​Long term success versus short term profits
 
Here in the United States both of the major political parties have now completed their national conventions to formally elect a presidential candidate. For the next three months these political parties as well as other lesser known parties and their representatives will attempt to convince the electorate of the United States that their party and representatives can do the best job of leading the country for four years.  At stake is not just the job of President but members of congress and appointments to such important posts as the supreme court.  In the United States one of the prevailing models of success is based on what works short term to create the most profit in the shortest amount of time.  As has been demonstrated here in the United States and in other countries this model produces a significant profit for a few people over a short time.  It is, on the surface, very attractive. 
 
Consider the example of one German company, Henkel ( manufactures industrial and household staples including detergent and glue), which over the past eight years,  “…its share price has more than tripled and net earnings have risen almost 60%.” (Wall Street Journey, July 28, 2016, B4, New Henkel CEO Makes Amends buy Ellen Emmerrentze Jervell)  Under the leadership of chief executive Kasper Rorsted the following can be said about the company:
·      Made acquisitions.
·      Introduced Persil laundry soap.
·      “Moved German administrative jobs to lower-cost countries, closed plants and shed 800 of Henkel’s 1,000 brands.”
·      “Between 2008 and 2015 the workforce fell roughly 10%.”
·      “…changed Henkel’s official language to English…”
·      Mr. Rorsted “stopped attending the annual workers council meeting.”
·      “…changed the company’s motto from ‘A Brand Like a Friend’ to ‘Excellence is our Passion’ because “you want to win…And being friendly is not winning.”
·      “Unable to push large-scale American–style layoffs under German labor law, Henkel offered early retirement and buyouts. Staff who left were often not replaced.”
·      “pressed” staff “to shift from collective–agreement contracts that defined work hours and responsibilities to more open contracts with less defined roles…”
·      “…increased work load and demands for speed…”
“Some employees began to complain of depression or burnout.”
 
The new CEO, Mr. Van Bylen said, “We have to do the right things to capture future opportunities for our business...Mr. Van Bylen plans to attend the annual workers council meeting…”
 
If Mr. Rorsted had taken the time to consult with a former CEO and well known organizational consultant in a then neighboring EU nation, Margaret Hefferman, she would gladly have explained to him why his management method would not work well long term.   As early as 2012 he could have, for free, listened to one of her Ted Talks.  In her latest Ted Talks (May 2015, Forget the pecking order at work.) she explains an essential component of her business model.
 
“All my life I've been told that the way we have to get ahead is to compete: get into the right school, get into the right job, get to the top, and I've really never found it very inspiring. I've started and run businesses because invention is a joy, and because working alongside brilliant, creative people is its own reward. And I've never really felt very motivated by pecking orders or by superchickens or by superstars. But for the past 50 years, we've run most organizations and some societies along the superchicken model. We've thought that success is achieved by picking the superstars, the brightest men, or occasionally women, in the room, and giving them all the resources and all the power. And the result has been just the same as in William Muir's experiment: aggression, dysfunction and waste. If the only way the most productive can be successful is by suppressing the productivity of the rest, then we badly need to find a better way to work and a richer way to live. (Applause)
 Now, when you put all of this together, what you get is something called social capital. Social capital is the reliance and interdependency that builds trust.”
 
One wonders if the business model Ms. Hefferman proposes and which Mr. Van Bylen seems intent on re-introducing, could be applied to the many issues which the new president of  Untied States and the newly elected Congress will face beginning in 2017.  Whether it is looking at the focus on short-term goals and the creation of great wealth for a few over the short term or the approach to countering the attractiveness of so-called terrorist groups, it is possible that the small ‘we’ which we heard a lot about at the Democratic National Convention would be expanded to a large WE.   It is interesting that the Henkel model will continue to be one designed to function in a capitalist economy while, at the same time, seemingly using a version the social contract model of operation and long-term success. (I may be overly optimistic about the actual changes he is going to institute.)
 
Perhaps Ms. Hefferman would be willing to help the winning politcal team explore the application of her business concepts to the operation of the United States government.    It is interesting to consider such options. 
 
What does seem very clear is that short term, passionate approaches have not worked.  It is going to take a very long, mutually respectful approach painted with a large WE brush on an enormous canvas which is not covered in a few strokes to create a trusting social contract in the United States.
 
Written July 29, 2016

Motivation – Part II
 
Yesterday I began a discussion of the term and concept of motivation. Today, as promised, I want to c​ontinue that discussion.
 
