This is Luis Alberola's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Luis Alberola's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Luis Alberola
Recent Activity
Thanks for the second chapter John ! "This is exactly what these institutions were designed to do – suppress passion". To a great extent, yes, I agree. Which is why when launching institutional innovation experiments (or movements, I guess), at the edge of the organization, there is a real likeliness of short term success. In my experience, a good, intuitive leader (with low risk aversion), often a woman, is enough to secure a project that aims at institutional innovation. The problems usually come with success : in those cases, instead of the organization understanding that its future lies at the edges, it more often than not tries to bring any innovation back to the center (often killing it in what it meant deep down, beyond the technology app or improved process that stand as its finished product). How then to ensure that the institution learns to let go of its centralisation practice ?
It's a great article John, and the whole idea on the dark side of technology as well. And I am looking forward to your points on institutional innovation and narrative. And yet, I am worried that many of the explorers will be left behind, often because the road they have chosen cannot be explored in good conditions (I am speaking about compensation). So I assume you are linking passion and leadership, and that great explorers involve fearless followers. Are you also linking passion and responsibility ? My question is, are we now somehow reaching a time when a leader that does not follow her passion is not living to her social responsibility ? Because passion, if it needs to result in deep transformation, doesn't seem to belong in the "motivational field", but rather be born in a field also containing contrarian thinking, deep resolve and inner leadership. I am eager to read your post linking passion with institutional innovation Thanks for sharing this !
A great and timely article John. I wonder if you've read Acceleration, by Hartmud Rosa ... Looking forward to the path you'll propose in your next article. In my own practice, we try to help our clients go towards institutional mastery of technology by: - making social technologies take center stage in the digital enterprise; it's a way for employees to exist socially and this offers a way towards collective mastery of digital technology; - based on these technologies, developing new professional practices (sharing, co-creating, searching, designing, ...), that are needed to take advantage of these technologies in new ways that are not solely focused on productivity; that's a dangerous path - we work on responsibility development (by adressing the depth of context) And it's all great work, but difficult to carry on past a certain level if leadership does not take ownership for the needed risk ... Thanks again for your great article
Well, the market only looks for financial value. Whether there are or not unemployed people in America is not the market's concern. Actually, unemployment, by holding wages down, automatically raises prospects for higher profits. You could say that, with too many unemployed, demand is not enough to support growth. But the point is that even unemployed people are consumers, and for many product markets, only wealthy individuals are important Markets are not political instruments. There are places where supply meets demand. And today, in these financial markets, there is still little demand for "ethic" or "social" investment. Hopefully, with facts like the one you point out, we'll get there eventually. But changing the markets is going to take years and a real change of viewpoint for policy makers and C-level officers in corporations
1 reply
Interesting debate. Not being à US citizen I might be a bit far from it. I see two different issues: - treating corporations as legal persons would bring you where you are today, if I understand the Bill of Rights correctly, - corporations are legal persons that employ scores of natural persons, and yet, corporations are not democracies. What you basically have then, is a social structure with influence in government affairs that is not a democracy. I might be pushing this, but how different is this from having one of the 50 states not being a democracy ? I have discussed it in my blog, as I understand this issue brings us, in fact, to the need to change big business governance fundamentally
1 reply
This is a very interesting post and conversations. I think that this issue (regulation, charter, rules, governance)is key, as without a proper answer I deem it unlikely that the social media environment will reach its potential WITHIN the corporations. I like the comment of Kristina, even though I think it relies only on the corporate viewpoint. Including the employee viewpoint in the set of rules and how you design them is to me a key notion. At the same time, I also like the idea of the "leadership team" on the issue. Actually, we are in a fast moving environment and building a community that oversees these regulatory / governance issues and links with corporate governance is a pragmatic way of trying to continuously adapt the relation between the corporation and its employees
1 reply
Great post. I have been thinking about firms and feudal kingdoms for some time. Evolution might be a bit more complicated than what we can imagine, and probably, appart from people regaining power through community-based organizations, there will also be an evolution of corporations as they come of age - by that, I mean as they themselves get rid of their dependancy on financial religion (short-termism and growth for growth).
1 reply