Archiv der Kategorie: English

More than said and heard

It’s surprising that after many years of having the team on the agenda, companies are still struggling to capitalize on the additional treasures of grouping employees into working teams. The promotion of individual careers, the artificially fueled competition for credit points and the lack of informal opportunities to exchange information hamper a relationship based on cooperation. Usually the individual criteria are still used to evaluate the performances. Individuals are in the focus – although that puts a strain on trustful cooperation.

The company or rather its representatives do little to ensure that this additional advantage can arise. Even though there is an agile momentum nowadays and everyone wants the appropriate commitment from the employees, there does not exist

  • the necessary, open structures,
  • agile workplaces and meeting rooms to meet spontaneously,
  • new distribution mechanisms for resources, or
  • executives, who renounce any micro management.

It can actually not exist as long as the decision-makers themselves are only employees in a multilayered hierarchy. Perhaps it helps to realize that a group of employees is more than the sum of the individual experiences – when more can be said and heard.

  • The senders have more thoughts than they can express
    The collaboration thrives on ideas that are exchanged within the team. The difficulty is the fact that much of the thoughts that a team member thinks about, cannot be completely shared. Many aspects are lost during the transfer into language and images. Through generalizations, the use of classifications, unspoken assumptions and the use of ambiguous terms, important contents are filtered out.
    Example: All sales people follow the sales process with the conviction that anything is possible. Their credo is AIDAS. Why can’t this be improved through intensive cooperation? We need agile procedures.
    In the example, many facts remain unspoken: Sales people? Sales process? What is possible? AIDAS? What makes cooperation intensive? Agile? The sender knows more, but does not express it more comprehensive.
  • The receivers determine the content of the perceived
    The exchange of ideas requires that everybody notices the thoughts of others. Since all people perceive through different channels, sometimes the spoken and sometimes the written word and sometimes a picture or a series of numbers are worth than a thousand words – as long as you do not miss the message. In any case, the target group is responsible for interpreting the statements. The path into consciousness uses the already existing thoughts and mental patterns of the target persons to enrich the contents with useful knowledge in their mind.
    Example: Jim and John have been working in sales for a long time and use for weeks Clickfunnels to collect 1500 new contacts every day, so-called leads, which they prioritize with their software module in order to turn in just one week the most interesting contacts into interested customers, who are willing to meet with our sales people.
    The example shows that the receiver immediately adjusts the perceived to his ideas: Jim and John are salespeople; Clickfunnels seems to be related to the sales process; 1500 leads per day are possible; the rest, e.g. the agile, has disappeared. The recipient has enriched some messages while hiding others.
  • Mutual discourse expands the comprehension
    Actually, everything is works as desired. The sender communicates and the receiver understands what he can. In fact, the receiver only bears the whole thing in mind so far. In order to share the experiences, everybody in the group must become a sender and share their feedbacks. The target people perceive the contributions again and link the contents with their ranges of experience. The ideas are further processed to a more comprehensive, joint result by mutually asking questions. The more intensive the exchange of ideas, the more comprehensive becomes the overall understanding.
    Example: How do we reach Jim and John? Who should join? What exactly does Clickfunnels? How can we use the results for needs analysis? How do we increase our flexibility?
    The example is not about rhetorical questions, but about filling gaps of understanding and creating a common picture. Once the saturation level is reached, the team works together more effectively and efficiently based on this consensus.

The magic of teamwork arises when employees can exchange ideas free from conventions and constraints – when they don’t have to be afraid of disadvantages due to their active participation. In order to achieve the desired effect, they need the appropriate freedom, both psychologically and physically. Not everything works out. But there is a good example that illustrates the opportunities. Let’s remember the Post-It story. Spencer Silver had invented in the sixties a glue that did not stick permanently. It was only when Arthur Fry had in church the idea to mark his hymnbook with sticky bookmarks that the idea of Post-It was born – today 50 billion sticky notes are sold annually. On average, everyone uses at work eleven sticky notes a day.

Bottom line: Without the corporate culture of the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (now 3M), this cultural artifact would probably not exist. For decades, it has been a showcase that you must allow the development of new ideas full bent. At the same time, it shows that people can complement each other extraordinarily. All companies need to do is to provide the appropriate conditions. Employees need the space, the time and the mutual discourse to produce results that individuals simply cannot achieve. There is always more than is said and heard.

To whom belongs the progress?

Let us forget for a moment the rights holders of basic technique such as ploughing, cutting and hacking – even if these are inventions that have put mankind on the path we are still following today. Language and scripture enable us to express our thoughts without having currently to pay licenses or fees for the speaking and writing – if we forget for a moment the publishing media. Antibiotics were already used by the ancient Egyptians. Only the publication of Alexander Fleming and the widespread use in the Second World War led to today’s usage of penicillin. Or remember the graphical user interface for which the whole world thanks Steve Jobs, although the original Eureka had Xerox. In the past, the biggest problem was not knowing a particular solution. Today there are applications that solve difficult situations, but belong to individual companies that decide whether and at what price they are available. Just think of the medical compound of Ocrelizumab, which cost as part of the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) a tenth of today’s price in a MS therapy. Shouldn’t life-prolonging things be available independently of economic calculations?

Who actually owns all the progress that is being made? And who can decide on its application? Possible candidates are the following.

  • Discoverer/Inventor
    In the interests of further progress, the originators should be remunerated for their efforts. However, this does not mean that they should have long-term power to decide on further use or to determine the pricing according to the laws of supply and demand.
  • Enterprises
    Even companies that have invested in research over a long period of time are entitled to compensation for their efforts. The reward for their research should not only be limited to successful discoveries, but should also be given for developments that have not yet resulted in the desired outcome. This eliminates the arguments for exaggerated commercialization.
  • State
    As a representative of the population, state agencies would be the ideal jurisdiction, if they would not pursue national interests. A cautionary example of where this „We first“ leads to, we can currently observe. Such state dictatorships are not adequate stewards of progress.
  • Humankind
    All that remains is the entire humanity. Fundamental developments, such as certain medicines, the Internet and common goods (e.g. roads, railways, water sources, energy producers, electricity and communication networks), used by all, should not be managed by corporations but be fairly made available by neutral organizations that are obliged to the commonalty.

Bottom line: The fact that progress is not fairly distributed due to the economization is not progress, but a step back into prehistoric times, when certain classes were responsible for the common good – with, from today’s point of view, boundless ignorance of the needs of the general public. The artefacts still visible today are due to this use of human lives – hundreds of thousands deaths in the building of the Chinese wall; Tens of thousands fatalities in the construction of the Panama Canal. After losing a committing moral, corporations exploit innovations nowadays without hesitation in order to let their own golden calf continue to grow. Even if you’re not the inventor of a user interface, you are uninhibited in suing your competitors, if they also become inspired by others. In the end they only act according to the law books – or better within its gaps. Every gap that lawyers uncover is used to create personal value outside the law. If the prosperity of some increases, this ALWAYS happens at the expense of others. However, since eventually everyone will be affected by the collapse of the whole, sooner or later there will be an institution that will take care of the fair distribution, because progress belongs to all.