Dave,
I noticed that your reply was direct only, instead of being sent to the
list as well. I'm CC:ing mine to the LO list, as the discussion is
potentially illuminating for many. As such, some of the comments are
things you already know but which may prove useful to a wider audience.
This is also an abridged reply that leaves a number of issues out. The
reason for this is that I am now even less sure about your exact
situation. Once that's clarified, I'll happily post the rest of my
thoughts as well - or at least those which remain relevant.
> The combination is: best at doing one thing, very good at doing a
> broad range of things and learning from them. I think we all agree
> we're better at the former than the latter.
WHY do you consider the latter to be important? What's driving your
perceived need for more of it, and what specific benefits do you expect to
accrue from improving it? All key questions in selling it and then working
with a focus, and I'm sure the list would be interested in those answers
as well.
>> The flip side of such an endeavour is also interesting. If you lack
>>critical skills, pretty soon you aren't working so much, or at least handing
>>over opportunities to those who have taken the time. Suddenly, people find
>>the time to learn - because it becomes the only real form of security.
>
>At the risk of straining the analogy above, if you're starving trying to
>eat rabbits, you develop new "markets" for your hunting skills, like
>field mice.
Maybe, though this assumes that skills are very transferable. All you're
changing is the target. People in industry Y don't buy method X anymore?
Okay, find another industry and let's modify the model to fit them. At
what point does this become, you know... "we have this great hammer in our
hand, so everything looks like a nail." It certainly isn't an original
criticism of Big 6 firms.
> anticipate *future* customer needs and the competencies needed to
> address them, and alert the Communities of Practice to start
> recruiting and/or learning them now. If wolves were smart enough to
> do this (yes, I know I'm really pushing the analogy now) they'd learn
> to set up rabbit farms, provide food and shelter for the rabbits and
> then harvest them-- much easier than "eat what you kill".
Your use of the wolfpack metaphor is interesting, in that it is a strong
"hunting" model as opposed to a "herding" model. This has certain
implications for organizations, the process of change, and questions of
alignment between the vision and actual practice. David Hurst has probably
done the best wok on this subject if you haven't read him already. See
Chapter 1 of "Crisis & Renewal", or check out his article "Cautionary
Tales from the Kalahari: how hunters become herders [and many have trouble
changing back again]," (Academy of Management Executive), 1991, Vol. 5,
#3.
The above extension of the wolfpack metaphor actually makes a lot of
sense on its own terms. But the metaphor and what you describe aren't the
same thing. 'Herding strategy'? Reality check: how can a consulting firm
do something like that? IBM used to have that kind of close, cultivational
role with its customers. An account manager would work on-site with one
account, and that was it. Very much a herder model, based on long-term
loyalty. What happened? Shrinking margins and a volatile market destroyed
that model's underpinnings, and almost destroyed IBM with it.
Back to the future now, and scenarios. What kinds of scenarios do you
see for your industry and your major customers? Does this kind of 'bunny
rancher' model make sense under any of them? Which ones, and how might we
know if that scenario should begin to happen so that we can adjust? Maybe
what we need is a different set of hunting skills instead (...call it the
"right to arm bears" model). What do we need to get THERE?
The 'right to arm bears' model is much closer to your action proposal
above. But it goes way beyond what the customers may express as their
wants, and into the realm of (as "Technotrends" author Daniel Burrus puts
it) "giving your customers to do what they can't do, but would have wanted
to do, if only they knew they could do it." That means risks and jumping
into areas the firm may not know much about initially. How well-suited is
E&Y to that? You write:
> I think our organization has always been uniformly open-minded to new
> ideas, and at the same time very cautious in making fundamental shifts
> in direction.
If the 'right to arm bears' becomes your future strategy instead of 'bunny
ranchers, how might this need to change?
> At the same time we are a very decentralized and autonomous
> organization, and if our people perceive a new idea will help them meet
> client needs they will embrace it quickly at an individual or
> "community of practice" level.
I thought you had problems with people who are too busy to learn. Which is
it? Or (and this is not meant to be mean) do they simply have no time to
learn what some people wish to teach them? What, exactly, is the problem
here? Please help.
------------------------------------------------------ Joe Katzman, MBA joe@embanet.com Phone: (416) 502-2223 Fax: (416) 397-4079
"The more you know, the more you can imagine." ----------------------------------------------------
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>