In the same Hulu article in the Nov 2009 issue of Fast Company:
At Amazon, he learned the importance of studying customer feedback. Twitter takes monitoring to another level. "It's a transparency engine," Kilar says. "I've always said that our brand is what people say about us when we're not in the room, and this is the best tool for hearing what people are saying."
"Customers won't tell you what they want," Kilar says, citing a Bezosism. "But their behavior will tell you if you capture and analyze it."
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Cannablize
Another quote about cannabalizing your own business from Nov 2009 article in Fast Company magazine on the Hulu startup.
"If we didn't do this," says NBC Universal CEO Jeff Zucker, "we knew someone else would."
"If we didn't do this," says NBC Universal CEO Jeff Zucker, "we knew someone else would."
Friday, November 20, 2009
Kurt Vonnegut quote
We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful what we pretend to be.
Kurt Vonnegut, Mother Night
US novelist (1922 - 2007)
Kurt Vonnegut, Mother Night
US novelist (1922 - 2007)
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
About branding
Interesting quote from Timberland CEO Jeff Swartz:
... we had a lack of self-awareness. We undervalued our own brand. We were making utility products: It rains; it snows; this will keep you warm and dry. The consumer says, "I appreciate those benefits, but I'm going to wear this in the summertime unlaced without socks." The consumer says, "You understood the literal benefits of waterproofing and insulation; I understood the psychic benefits of confidence and a sense of self-assurance." And we said, "Check. Wow, got it." We are not a boot company, we are a brand, and our brand is not about protection against the elements; our brand is about confidently striding through life's challenges.
From the Sept 2008 issue of Fast Company.
... we had a lack of self-awareness. We undervalued our own brand. We were making utility products: It rains; it snows; this will keep you warm and dry. The consumer says, "I appreciate those benefits, but I'm going to wear this in the summertime unlaced without socks." The consumer says, "You understood the literal benefits of waterproofing and insulation; I understood the psychic benefits of confidence and a sense of self-assurance." And we said, "Check. Wow, got it." We are not a boot company, we are a brand, and our brand is not about protection against the elements; our brand is about confidently striding through life's challenges.
From the Sept 2008 issue of Fast Company.
Get Back in the Box: How constraints can free your team’s thinking
I was trying to tidy up my desk tonight and came across this old Fast Company article from Dec 2007/Jan 2008.
Quote: Research tells us that brainstorming becomes more productive when it's focused.
Quote: Research tells us that brainstorming becomes more productive when it's focused.
Monday, November 16, 2009
The Good Enough Revolution
Interesting article in Sept WIRED magazine: The Good Enough Revolution
http://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/magazine/17-09/ff_goodenough
Some key quotes:
.... what consumers want from the products and services they buy is fundamentally changing. We now favor flexibility over high fidelity, convenience over features, quick and dirty over slow and polished. Having it here and now is more important than having it perfect. These changes run so deep and wide, they're actually altering what we mean when we describe a product as "high-quality."
... New York University new-media studies professor Clay Shirky had a mantra to offer the assembled producers and editors: "Don't believe the myth of quality."
... To reinforce his point, he pointed to the MP3. The music industry initially laughed off the format, he explained, because compared with the CD it sounded terrible. What record labels and retailers failed to recognize was that although MP3 provided relatively low audio quality, it had a number of offsetting positive qualities
... To a degree, the MP3 follows the classic pattern of a disruptive technology, as outlined by Clayton Christensen in his 1997 book The Innovator's Dilemma. Disruptive technologies, Christensen explains, often enter at the bottom of the market, where they are ignored by established players. These technologies then grow in power and sophistication to the point where they eclipse the old systems. That is certainly part of what happens with Good Enough tech: MP3s entered at the bottom of the market, were ignored, and then turned the music business upside down.
... a clear pattern emerges. The attributes that now matter most all fall under the rubric of accessibility. Thanks to the speed and connectivity of the digital age, we've stopped fussing over pixel counts, sample rates, and feature lists. Instead, we're now focused on three things: ease of use, continuous availability, and low price. Is it simple to get what we want out of the technology? Is it available everywhere, all the time—or as close to that ideal as possible? And is it so cheap that we don't have to think about price? Products that benefit from the MP3 effect capitalize on one or more of these qualities. And they'll happily sacrifice power and features to do so.
