Comment of Strategy as a language : Part 2
As you can see from my last post (Comment on a Strategy 3.0 :Part 1), Organization 3.0 and all of my 3.0 series of models and their theories are based on the natural evolution of Humanity in the tides of time instead of the phases of an organizational development and its levels.
The third shift in the organizational paradigm has already started in some areas of the world however, it is still in an infant stage. The shift toward Organization 3.0 has been triggered mainly by the imminent melt down of the Socio economical system and its models as well as an accelerated advancement in technology especially in the areas of information technology and its applications, such as AI, across the industry sectors.
One thing I should remind the reader of Organization 3.0, as well as all the rest of the 3.0 series of my models is that they are not the one size fit all mold or a frame. Structural design and its operational strategy can be as diverse as your imagination can create as long as the organization 3.0 principles are built into the design and its operation. Therefore, the 3.0 model can be adapted to any types and stages of organizations in any scales across industries, allowing an organization to naturally evolve into its optimal 3.0 model.
For further description of Organization 3.0, please refer to the introductory presentation " Organization 3.0" at http://masterlingual.academy
The third shift in the organizational paradigm has already started in some areas of the world however, it is still in an infant stage. The shift toward Organization 3.0 has been triggered mainly by the imminent melt down of the Socio economical system and its models as well as an accelerated advancement in technology especially in the areas of information technology and its applications, such as AI, across the industry sectors.
One thing I should remind the reader of Organization 3.0, as well as all the rest of the 3.0 series of my models is that they are not the one size fit all mold or a frame. Structural design and its operational strategy can be as diverse as your imagination can create as long as the organization 3.0 principles are built into the design and its operation. Therefore, the 3.0 model can be adapted to any types and stages of organizations in any scales across industries, allowing an organization to naturally evolve into its optimal 3.0 model.
For further description of Organization 3.0, please refer to the introductory presentation " Organization 3.0" at http://masterlingual.academy
Comment on Strategy as a language :Part 1
The basic concept of Organization 3.0 I introduced in the previous post comes from " The Third Wave" by Alvin Toffler. The first edition was published in 1980 and I read the book for the first time in the Summer of 1982 when I was in a high school. He has expanded his theories further in his subsequent works since 1980 however, the ideas and the theories in the book has made a profound impression in my mind that has influenced my view on the history of Human evolution.
And almost 20 years after he introduced "The Third Wave", I introduced my first Organization 3.0 theory along with other 3.0 models such as, Communication 3.0, Leadership 3.0, Strategy 3.0 and Society 3.0, all of which are derived from his wave theory, in that the model numbering, 3.0, 2.0,1.0, indicates the phases of Human evolution over the course of the history of Humanity as we know it. All of my 3.0 series of models and their concepts correspond with the frame of time and the concepts of " The Third Wave"
With these in mind, I am going to elaborate little further on the Organizaiton 3.0 with its relation to other 3.0 models.
First, I am going to differentiate each phase of evolution of an organization in general for the argument sake.
Organization 1.0 can be characterized by its authoritarian model with relatively simple structure and system while Organization 2.0 has more complex system with mechanistic characteristics signified by its functionally departmentalized structure and its management method. The typical example of Organization 1.0 model is the organization under dictatorship, which were common in most regions of the world, especially Europe, up until 18th century.
As for Organization 2.0, the shift from 1.0 model had started in around 17th century in relatively small and isolated cases, and so called the industrial revolution started in 18th century accelerated the shift toward highly functional Organization 2.0 model. The most significant difference between Organization 1.0 and 2.0 is in their underlying shift in the Social system, where the agricultural evolution in the First Wave was what triggered and drove the shift toward 1.0 model, while the 2.0 model was triggered and driven by the shift in moral principle(interpretation of enlightenment in Christendom) and technological innovation, of which Capitalism and Democracy are their products.
With these in mind, I am going to elaborate little further on the subject of Organization 3.0 and its relation with other 3.0 models in my next post.
And almost 20 years after he introduced "The Third Wave", I introduced my first Organization 3.0 theory along with other 3.0 models such as, Communication 3.0, Leadership 3.0, Strategy 3.0 and Society 3.0, all of which are derived from his wave theory, in that the model numbering, 3.0, 2.0,1.0, indicates the phases of Human evolution over the course of the history of Humanity as we know it. All of my 3.0 series of models and their concepts correspond with the frame of time and the concepts of " The Third Wave"
With these in mind, I am going to elaborate little further on the Organizaiton 3.0 with its relation to other 3.0 models.
First, I am going to differentiate each phase of evolution of an organization in general for the argument sake.
Organization 1.0 can be characterized by its authoritarian model with relatively simple structure and system while Organization 2.0 has more complex system with mechanistic characteristics signified by its functionally departmentalized structure and its management method. The typical example of Organization 1.0 model is the organization under dictatorship, which were common in most regions of the world, especially Europe, up until 18th century.
