Collaborative Age value production system | The Fourth Revolution Blog

How the Fourth Revolution Fosters both Smart Generalists and Super Specialists

While the Industrial Age was marked by increasing specialization, the “Return of the Generalist” in society is a common theme in many books. It has been recognized already in 2005 by Dan Pink in his book “A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future“, and I found the issue further developed in an interesting book, “The Rise of the Naked Economy: How to Benefit from the Changing Workplace” by Ryan Coonerty and Jeremy Neuner.

generalist-specialist — Generalist vs Specialized, an obsolete opposition

In this book about the future of work and of the workplace, they identified two key players in the “Naked Economy” of the future: big-picture thinkers, who they call the Smart Generalists, and the small-bore experts, the Super Specialists. The two are complementary. In our future project-based working environment, Smart Generalists will coordinate the work of Super Specialists, and both will have tremendous value.

In the book, the author mention that “My value, like all generalists’, is to know a little about a lot. That means the onus is on me to constantly reach out to new people, read books and articles, watch the trends in a wide range of arenas, and generally be passionately interested in the world. Having that broad knowledge to draw on, and to be able to use it when I need it, brings me a lot of credibility when I’m dealing with people in business, government, or academia.”

The Smart Generalist is coming back, watch for the change in the workplace!

Related Posts:

Why Innovation is about Creating Effective Conversations

Hugh McLeod writes in a post: “If your company isn’t innovating, it’s likely because no one is facilitating the right conversations”

Innovation-Conversation Further he writes, “In Gapingvoid’s long experience working with Fortune 500 companies, we’ve found they all have the same problem. When communication shuts down, so does innovation. And it isn’t lack of money, talent or resources. What’s missing is the interpersonal. They either don’t like each other or don’t like talking to each other or both.”

Ideas are generating by the encounter and the mix with other ideas (see for example our post ‘Idea Multiplication‘). Innovative companies must have the right conversations to foster innovation. This often needs to be facilitated – either simply through the architecture (creating places to foster encounters) or through facilitation. It takes some effort to create meaningful, powerful conversations – and they are so needed in most organizations!

Create powerful conversations, and you will create innovation. So simple!

Historical Perspective on the Development of Weak Ties

Following on our previous post on “How the Fourth Revolutions Enhances the Power of Weak Ties” I find interesting to observe the history of weak ties throughout the different periods we have identified in the Fourth Revolution book: the Hunter-Gatherer Age, the Agricultural Age and the Industrial Age.

Hostile_African_tribe — In the Hunter-Gatherer Age, Weak Ties were inexistent

As clearly exposed by Jared Diamond in his latest book “The World Until Yesterday: What Can We Learn From Traditional Societies“, in the Hunter-Gatherer Age, weak ties did not exist. You were part of the tribe or not. If you were not part of the tribe we had to fight you as a basis (before any attempt at discussion). This is still observed with tribes that had never any contact withe the outside.

In the Agricultural Age, with the advent of Writing, Empires and Cities, weak ties developed, mainly within the wider urban community. Still the extended family (the ‘blood’) and unions between families remained extremely important and essential, before considering any additional relationships.

In the Industrial Age, with the advent of printing and long distance communication of ideas, weak links became much more important. There are a number of instances where weak ties played important roles in particular in the community of scholars, who were exchanging correspondence and ideas all over Europe. It also extended to the skilled workforce and artisans. However, because of the technical limitations, long distance weak links were still difficult to maintain and communication infrequent.

Finally the Fourth Revolution and the Collaborative Age will allow us to fully leverage our weak ties to a much wider and dispersed community of people.

Ideas are breeding through chance encounters with other ideas. They breed through our weak links. With these weak links becoming easier, more global and prevalent, how can the Collaborative Age not be an Innovation Age?

How the Fourth Revolutions Enhances the Power of Weak Ties

The Fourth Revolution value creation is all about releasing the power of weak ties. In our social environment we have strong and weak ties, depending on how frequently and tightly we maintain our relation to other people.

strong-weak social ties representation Apparently the statistics is that we maintain on average a dozen very close contacts, about 150 medium to strong ties, and about 500 to 1,500 weak ties. Identification of this structure of our social network is not new, for example this paper on ‘The Strength of Weak Ties’ in the American Journal of Sociology in 1973.

The paper is a bit lengthy but the conclusion is clear: “weak ties […] are seen indispensable to individuals’ opportunities and to their integration in communities; strong ties, breeding social cohesion, lead to overall fragmentation“.

Weak ties create opportunities. This is repeatedly demonstrated for example by people looking for new work as testified for example in this post “the power of loose ties“. Or by our common experience that often, opportunities come from people with whom we are only remotely connected.

The successful social networks that define the Fourth Revolution are all about making the usage of weak ties easier, quicker and more frequent. Think about Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn. Their power lies not in the direct connections but in the “friends of our friends”.

The Collaborative Age is the Age where we leverage our weak ties.

More information? Link to a general discussion of Interpersonal ties and social networks structure on Wikipedia.