+++++++++
Apply these concepts to higher ed. Higher ed has resisted (or very slowly adopted) ease of use, continuous availability, and low prices. Higher ed has instead emphasized exclusiveness and quality. What happens when the marketplace finds "good enough" education elsewhere that's easier to use, continuously available, and at a much lower cost? And finds "quality" to be over-rated?
Higher ed is ripe to be picked off by disruptive alternatives entering the bottom of the market. It seems this article makes a very hard-to-counter argument.
http://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/magazine/17-09/ff_goodenough
Some key quotes:
.... what consumers want from the products and services they buy is fundamentally changing. We now favor flexibility over high fidelity, convenience over features, quick and dirty over slow and polished. Having it here and now is more important than having it perfect. These changes run so deep and wide, they're actually altering what we mean when we describe a product as "high-quality."
... New York University new-media studies professor Clay Shirky had a mantra to offer the assembled producers and editors: "Don't believe the myth of quality."
... To reinforce his point, he pointed to the MP3. The music industry initially laughed off the format, he explained, because compared with the CD it sounded terrible. What record labels and retailers failed to recognize was that although MP3 provided relatively low audio quality, it had a number of offsetting positive qualities
... To a degree, the MP3 follows the classic pattern of a disruptive technology, as outlined by Clayton Christensen in his 1997 book The Innovator's Dilemma. Disruptive technologies, Christensen explains, often enter at the bottom of the market, where they are ignored by established players. These technologies then grow in power and sophistication to the point where they eclipse the old systems. That is certainly part of what happens with Good Enough tech: MP3s entered at the bottom of the market, were ignored, and then turned the music business upside down.
... a clear pattern emerges. The attributes that now matter most all fall under the rubric of accessibility. Thanks to the speed and connectivity of the digital age, we've stopped fussing over pixel counts, sample rates, and feature lists. Instead, we're now focused on three things: ease of use, continuous availability, and low price. Is it simple to get what we want out of the technology? Is it available everywhere, all the time—or as close to that ideal as possible? And is it so cheap that we don't have to think about price? Products that benefit from the MP3 effect capitalize on one or more of these qualities. And they'll happily sacrifice power and features to do so.
+++++++++
Apply these concepts to higher ed. Higher ed has resisted (or very slowly adopted) ease of use, continuous availability, and low prices. Higher ed has instead emphasized exclusiveness and quality. What happens when the marketplace finds "good enough" education elsewhere that's easier to use, continuously available, and at a much lower cost? And finds "quality" to be over-rated?
Higher ed is ripe to be picked off by disruptive alternatives entering the bottom of the market. It seems this article makes a very hard-to-counter argument.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Understand the business, understand the user, understand the medium.
Understand the business, understand the user, understand the medium.
That's the sucinct vision statement Mark Greenfield has proposed for his web team at the University of Buffalo.
Pretty much sums it up, right?
That's the sucinct vision statement Mark Greenfield has proposed for his web team at the University of Buffalo.
Pretty much sums it up, right?
RIO: Return on Ignoring
Usually RIO stands for Return on Investment. I recently heard RIO in the context of university's getting involved in social networking.
Yes, there are lots of new social networking platforms, websites, and services. And, yes, it can sometimes be demanding to keep up with them all.
But, there's the risk that we take when we ignore getting involved or paying attention (or trying something new). The risk that others will get there before us; the risk that we won't be where our audience is at.
Yes, there are lots of new social networking platforms, websites, and services. And, yes, it can sometimes be demanding to keep up with them all.
But, there's the risk that we take when we ignore getting involved or paying attention (or trying something new). The risk that others will get there before us; the risk that we won't be where our audience is at.
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Beyond Detroit
Great article in the June 2009 issue of Wired on the auto industry.
Some quotes:
By seeking to match the likes of Toyota, Detroit has been trying to come from behind in a game where its adversaries set the rules. To Klepper, the Carnegie Mellon economist, the Big Three today resemble the American television-receiver industry in the 1970s and 1980s, pioneered by US corporations that, after decades of domination, were suddenly confronted by foreign innovation. Companies like RCA and Zenith were slow to incorporate new technologies until it was too late; all exited or sold out to foreign firms. "Every time American companies catch up to the competition," Klepper says, "the competition already has moved on and instituted new things. In that situation, it's extremely difficult to get ahead."