As for Organization 2.0, the shift from 1.0 model had started in around 17th century in relatively small and isolated cases, and so called the industrial revolution started in 18th century accelerated the shift toward highly functional Organization 2.0 model. The most significant difference between Organization 1.0 and 2.0 is in their underlying shift in the Social system, where the agricultural evolution in the First Wave was what triggered and drove the shift toward 1.0 model, while the 2.0 model was triggered and driven by the shift in moral principle(interpretation of enlightenment in Christendom) and technological innovation, of which Capitalism and Democracy are their products.
With these in mind, I am going to elaborate little further on the subject of Organization 3.0 and its relation with other 3.0 models in my next post.
Japanology 101
I have recently found the term "Japanology" used in some articles, but they all seem to have misunderstood its significance. So,I thought I should give a clearer view of the "Japanology" for those who are interested in the term. This is the diagram I have used for over 20 years when describing Japanology. The descriptions for the Japanese words I have used in this diagram need to be given however, Japanology is significantly deeper than those definitions used among so called Experts of Japan.
There are much to be explained to fully understand what this diagram entails. I am going to get into some details in the next post.
M&As that are bound to fail
One thing that needs to be understood about M&A is that they seldom succeed. As a matter of fact over 70 % of all M&As regardless the scale and the industry fail, and the another 29 % out of the remaining 30% end up getting far less value than they expected, let alone any notable synergy effects. That leaves only 1 % of all M&A deals around the globe actually succeed with reasonable benefits. Only people who reap the rewards in any M&A, regardless it succeed or not, are the lawyers, accountants, brokers and promoters. M&A is by far the riskiest proposition that any businesses can undertake.
So, it is a proven fact that most M&A fails, and many of them fail miserably. I have personally witnessed several large scale M&As undertaken by major Japanese corporations such as, Hitachi, NEC and others, failed miserably with huge loss, all of which were bound to fail from the start. But the gullible management believed otherwise.
I have involved in over 100 M&A deals directly and indirectly in the past 25 years, most of which were in U.S.A, Canada and Europe, and experienced at first hand how the deals fell apart and how they succeeded. Regardless the scale and the industry of the deal, the key common elements of failure are;
1. Wrong motive
2. Incompetent management
3. Cultural mismatch
4. PMI failure
Recent study shows that the cultural mismatch is the key failure factor of any M&A. That is true. However, What all those experts on the subject have missed is that the first cause of all the failures is the very motive of the management who chose M&A to achieve their objective, which are, in most cases, the instant improvement of market share and the financial numbers. There are other strategic objectives, off course, like acquiring various knowledge capital such as technologies and know hows, as well as expanding territory, product lines and the entry into the new market.
Whatever the objectives of the M&A may be, most of the leaders have one common misunderstanding or misguided belief about M&A, that is, 1+1 does not amount to 2, never mind becoming more than 2 with synergy effects that so many people believe in. Even the reasonably successful M&As produce 20 - 50 % (1.2 - 1.5) added value to their existing businesses.
Failed M&A looses even the existing value producing negative impacts. One failed M&A can even destroy the entire company. One good example in the recent even is Toshiba. They have driven themselves to be on the verge of chapter 11 due to their failure of merging with Westinghouse.
In the next post, I am going to discuss further on the inner working of M&A and an alternative to M&A to grow your business.
What's strategy got to do with it. Part 4: Strategy as an organizational Language
While Strategy in the Organization 2.0 (mechanistic and pyramid structure organizations) is a management mandate to be cascaded down the organization, in the Organization 3.0 (organic cell community based organization) , Strategy is a language to be used to communicate and share the vital information such as navigational information as well as the fundamental values, principles and culture of an organization among all cells. Cell is a functionally optimized team that can form a task force and a community with other cells to take on specific missions and challenges of the organization. Unlike the Organization 2.0, each cell in the Organization 3.0 is unique in its function and competency and provides its value to other cells and to the organization as a whole in proactive and collaborative fashion.
Strategy in a organization 3.0 is not formulated in a isolated dark room like it is in a organization 2.0. Since the strategy in a organization 3.0 is a language, it is formulated in collaboration with all cells where every cell in a organization contributes to its formation, management and constant improvements through everyday communication. We, at MasterLingual Academy of Communication, call this new generation form of strategy "the strategy 3.0".
Some of you might wonder just how you are supposed to make Strategy into a language and how to use such language to communicate all throughout the organization
First of all, Strategy 3.0 do not function in the Organization 2.0. Since most of today's organizations, especially the large corporations, are Organization 2.0, they are not ready nor designed for the Strategy 3.0.
Having said that, there are basically two options for the organization 2.0 to adapt certain elements of Strategy 3.0. One way is to abandon strategy. This will take a huge leap of faith for most corporations. But removing strategy out of your organization and allow common sense to take over the management and the operation will not only reduce the strain of unnecessary reporting, documentation and meetings, but also unleash the potential of talents in a organization. But, as I said, letting go of the very thing that they have believed to be the essence of an organization is like suicide to most of them. The 2nd option is to adapt organization 3.0 model in project basis. Since the transformation of Organization 2.0 to 3.0 takes a significant commitment, effort and time, the idea is to spin off a certain business projects to form a temporal organization 3.0. In this case you need to put in place a buffer system between the temporal organization 3.0 and the existing organization.
