells me that the sign “Lovemarks” is no more than a beautiful force for attracting agency clients as consumers of branding products. Beauty is, after all, axiomatically in the eye of the beholder!

Thursday 28 June 2007

"A Brown business world?" or "A view from a small business (2)"

So, Gordon Brown is “…poised to appoint a string of Britain’s most senior business figures to a new advisory committee to guide policy-making and to strengthen Labour’s relationship with the business world.” ( June 28, 200)

Question! While the heads of the UK’s largest public companies are clearly well positioned to advise Gordon Brown on his policies and to point out areas where government action is hindering Britain’s competitiveness, is their perspective the only valuable one!

What about the smaller business?

In the UK, the SME sector is of great importance. The Department of Trade and Industry’s own information notes that we (the SME businesses of the UK-unite) account for around 60% of our GDP and around 58% of all employment. The larger firms (those employing over 250 people) – from whose leadership Gordon’s proposed committee is drawn – account for just 0.2% of the 4.3 million companies in the UK. We smaller firms (employing less than 50 people) account for around 99% of all firms. I would venture to suggest, here, that our (SME) views of the world of UK business and the requirements to improve our competitiveness are subtly different to the Amstrads, the Marks & Spencers, the Tesco’s and the Vodafones et al.

In my own sector of interest, the actions of the larger firms are destroying the competitive landscape for the SME. The disproportionate power wielded by the larger organizations, particularly in being able to negotiate better supplier rates, is corrosive to the survival prospects of the smaller firm, who now has to consider whether or not to become a potential acquisition target in a race for consolidation. Yet the larger organisations are frequently cited as the worst offenders in terms of maintaining service levels. Local suppliers serving local communities – a distributed model – often wins hands down in maintaining quality of service. There is clearly a balance to be struck. I neither advocate a world in which we only ever envisage a cottage industry mentality, nor do I advocate that the SME sector is merely relegated to a role as an incubator, developing yet more seedlings for the voracious appetite of the corporate machine.

There is a perennial cry concerning the competitiveness of the UK economy. If we, the SME sector are as important as the corporate sector, yet we are neither to be swallowed up nor allowed to dominate policy, then we should surely be part of Gordon’s consideration. Should we not?

But I have no answer here (yet)! I am, after all, an SME business owner, struggling with the day-to-day issues of the survival of an SME business in a highly competitive environment. What time is there, for any of SME owner to contribute to the debate that so effects us?

Wednesday 27 June 2007

View from a small business (1)

Aside from my "freelance thinking", I am also a hands-on entrepreneur/business owner-manager. My own (service-sector) business has developed from a single-person consultancy – in which I provided project and risk management consultancy services under sub-contract to major European and UK-based engineering projects – to a specialist mergers and acquisitions business.

Together with the more philosophical posts on this blog, I also hope to bring some sense of an SME’s reality to the fore – a personally perspective of being “in business”. What is it that I, as a business manager, find to be of concern to me? Am I bothered about the amount of “red tape”? How did I go about some aspect of my business; how was it that I solved some particular issue? Here, in the spirit of co-operation and mutual support, I also welcome any comment on this thread in the form of a new question that invites an answer.

However, to close this initial post, at the launch of the Northern Leadership Academy I happened to meet with a most interesting individual. Our conversation turned to what I (and he) believed to be the most pressing concern of any small business trying to grow. How do I, as a small (unknown and perhaps unproven) business, attract the funds to develop new business ideas and concepts? This is not about leadership – unless one wants to examine who might lead in this case – it is about the raising of capital investment under conditions of risk. This particular individual commented that he had recently been involved with the establishment of a multi-million pound, grant-funded business development scheme. Such “venture finance” schemes are potentially the life-blood of innovation – certainly a potential contributor to any perceived economic “gap-closing” (regional or otherwise). Yet, where is the leadership required to develop innovation in the face of financial institutions and fund-managers that exhibit excessively risk-averse attitudes to investment? In the UK there is at least a perception that our venture finance sector can be so risk-averse that they collectively feel their first role is the protection of the funds against adverse risk.

In my own business I was able to secure finance under the Government-assisted Small Firms Loan Scheme (as administered by the major UK banks). However, although my “new” business was less than 2 years old at the time of borrowing, as a legal entity (a private limited company) the company had existed for over 5. Changes in the Small Firms Loan lending rules now mean that while my business (at the time of writing) is “technically” still less than 3 years old, the company is no longer eligible for further such financing. The increase in the use of set “protocols” for the determination of decisions reduces the opportunity for the “intelligent” application of reason. It is a symptom of a risk-averse society in which we are increasingly devaluing the contribution of individual thought. We are continually constrained by policies that are driven by generalised, empiric observation. Is a potential net-effect a society where we no-longer need leadership (in business or politics)?

Can an organisation dance?

I shall shortly be traveling to Vienna, to the 23rd Colloquium of the European Group for Organizational Studies: Beyond Waltz – Dances of Individuals and Organization.

While I am not formally presenting at that colloquium, I am (as a newly qualified PhD) participating in a special early career scholars workshop. There, an essay I am currently working on will receive some critical review. I hope, either from Vienna or shortly after, to add some personal commentary on the proceedings and some thoughts about dancing organisations. Did Marx have a point?

“These petrified [social] conditions must be forced to dance

by singing to them their own melody.”

Marx

On leadership and the value of childhood...

On June 19th I attended the launch of the Northern Leadership Academy. My motivation for this visit was a mixture of my "alumni" connection with Lancaster University and a natural curiosity over what the NLA is to be about.

"The north is lagging behind economically and needs more, and better, leadership at entry level to help close this multi-billion pound productivity gap".

I believe that what is missing from this statement of need is the word "discuss".

If the academic world - into which the NLA is set - is to help provide answers to this statement of need, is it best to take the traditional approach of academic research and set about investigating - in some empiric detail - the economic activity of the North of England? From such a standpoint, or basis of objective knowledge, action plans might well be suggested to change... what exactly? The North is not the South. Apples are not Pears and Men are not the same as Women. This is not to suggest that the NLA is not going to be a very interesting, very innovative and very valuable resource for the North - I truly believe it is. But there is the word "discuss".

What if we now say "The north is lagging behind economically and needs more, and better, leadership at entry level to help close this multi-billion pound productivity gap; discuss." We are presented with creative opportunity. The essay is not empiric research, its principle aim is not the deconstruction of a situation; an essay invites the constructive possibilities of developing ideas that might, just, hint at developing a greater engagement with the very social strata the NLA is concerned with: "entry level" leadership. Here is an idea! What about a joint NLA/Industry sponsorship of a schools essay competition? As Picasso said, "...all children are artists...". We might encourage that (we might also employ them young while they still know everything!!! - but that is another subject). The wealth of plausible knowledge that exists in the young - unfettered as they are with too many preconceived notions of social truths - provides a rich ground for the exploration of ideas as candidates for new institutionalised narratives. New forms of knowledge might emerge.

As Kevin Roberts (Saatchi & Saatchi) notes in his blog, we might begin to "re-imagine the way universities interact with industry and government". But this also requires, I argue, an equal share of re-imagining the way industry and government interacts with universities. There is no sense in which I see anybody, including myself, argue that the traditional form of academic-business relationship has no future - I, at least, am not so evangelical. Rather my own argument is that we need also informal (and non-rigorous) channels of communication between two seemingly disparate worlds if we are each to gain from an engagement with the other.