The only escape from this conundrum is to pursue what Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen has called disruptive innovation—the kind of change that alters the trajectory of an industry. As Christensen argued in his 1997 book, The Innovator's Dilemma, successful companies in mature industries rarely embrace disruptive innovation because, by definition, it threatens their business models. Loath to revamp factories at high cost to make products that will compete with their own goods, companies drag their feet; perversely, financial markets often reward them for their shortsightedness. Good as they are, the European and Japanese automakers are established companies. At this point, they are as unlikely to pursue disruptive innovation as Detroit has been. That gives the US auto industry an opening. To take that opportunity, it will have to behave differently—it will have to step far outside the walls of the Rouge.
. . . . .
In its insularity, the auto industry is increasingly an outlier. A growing number of firms have adopted what UC Berkeley's Chesbrough dubbed "open innovation"—accelerating change by letting ideas flow much more freely in and out of companies. Rather than depending primarily on their own engineers, he says, auto companies should leverage the insights of others, outsourcing much or most R&D to an ecosystem of small, agile entities outside the factory walls. Unsurprisingly, open innovation is seen most clearly in firms like IBM, Alcatel-Lucent, and Millennium Pharmaceuticals, but Chesbrough argues that it has been picked up with success by companies in fields ranging from chemicals and packaged goods to lubricants and home-improvement gadgets. "The auto industry is different," he says. "It hasn't learned that no one company or industry has a monopoly on useful ideas."
. . . . .
How does a traditionally top-down manufacturer become an open-ended promoter of innovation? Clues can be found in "Managing in an Age of Modularity," a classic 1997 Harvard Business Review paper by economists Carliss Baldwin and Kim Clark. They studied how personal-computer manufacturers divided their products into subsystems, establishing standards that allow parts to be readily swapped out and replaced. By giving outside innovators the freedom to tinker with individual modules—hardware, operating systems, software, peripherals—PC makers spurred the development of far more sophisticated devices and allowed customers to individualize and customize their purchases. In other words, modularity encouraged multiple innovations from multiple sources and made them easy to incorporate.
. . . . .
By outsourcing most R&D, car companies would be able to reap the rewards of innovation for a fraction of the cost and risk. The growing sophistication of design and simulation software makes it easier for startups to create prototypes and test new products virtually, before undergoing those expensive processes in the real world. Not every idea will succeed, but the costs of failure will be reduced and borne by smaller firms that can collapse with less impact on the larger economy. Ultimately, modular construction will lead to cars that can be custom-built to the specifications of their future owners, somewhat as Dell allows purchasers to click on hyperlinks to add or subtract computer features. Custom-rebuilt, too—it will be easy to install upgraded modules, in much the way that computer owners replace old video cards.
Some quotes:
By seeking to match the likes of Toyota, Detroit has been trying to come from behind in a game where its adversaries set the rules. To Klepper, the Carnegie Mellon economist, the Big Three today resemble the American television-receiver industry in the 1970s and 1980s, pioneered by US corporations that, after decades of domination, were suddenly confronted by foreign innovation. Companies like RCA and Zenith were slow to incorporate new technologies until it was too late; all exited or sold out to foreign firms. "Every time American companies catch up to the competition," Klepper says, "the competition already has moved on and instituted new things. In that situation, it's extremely difficult to get ahead."
The only escape from this conundrum is to pursue what Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen has called disruptive innovation—the kind of change that alters the trajectory of an industry. As Christensen argued in his 1997 book, The Innovator's Dilemma, successful companies in mature industries rarely embrace disruptive innovation because, by definition, it threatens their business models. Loath to revamp factories at high cost to make products that will compete with their own goods, companies drag their feet; perversely, financial markets often reward them for their shortsightedness. Good as they are, the European and Japanese automakers are established companies. At this point, they are as unlikely to pursue disruptive innovation as Detroit has been. That gives the US auto industry an opening. To take that opportunity, it will have to behave differently—it will have to step far outside the walls of the Rouge.
. . . . .
In its insularity, the auto industry is increasingly an outlier. A growing number of firms have adopted what UC Berkeley's Chesbrough dubbed "open innovation"—accelerating change by letting ideas flow much more freely in and out of companies. Rather than depending primarily on their own engineers, he says, auto companies should leverage the insights of others, outsourcing much or most R&D to an ecosystem of small, agile entities outside the factory walls. Unsurprisingly, open innovation is seen most clearly in firms like IBM, Alcatel-Lucent, and Millennium Pharmaceuticals, but Chesbrough argues that it has been picked up with success by companies in fields ranging from chemicals and packaged goods to lubricants and home-improvement gadgets. "The auto industry is different," he says. "It hasn't learned that no one company or industry has a monopoly on useful ideas."
