The first, Café de Coral, is from Hong Kong. It has a very distinctive board at the entrance where meal placards are hanged and moved manually by waiters dressed like flight attendants. Other smaller chains have also this system and I don’t know if Café de Coral was the first one to use it. But it still makes the experience feel different. It materializes a menu that is changing day by day, even hours by hours between the breakfast, lunch, dinner and meals being sold out. But the fact that it is updated manually makes it somehow more playful and trustworthy than a digital screen, even though the entire process flow seems to be anyway automated.

The second, Pepper Lunch from Japan, is a genius marketing concept. People are served food on hot iron plates while it still sizzles. People can then ‘cook’ there meal according to their own preferences. The plates are intriguing, make a lot of noise and are always grasping attention even in a food court full of competitors.  TV screens explain customers how they can mix there food, which might be useful for newbies but more importantly reinforces the message that there is a specific way to eat a Pepper Lunch, for newbies and experts, which adds to the buzz and playfulness. One disadvantage for them though: the hot iron plates are not children friendly.

• Contrary to the widespread belief, brainstorms are more about giving sense to old ideas than discovering new ones.
• Every model is based on assumptions. Paradigms and stereotypes are more abstract models that don’t necessary come with explicit assumptions, which narrows down creativity.
• Creativity is about changing perception. Innovation is about changing things.
• Techniques for workshops:
  • Choose a random organisation having nothing to do with your industry. What is the probability it takes over your business in 10 years? Explain SWOT.
  • Speak about your job without using the most commonly used words to describe it.
  • A paradox is when reality doesn’t follow the model. A new model must then be applied. An ambiguity is when reality can be represented by several models; it is far more common. Creativity is about building new conceptual ‘boxes’ inspired by ambiguities.

Luc de Brabandère is ‘corporate philosopher’ and director at BCG, check out his books here.

• An economy of contribution is an economy where actors contribute without having necessary a measurable counterpart (e.g. money, product). This model is radically different from an economy of exchange and must be taken into account when the externalities underlying an industry become central to its process. In this context, the function of companies is to capture positive externalities.
• An organisation is at the cornerstone of three axes:
  • Patrimony: the former ‘inner’ single reference for a company: legitimacy, expertise, employees…
  • Employability: capacity to inscribe its products and usages in shared values. Employability is related to economical theories of ecosystems in which an organisation is seen as a part of a system, either parasitic or in symbiosis.
  • Interactivity: capacity to adapt to the needs of individuals and communities who will in return support the activities of the organisation. With the rise of social media, brands want to be seen more and more as Customer to Customer ‘CtoC’, like if they were initiated by customers and driven by them.

Mozart: a talent detected in his early childhood

I attended few weeks ago a seminar organised by the Philosophy and Management association in Brussels. It was all about talent, and how the way artists work and manage their career can be a source of inspiration for talent management within business organisations. Pierre-Michel Menger, French philosopher and research director for the CNRS, presented some of his researches in the sociology of work and art. The expertise of Pierre-Michel Menger in both fields led him to very interesting observations.

He first discerned two types of work:

• the ‘labour’: an effort, constraint with a predictable outcome
• the work as a discovery of yourself, the masterpiece of your life. Success in this type of work is more a derivative, not a predefined goal. It is unpredictable.

The later work is influenced by philosophies from the 19th century emphasising the infinite depth of consciousness and the infinite possibilities opened to us. Because of it’s unpredictability, it is a type of work that involves a lot of risks. The prestige and satisfaction you get from the realisation of a masterpiece is immense, but the risk to fail is in equal proportions. Artists are facing this risk in a hyper competitive environment. Differences in revenues between artists is huge, the small number of successful artists take most of the resources, leaving a small portion of revenues to the vast majority. If you look at just the financial situation of an artist, choosing such a career might look like a bad evaluation of the risks. But it doesn’t take into account the non-monetary value of a potential huge gratification, a relative autonomy and the diversity of the tasks involved in the job.

What influences the likelihood to become a successful artist (at least in the narrow sense of social recognition and monetary compensation) is not clear. There is something about artists that cannot be measured, cannot be put in an equation. It is not enough to make studies, work hard and accumulate experiences. You need to have ‘talent’. The same applies to business. Sure, you can find people able to perform a task by looking at their past experiences and by using rational criteria. But how can you detect the collaborators who will go far beyond, surprise you and develop considerably within the company. How can you make sure to invest more in these people and less in the others? McKinsey invented a marketing term to describe the 10% of your employees who will bring the most to the company: ‘talents’. Talent management is controversial and relates to the many meanings of the word ‘talent’.  Pierre-Michel Menger proposes to define talents as people you cannot isolate using predefined criteria or reading their CV. It helps to stick to this definition and to not take into account all the other meanings and judgements that the word ‘talent’ implies. He argues that the only way to detect talents is to compare them between each others. This is why competitions and awards in the art world are so frequent. The jury don’t know themselves what they are looking for, and the outcome is unpredictable.  It is after comparing the contestants that they can see who has a little something more, a higher potential. This is also why I think you start to see more and more contests and game-like workshops in business (hack day for developers, unconferences, Dragon’s Den kind of internal events), to detect talents you could not screen using a formal HR equation.