The details of how those 2 option can be implemented in your organization is available to be disclosed for those who are interested.
Strategy in a organization 3.0 is not formulated in a isolated dark room like it is in a organization 2.0. Since the strategy in a organization 3.0 is a language, it is formulated in collaboration with all cells where every cell in a organization contributes to its formation, management and constant improvements through everyday communication. We, at MasterLingual Academy of Communication, call this new generation form of strategy "the strategy 3.0".
Some of you might wonder just how you are supposed to make Strategy into a language and how to use such language to communicate all throughout the organization
First of all, Strategy 3.0 do not function in the Organization 2.0. Since most of today's organizations, especially the large corporations, are Organization 2.0, they are not ready nor designed for the Strategy 3.0.
Having said that, there are basically two options for the organization 2.0 to adapt certain elements of Strategy 3.0. One way is to abandon strategy. This will take a huge leap of faith for most corporations. But removing strategy out of your organization and allow common sense to take over the management and the operation will not only reduce the strain of unnecessary reporting, documentation and meetings, but also unleash the potential of talents in a organization. But, as I said, letting go of the very thing that they have believed to be the essence of an organization is like suicide to most of them. The 2nd option is to adapt organization 3.0 model in project basis. Since the transformation of Organization 2.0 to 3.0 takes a significant commitment, effort and time, the idea is to spin off a certain business projects to form a temporal organization 3.0. In this case you need to put in place a buffer system between the temporal organization 3.0 and the existing organization.
The details of how those 2 option can be implemented in your organization is available to be disclosed for those who are interested.
What's strategy got to do with it ? Part 3 : Common sense vs Strategy
In the last post, I said that the common sense works more effectively than any complicated and systematized strategy particularly for the modern Japanese organizations, that is, the organization 2.0 in Japanese style. However, the common sense that we use in a general sense is neither universal nor necessarily being shared by everyone in the organization.
What we call a common sense in general can be very local. So local that only those who are in close circle can really understand. There always are some differences in nuances and context in so called common sense that often cause miscommunication and misunderstanding even among people who share the same culture. This is due to the fact that common sense is an unspoken consensus among the people in the same cultural and social environment. Because they are unspoken and even unconsciously assumed in some cases, it is not always easy to share them in a conscious level.
So, even the common sense that we automatically assume that everyone has the same understanding of need to be defined and translated before sharing them in conscious level. The common sense in a particular community or an organization is a derivative of their fundamental values and principles actually practiced by all the members of the community or an organization, not the values and principles that many organization claim to be theirs on the surface. But again, the actual values and principles of an organization are unspoken and unconsciously assumed in most cases.
In the light of the nature of what we call a common sense, we have to bring to light the gap between the basic values and the principles actually practice and what the organization claim to be theirs. And then, you can redefine the common sense and its languages in conscious level. Once the common understanding about the common sense and its languages (principles, values and strategy of an organization) are established among the members of an organization in conscious level, the organization is primed to take on any missions to be accomplished.
I know I have said the western style strategy does not work for most of the modern Japanese organizations. But when an organization is primed for the strategy to be applied as a part of the organizational language, it is possible even for the typical Japanese organizations to produce sustainable performance. The important point here is that the strategy is an organizational language instead of a complex management initiatives and their guiding processes.
What we call a common sense in general can be very local. So local that only those who are in close circle can really understand. There always are some differences in nuances and context in so called common sense that often cause miscommunication and misunderstanding even among people who share the same culture. This is due to the fact that common sense is an unspoken consensus among the people in the same cultural and social environment. Because they are unspoken and even unconsciously assumed in some cases, it is not always easy to share them in a conscious level.
So, even the common sense that we automatically assume that everyone has the same understanding of need to be defined and translated before sharing them in conscious level. The common sense in a particular community or an organization is a derivative of their fundamental values and principles actually practiced by all the members of the community or an organization, not the values and principles that many organization claim to be theirs on the surface. But again, the actual values and principles of an organization are unspoken and unconsciously assumed in most cases.
In the light of the nature of what we call a common sense, we have to bring to light the gap between the basic values and the principles actually practice and what the organization claim to be theirs. And then, you can redefine the common sense and its languages in conscious level. Once the common understanding about the common sense and its languages (principles, values and strategy of an organization) are established among the members of an organization in conscious level, the organization is primed to take on any missions to be accomplished.
I know I have said the western style strategy does not work for most of the modern Japanese organizations. But when an organization is primed for the strategy to be applied as a part of the organizational language, it is possible even for the typical Japanese organizations to produce sustainable performance. The important point here is that the strategy is an organizational language instead of a complex management initiatives and their guiding processes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
One thing that needs to be understood about M&A is that they seldom succeed. As a matter of fact over 70 % of all M&As regardless ...
-
I have recently found the term "Japanology" used in some articles, but they all seem to have misunderstood its significance. ...