. . . . .
How does a traditionally top-down manufacturer become an open-ended promoter of innovation? Clues can be found in "Managing in an Age of Modularity," a classic 1997 Harvard Business Review paper by economists Carliss Baldwin and Kim Clark. They studied how personal-computer manufacturers divided their products into subsystems, establishing standards that allow parts to be readily swapped out and replaced. By giving outside innovators the freedom to tinker with individual modules—hardware, operating systems, software, peripherals—PC makers spurred the development of far more sophisticated devices and allowed customers to individualize and customize their purchases. In other words, modularity encouraged multiple innovations from multiple sources and made them easy to incorporate.
. . . . .
By outsourcing most R&D, car companies would be able to reap the rewards of innovation for a fraction of the cost and risk. The growing sophistication of design and simulation software makes it easier for startups to create prototypes and test new products virtually, before undergoing those expensive processes in the real world. Not every idea will succeed, but the costs of failure will be reduced and borne by smaller firms that can collapse with less impact on the larger economy. Ultimately, modular construction will lead to cars that can be custom-built to the specifications of their future owners, somewhat as Dell allows purchasers to click on hyperlinks to add or subtract computer features. Custom-rebuilt, too—it will be easy to install upgraded modules, in much the way that computer owners replace old video cards.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Invention is a flower, innovation is a weed
I just heard this quote ("Invention is a flower, innovation is a weed") for the first time. Excellent.
Attributed to Robert Metcalfe.
What does it mean? Invention is nurtured and planned. Innovation is spontaneous as it finds cracks and scratches and claws its way to life.
Attributed to Robert Metcalfe.
What does it mean? Invention is nurtured and planned. Innovation is spontaneous as it finds cracks and scratches and claws its way to life.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
The less we communicate
"The more elaborate our means of communication, the less we communicate," according to theologian and educator Joseph Priestley.
By "less" I think he means a qualitative "less" rather than a quantitative "less." Shallower.
It's a nice quote, but I don't necessarily agree with this. I think the means and modes of communication have changed. But ever generation thinks it was better when they were younger.
Aristotle himself railed against the written word, claiming it would take away from pure spoken dialogue. (I'll have to find a citation for that.)
By "less" I think he means a qualitative "less" rather than a quantitative "less." Shallower.
It's a nice quote, but I don't necessarily agree with this. I think the means and modes of communication have changed. But ever generation thinks it was better when they were younger.
Aristotle himself railed against the written word, claiming it would take away from pure spoken dialogue. (I'll have to find a citation for that.)
Friday, April 10, 2009
Architecture of participation
The idea of an "architecture of participation" has long been a staple of the Web 2.0 concept (since Tim O'Reilly's 2005 article). And the idea of openness being a critical component of innovation has also long been discussed.
However, I recently came across a quote I hadn't seen before that nicely (and succinctly) ties the two together:
Sustained innovation is no longer just about who has the most gifted scientists or the best equipped labs. It’s about who has the most compelling ‘architecture of participation.’
A quick search can't find the original quote, but at least several sites that quote the quote:
However, I recently came across a quote I hadn't seen before that nicely (and succinctly) ties the two together:
Sustained innovation is no longer just about who has the most gifted scientists or the best equipped labs. It’s about who has the most compelling ‘architecture of participation.’
A quick search can't find the original quote, but at least several sites that quote the quote:
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Web 2.0
Two good quotes about Web 2.0 from O'Reilly's Web 2.0 Principles and Best Practices whitepaper (2006):
Web 2.0 is much more than just pasting a new user interface onto an old application. It's a way of thinking, a new perspective on the entire business of software--from concept through delivery, from marketing through support. Web 2.0 thrives on network effects: databases that get richer the more people interact with them, applications that are smarter the more people use then, marketing that is driven by user stories and experiences, and applications that interact with each other to form a broader computing platform.
And:
Web 2.0 is a set of economic, social, and technological trends that collectively form the basis for the next generation of the internet -- a more mature, distinctive medium characterized by user participation, openness, and network effects.