I think that this approach raises many ethical dilemma.

• On one hand, I want people to judge me on rational criteria that I can understand and act on. It is a system that protects all of us against arbitrary decisions and favouritism. On the other hand, I also want to be judged for who I am and for my talents, independently of any predefined list of criteria.
• Whatever your boss says, it is reassuring to know that he doesn’t judge you but only your work and your performances. With the concept of ‘talent’, suddenly your boss wants to know what you do in your spare time and wants you to reveal yourself, so that he can detect the ‘talent’. It is a much more personal relation. It surely benefits some people, but not necessary everyone. The opposite leads to the same problem but the other way around. You might have a quality that you know could help your career, but an employer looking only at short term figures and performances might not realise it.
• Is it right to invest more in the 10% of ‘talents’ in your company instead of using that money to raise the general level of expertise of the team? To use an example from Pierre-Michel Menger, if a talented researcher wins an award for a paper he wrote, his reputation will get a boost which will convert probably to a higher salary. But the paper he wrote is most likely based on data that ‘average’ workers collected. Is is fair? On the other hand, if there is no incentive for researchers to excel and be noticed, people will stagnate and become demotivated.
• Even small differences between people of the same level in a specific field, like music composition, can generate disproportionate inequalities. If more is invested to a young ‘talent’ who is a little better than the other children of his class, he will quickly gain more experiences and have more chances to explore his talent. He will then have a reputation, which will encourage people who don’t have time or the knowledge in music composition to hire him instead of someone else, which will give him even more experience, and so on. The ‘talented’ person might truly be exceptional, but was it because of his initial tiny competitive advantage or because of the investment from the community? Does it make a difference? Maybe humans are like bees and need an arbitrary hierarchy for their society to work. (Simply accepting this image of the bees is way too sympathetic with established power though.)
• As it has been pointed during the workshop, talent belongs to the category of work that is unpredictable and can be asserted for sure only a posteriori. Is it legitimate to try detecting talents beforehand? This argument is interesting but theoretical.  Of course, people will always try to detect talents, it happens since the beginning of humanity. And even if it is an inexact science, it probably lead to better results for the community than not trying to support its future ‘talents’. Even if it is not always fair for people.

How to resolve the dilemma depends on your vision of society. If you believe that there is a real opportunity for people from all backgrounds to display their talents, then selecting talents by comparing people between each other on non measurable criteria is legitimate. If on the other hand, you perceive the world as being a constant exploitation of the masses by few people in power, every privilege not based on measurable merit is a potential discrimination. Both extremes are false, the world needs both talented artists and hard workers. I personally believe that the key to resolve the dilemma is to offer multiple ways to succeed, in many different ways, with the help of many different groups of people. Diversity lowers the probability of generating systematic discriminations and enables many understandings of what talent means.

If you are preparing an award or competition in your organisation, you need to understand why you the feel the need to do so. If it is at least partially to detect talents, I hope that the points above will help you design the process in accordance to your values and goals. Don’t simply replicate what has already been done, enable participants to show their talents from a difference angle, the winners might not be the ones you expected.

I collaborated with him to prepare the photographs and Polaroids, you can find the details here.

I hope it conveys the message and the exciting mission of the Philosophy and Management association.

The conference room of PICNIC 2009

The presentation by Gentry Underwood at PICNIC 2009 was useful because it gave some hopes that employee engagement could truly be improved using the intranet. The key is to stay focus on the practical objectives of the employees and the core priorities of the organisation. It is illusionary to believe that employees will really share their thoughts on the intranet just for the sake of the organisation, and for colleagues that they never met. It is insulting the intelligence of employees to believe that they would participate in internal forums thinking they are taking part in a democratic process. I see the knowledge sharing system developed by IDEO as one that acknowledges that employees have personal ambitions and are all well aware of the competitive environment they are working in. If writing something on the intranet has no implication for my career, why would I do it? If reading the intranet doesn’t help me in my personal goals, why would I bother? In an intranet platform that IDEO developed for its own internal use, employees can create their personal pages on which they can list all the projects they worked on and why. When a new project is about to start in the company, the manager can search on the intranet for employees that are potentially either the best suited or motivated for the project. The intranet becomes a tool truly improving the efficiency of the organisation, employing the best people for each task, and an effective way for employees to influence their career within the organisation. It is furthermore much more motivating and efficient to put in touch people having complementary expertise than to ask them to write down their knowledge on an intranet document. Writing down documentation is long and boring, why would I do it for the benefits of people I don’t know? The approach requires obviously much more than the creation of a new intranet website, it changes the way the organisation operates. Intranet tools need for this reason to be adapted for the goals and culture of each organisation. It seems to me an essential step if one truly wants to motive his collaborators with practical opportunities. An Intranet based on a wishful but only superficially executed democratic model becomes a dangerous daydreaming which demobilizes people because it doesn’t offer them any realistic mean to prevail.