Early this morning I was listening to a Ted Talk by the architect Joshua Prince-Ramus. He says of his profession:
 
“We actually created an artificial schism between creation and execution, as if you could actually create without knowing how to execute and as if you could actually execute without knowing how to create…
 So, what do we architects need to do? We need to stitch back creation and execution. And we need to start authoring processes again instead of authoring objects. Now, if we do this, I believe we can go back 50 years and start reinjecting agency, social engineering, back into architecture. Now, there are all kinds of things that we architects need to learn how to do, like managing contracts, learning how to write contracts, understanding procurement processes, understanding the time value of money and cost estimation.”
 
He and his colleagues put this concept into effect when designing the new Dallas Theater Complex.   He describes the concept:
 
 
" We created what we like to call superfly. (Laughter) Now, superfly, the concept is you take all the freedoms you normally associate with the flytower, and you smear them across flytower and auditorium. Suddenly the artistic director can move between different stage and audience configurations. And because that flytower has the ability to pick up all the pristine elements, suddenly the rest of the environment can be provisional. And you can drill, cut, nail, screw paint and replace, with a minimum of cost.”
 
Not only did they create a facility which allowed the artistic director to do all sorts of creative projects they created a space which can open to the space outside the building, which can invite large machines or animals into the space, change the configuration of the seats, but also easily adjust the space to be rented out of events thus creating an additional source of revenue. 
 
All that was required was a different relationship with concept of architecture and the clients for whom they were creating a building/space. Suddenly they were back  to getting excited and not just doing a job.
 
Another example is Natasha Tsakoos whose Ted Talk discussed her creation of “A multimedia theatrical adventure.”   She describes “Upwake:”
 
 "Upwake" lasts 52 minutes and 54 seconds. I project 3D animation on all the four surfaces of the stage which I interact with. The use of animation and projection was a process of discovery. I didn't use it as a special effect, but as a partner on stage. There are no special effects in "Upwake," no artifice. It's as lavish and intricate as it is simple and minimal. Three hundred and forty-four frames, four and a half years and commissions later, what started as a one person show became a collaborative work of nineteen most talented artists.”
…
 
"Upwake" tells the story of Zero, a modern-day business man, going to work with his life in a suitcase, stuck between dream and reality and not able to decipher the two…
 So this is, relatively, a new show that we're now beginning to tour. And in Austin, Texas, I was asked to give small demonstrations in schools during the afternoon. When I arrived at one of the schools, I certainly did not expect this: Six hundred kids, packed in a gymnasium, waiting. I was a little nervous performing without animation, costume -- really -- and make-up. But the teachers came to me afterward and told me they hadn't seen the kids that attentive. And I think the reason why is that I was able to use their language and their reality in order to transport them into another. Something happened along the way. Zero became a person and not just a character in a play. Zero does not speak, is neither man nor woman. Zero is Zero, a little hero of the 21st Century, and Zero can touch so many more people than I possibly could.”
 
Obviously this is no small feat – to hold the attention of 600 young people in a crowded, uncomfortable auditorium. 
 
A very good friend of mine emailed me this morning. Recently his ex-wife with whom he shares three children from approximately ages 10 to 15 have been having a difficult time adjusting to the fact that their mother in a very short span of time started dating a man, married him and is now pregnant.   They are, as to be expected, very unhappy. When they expressed that to her she accuses them of being brats, selfish and disrespectful.  He says that he wanted them to consider their mother’s emotions and feelings.  This is always or frequently a touchy situation for children.  He and his current wife spent a lot of time introducing the children to their relationship and gave the kids a lot of opportunity to express how they were feeling. The children adore his current wife.    I suggested that he begin to look at the situation as an opportunity to teach the children how to deal with emotional situations over which they have no control.    At this point he got sucked into children seeing it as a negative situation.  While he will still have to allow them time to vent, he has an opportunity to help them. Rather than convincing himself that they are not motivated to accept the new situation with their mother, he can reframe it.  I know this family well and they will do well with this approach. He and his wife will use music, dance and theater as teaching tools. 
 
Language is, as we know, very powerful.   Motivation is one of those vague words which has little meaning in and of itself.   I have no idea what is meant by the use of the word. It is normally used as a way of blaming  someone rather than accepting responsibility for the fact that we may not know how to effectively teach or be helpful.  I suggest that we avoid the use of use of such vague, blaming terms which are not conducive to problem solving.
 
 
Written July 28, 2016