Web 2.0 is much more than just pasting a new user interface onto an old application. It's a way of thinking, a new perspective on the entire business of software--from concept through delivery, from marketing through support. Web 2.0 thrives on network effects: databases that get richer the more people interact with them, applications that are smarter the more people use then, marketing that is driven by user stories and experiences, and applications that interact with each other to form a broader computing platform.
And:
Web 2.0 is a set of economic, social, and technological trends that collectively form the basis for the next generation of the internet -- a more mature, distinctive medium characterized by user participation, openness, and network effects.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Writing for the web
I vastly prefer informal writing styles for the web. And, thus "internet" and and "email" over "Internet" and "e-mail."
This is a post from Wired News from back in 2004, where they say they will no longer capitalize "internet". http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2004/08/64596
Quote:
In the case of internet, web and net, a change in our house style was necessary to put into perspective what the internet is: another medium for delivering and receiving information. That it transformed human communication is beyond dispute. But no more so than moveable type did in its day. Or the radio. Or television.
Clap clap.
The CBC had a similar posting in 2003. http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/words/internet_i.html
Quote:
The language we speak and write is constantly evolving. Almost 100 years ago, the first edition of what's now known as Strunk and White's The Elements of Style insisted on to-day, to-night and to-morrow. Much of the book's general advice on clear writing remains relevant. But its specific edicts on how to spell certain words were abandoned decades ago.
This is a post from Wired News from back in 2004, where they say they will no longer capitalize "internet". http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2004/08/64596
Quote:
In the case of internet, web and net, a change in our house style was necessary to put into perspective what the internet is: another medium for delivering and receiving information. That it transformed human communication is beyond dispute. But no more so than moveable type did in its day. Or the radio. Or television.
Clap clap.
The CBC had a similar posting in 2003. http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/words/internet_i.html
Quote:
The language we speak and write is constantly evolving. Almost 100 years ago, the first edition of what's now known as Strunk and White's The Elements of Style insisted on to-day, to-night and to-morrow. Much of the book's general advice on clear writing remains relevant. But its specific edicts on how to spell certain words were abandoned decades ago.
Monday, August 25, 2008
More blogging advice
Nora Carr's column in the June 2008 eSchool News added some more blogging tips:
- write about topics you care about and feel passionate about
- good blogs have a viewpoint and a voice
- use an informal "Dear Mom" approach to your posts
- keep postings short and link to other articles or sites
- subheads, bullets, one-sentence paragraphs and other graphic organizers can help readers skim your contents
- craft titles with care; often users may only read the titles to decide if they want to read the entire posting
- post regularly
Friday, June 20, 2008
Change
In an article on global climate change in the June 2008 issue of Wired, the comment was made:
Markets are better mechanisms for change than command and control.
I think that point is a good one to remember in all sorts of arenas. And, there's got to be a lesson in there for managing technology change, too.
Markets are better mechanisms for change than command and control.
I think that point is a good one to remember in all sorts of arenas. And, there's got to be a lesson in there for managing technology change, too.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
More tips on blogging for newbies
Nora Carr wrote about some tips for blogging for newbies in the May 2008 issues of eSchool News.
- Write for an audience, not yourself.
- Don't blog anything you don't want our mother, your principal, or school superintendent to know.
- Provide information about yourself.
- Start with a blog service.
- Less copy, more often.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Flow, or the psychological conditions of enjoyment
Years ago (1992?) I heard a lecture on Mihály Csíkszentmihályi's concept of "Flow" -- the conditions under which people are happy and productive. Some of those conditions were:
Flow has also been described as being "in the groove" or "in the zone."
Crucial is the balance between the work/task/job (the challenge) and the skills/progress of the person (the success). There should be a challenge, but one that is met. There should be obstacles, but ones that are overcome.
When a person works in that "sweet spot" -- the balance between the challenge and the success -- his/her sense of enjoyment and satisfaction is maximized.
- person given a chance to complete the task
- person given the opportunity to concentrate on the task w/out distractions
- task has clear goals, clearly presented to the person
- the task provides immediate feedback
- the person's involvement is deep, but effortless
- the person has a sense of being in control
- the concern for the self disappears (but when the task/job is finished, the sense of self is enhanced or raised)
- the sense of time duration is altered (time slip away)
Flow has also been described as being "in the groove" or "in the zone."
Crucial is the balance between the work/task/job (the challenge) and the skills/progress of the person (the success). There should be a challenge, but one that is met. There should be obstacles, but ones that are overcome.