Another illustration of wishful thinking are intranet websites that encourage employees to post their brilliant ideas for the company, and how often they end up being broken for years because no one ever use them. If a politician or an entrepreneur has an idea, he will exploit it in order to obtain more power or revenues. What could an employee hope to get in exchange of his ideas? Nosco developed a software called Ideas Exchange in which participants not only share ideas, but can also invest virtual shares in ideas from others. Not only it makes the process more exciting, it also helps identifying good ideas, the ones considered as being the best investments by the employees themselves. If coupled with the right incentives, such as real life returns on investments or opportunities to participate in the direction of the projects, the system could also lead to a higher level of engagement.

What is the role of corporations and consumer research in this relationship? Consumer research is culturally agnostic, it doesn’t defend anything else than the interests of its commissioners, that is their  financial return on investment, most often achieved by pleasing their customers. It is these customers who are arbitrating on cultural symbols and practices, not corporations that are merely playing with cultural meanings at their own risk. The book Ethnography for marketers (a guide to consumer immersion, by Hy Mariampolski) defines the techniques now widely applied in corporations to better understand their customers. Better the customers are understood, better the services they get, better are also the intangible benefits they get from brands and marketing campaigns (such as being able to identify with a brand, use it as a symbol of belonging to a group). But as I explained in a recent lecture about the heterotopia of Walt Disney World, the risk is that cultural assets valuable in the mediation of our reality, but less attractive for brands, could slowly fade away in the profit of less effective meaning systems, more in tune with consumerism and manufactured consumer lifestyles. By observing customers instead of people, customer researches are influencing our perception of existence. It is a little like quantum theory, you cannot observe something in culture without influencing it. The issue is not commerce and its consumer persona, but the lack of other narrative forces. Or maybe even worst, it is the incapacity to recognize the significance of other systems of meaning simultaneously at play in our lives.

The Paris freedom fest will take a libertarian view at themes such as “Business cycle theories: capitalism versus interventionism” [Olga Peniaz], “The ethics and economics of tax heavens” [Guillaume Vuillemey], “Towards a New Theory of the State; what comes after welfare” [James Panton]. The Philo and Management 2009 – 2010 seminars seem more neutral and will investigate “What will be the management of the post-capitalistic society?” through questions such as “Competition: only motor for efficiency and wealth?”, “Is democracy in a business environment possible?” (speakers including Pierre Gurdjian, Pierre Dardot and Isabelle Ferreras).

Having spoken to the two organisers, I have no doubt about their genuine approach and their commitment to achieve something new. Is it a broader movement? Is it time for some serious reflection?

Entretien avec Pierre Dardot et Christian Laval 1 (video in French):

Many Smithsonian museums are on the National Mall, so many I was a little lost and overwhelmed during my visit in 2003.

If you are interested in strategic thinking, look at the lecture of Nina Simon at the Smithsonian. It is a long video but I think it encompasses many important subjects: how to use tools such as twitter to make an ethnographic study of your audience, what are the best practices to define the mission statement of your organisation, how to interact with your visitors and provide something really valuable for them. Even though the subject is museums, I believe that most of the presentation can be applied to any type of organization. The speaker attempts to provide clear recommendations to the Smithsonian auditorium but I feel looking at the Q&A section that it may take a while before anything happens in such a big institution. This should not stop the rest of us adopting her recommendations. You can find much more on her blog: http://museumtwo.blogspot.com/2009/05/everyones-smithsonian-video-slides-and.html

Any other good speech related to the museums strategies to engage their visitors?

• “Crowdsourcing is the act of taking a job traditionally performed by a designated agent (usually an employee) and outsourcing it to an undefined, generally large group of people in the form of an open call.”

Somehow dubious video from the creator of the name ‘crowdsourcing’

• “Corporate Social Responsibility is a form of corporate self-regulation integrated into a business model. Essentially, CSR is the deliberate inclusion of public interest into corporate decision-making, and the honouring of a triple bottom line: People, Planet, Profit.”

CSR could be the way for big corporations to find a soul again after the economical black hole of the last months, and the revelation of their poor records on ethics.

• Corporate social responsibility is vital for business survival
• The Oxymoron of ‘Business Ethics’ Proves Its Worth
• Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Simply Good Business?

Crowdsourcing relies on the principle that good business happens when the customer is listened. In fact, so much listened that he takes an active part in the company’s activity.

• Travel company invites clients on planning trips
• Is Crowdsourcing a Fad or a Foundational Element?

My argument is that those two trends go in two opposite directions on ethics. CSR is based on the assumption that corporations play a leading role in ethics, that they are the motor of new ethical practices. A corporate has a social responsibility which might be linked or not to the priorities of its customers. It is the responsibility of the management to drive an ethical business, not of the customers.

On the other hand, crowdsourcing could be seen as the last step to empty corporations of their substance. A corporation should be focused on its customers, so much focused it could maybe not have any other goals, any vision than to satisfy the needs of the market. The ethics of a corporation would then strictly be the ethics of its customers, nothing more, nothing less.

How much are those two trends concealable? Who should be responsible for business ethics, the customers or the management?