When a person works in that "sweet spot" -- the balance between the challenge and the success -- his/her sense of enjoyment and satisfaction is maximized.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Innovation at work
The March 2008 issue of Fast Company wrote about the most innovative companies in the world. A few quote caught my attention.
On page 74:
When you visit the Gooleplex in Mountain View, California, what's special is elusive. The company looks like the standard-issue, Wii-in-the-lounge, hieroglyphs-on-a-whiteboard, code-until-dawn tech shop. But the difference isn't tangible. It's in the air, in the spirit of the place.
Talk to more than a dozen Googlers at various levels and departments, and one powerful theme emerges: Whether they're designing search for the blind or preparing meals for their colleagues, these people feel that their work can change the world. That sense is nonexistent at most companies, or at best intermittent, inevitably becoming subsumed in the day-to-day quagmire of PowerPoints, org charts, and budgetary realities.
I don't think you always need to feel you are "changing the world," but you do need to feel that you are making a difference. Not just killing the hours or maintaining status quo, but building something better.
On page 84:
Google has a high tolerance for chaos and ambiguity.
From the online version of the article:
A PAYCHECK IS A LOUSY MANAGEMENT TOOL
"There's an old Peter Drucker line that goes, 'If you ever really want to learn how to be a manager, go work with volunteers.' Because when you manage volunteers, you realize that the paycheck is actually a lousy management tool. It has almost nothing to do with how you manage and motivate and organize and excite people. It can become a crutch, right? And in that sense, not in the financial sense, but in the 'build something great, change the world' sense, everyone at Google is a volunteer. So the trick in managing volunteers is get out of the way and clear the underbrush."
IMPOSSIBLE TO DUPLICATE
"You could not replicate this with a different set of people. There are management practices here that would break with different staffs, and vice versa; there's not one way to do it. We have a matched set of hiring and operations that go together. 'Culture' is a fine word for all that."
On page 85:
My impression early on was, 'Wow, you hire a guy who's an expert in food and let him run with it! You don't get in his way or micromanage.' After a year or so, I realized this is the way everything works here.
We came up with a values system. We said we want local. Then it was local, fresh, and sustainable. Then it was local, fresh, sustainable, and organic. We don't want genetically modified organisms or nitrates. We're the first company to go global with cage-free eggs.
On page 74:
When you visit the Gooleplex in Mountain View, California, what's special is elusive. The company looks like the standard-issue, Wii-in-the-lounge, hieroglyphs-on-a-whiteboard, code-until-dawn tech shop. But the difference isn't tangible. It's in the air, in the spirit of the place.
Talk to more than a dozen Googlers at various levels and departments, and one powerful theme emerges: Whether they're designing search for the blind or preparing meals for their colleagues, these people feel that their work can change the world. That sense is nonexistent at most companies, or at best intermittent, inevitably becoming subsumed in the day-to-day quagmire of PowerPoints, org charts, and budgetary realities.
I don't think you always need to feel you are "changing the world," but you do need to feel that you are making a difference. Not just killing the hours or maintaining status quo, but building something better.
On page 84:
Google has a high tolerance for chaos and ambiguity.
From the online version of the article:
A PAYCHECK IS A LOUSY MANAGEMENT TOOL
"There's an old Peter Drucker line that goes, 'If you ever really want to learn how to be a manager, go work with volunteers.' Because when you manage volunteers, you realize that the paycheck is actually a lousy management tool. It has almost nothing to do with how you manage and motivate and organize and excite people. It can become a crutch, right? And in that sense, not in the financial sense, but in the 'build something great, change the world' sense, everyone at Google is a volunteer. So the trick in managing volunteers is get out of the way and clear the underbrush."
IMPOSSIBLE TO DUPLICATE
"You could not replicate this with a different set of people. There are management practices here that would break with different staffs, and vice versa; there's not one way to do it. We have a matched set of hiring and operations that go together. 'Culture' is a fine word for all that."
On page 85:
My impression early on was, 'Wow, you hire a guy who's an expert in food and let him run with it! You don't get in his way or micromanage.' After a year or so, I realized this is the way everything works here.
We came up with a values system. We said we want local. Then it was local, fresh, and sustainable. Then it was local, fresh, sustainable, and organic. We don't want genetically modified organisms or nitrates. We're the first company to go global with cage-free eggs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)