Why Internal Stability is So Important in an Unpredictable World

Following up on an idea from Robert Branche in ‘Les Radeaux de Feu’ (only available in French), living organisms have organized themselves in the face of the inevitable increase in unpredictability of the world by increasingly developing internal stability.

penguins — Penguins maintain internal stability (homeostasis) independently from the external conditions – which can be very unpredictable

This is the case very visibly in mammals: they are clearly the dominant species, they have resisted to many cataclysms, and they are at the same time the animals that maintain the most stable internal environment with a constant internal temperature, glucose levels etc. This is called homeostasis.

Robert Branche takes this observation in the realm of organizations, and concludes that homeostasis is a necessary condition to thrive in an ever more unpredictable world: internal stability is necessary to properly manage external changes. It is important to maintain that internal stability and not let oneself be too much driven by external conditions.

This comes with a warning however – according to Robert, “the existence of internal order and rules must not reduce uncertainty, but make its development and acceptance easier“. The organization should not disconnect itself from reality for the sake of maintaining its internal stability.

Still I find this idea very valid that the most successful organisms and organizations thrive in an evermore unpredictable world by maintaining internal stability, which gives them the capability to respond instead of just reacting. How stable is your organization internally in the face of external changes?

Why You Should be Unreasonable (Sometimes)

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man” – George Bernard Shaw.

man in front of icebreaker I stumbled upon that video of an pretty unreasonable man seen tracing the way in front of an icebreaker. (It turns out it is a piece of art by Guido van der Werve.). I find that it is an excellent image of what an unreasonable man can do. He traces the way and behind comes the rest of the world.

And it comes also to link the quote from George Bernard Shaw with the concept of Art. Art is being unreasonable and creating progress. It is possible to create Art in most instances and most areas. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man – the artist?

Link to the making of the film by Guido van der Werve, and an extract of the film (with the sound of the ice broken by the icebreaker!) on Youtube.

How Collaborative Age Moguls are Taking Over Press Media

One of the most astonishing trends in the past few years and months is to see successful Collaborative Age entrepreneurs getting involved in the media business through investment in major newspapers and associated news outlets (while at the same time the newspaper industry revenues and profits are in severe decline with the advent of content marketing).

bezos-buys-washington-post Last August, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post. No-one is really sure why. In France, in 2010, Xavier Niel, probably the most visible internet entrepreneur in France, participated in the buying of Le Monde, a major newspaper, and seems to be currently looking forward buying another major media outlet.

Of course, billionaires buying newspapers is nothing new. It has always been a way to seek influence, and sometimes has served as a launch pad for a political career. As usual, the buyer swears that he will not influence the editorial line of the paper, but while that might be true on the short term, it will definitely influence it, broadly speaking, on the longer term.

Previous newspaper buyers and owners had more created their fortunes from mining, commerce or industry and the fact that internet-based company billionaires are in the game reflects their new prominence among the wealthy and powerful. Also, the positive side is that in the middle term this new ownership might change the viewpoint and stance of the press in a more positive view of Collaborative Age economy, and support the societal change that are required.

Indirectly, these investments are good for the business of these entrepreneurs as it will support the mindset change that is needed for society to embrace the Collaborative Age.

How Philanthropic Patronage Returns for Art and Science

This paper in the NY Times describes how ‘Billionaires With Big Ideas Are Privatizing American Science‘. This can also be put in perspective with what happens in the field of health and development, for example with the Gates foundation, which is privately funded. Roles that had been taken by Governments during the Industrial Age seem to be now shifting to private individuals.

Orfeo_libretto_dedication — A dedication by Monteverdi to his patron – Orfeo (17th Century) (source – Wikipedia)

Patronage is actually not new. In the previous Agricultural Age, artists and creators needed the protection and funding of high-ranking individuals to develop their art and develop their initiatives – it was the widespread concept of patronage. This is why most artistic production is dedicated to the patron. It is only during the Industrial Age that this role was taken over by Government, with the creation of massive public research institutions and other direct and indirect public support mechanisms to artistic endeavors.

As we enter the Collaborative Age the trend would seem to reverse again with high wealth individuals entering again the field of art and science fostering while Governments are wrestling with huge deficits and can’t afford to continue this protection and support.

Is this trend temporary or will it be a characteristic of the Collaborative Age? I believe that with the shift in value creation and the disappearance of middle class this trend is possibly here to stay. Of course this poses all sorts of questions about possible conflicts of interests. Still patronage in the Agricultural Age supported the production of many great artwork and scientific advance, there is no reason why that could not continue.

Artists, scientists, you might want to seek funding in patronage rather than in Industrial Age governmental institutions!

How to Organize Working Space for Collaboration

Working space spatial organization is important when it comes to fostering collaboration. Many visionary entrepreneurs know this. And they came up with many different solutions.

world's largest desk — World’s Largest Single Desk

Steve Jobs at Apple is famously quoted for his bathroom concept at Pixar (one single instance so as to make sure people mix). Employees at Valve can move their desks as they want/ need to create temporary clusters around projects. Recently, a creative agency in New York came up with a design for a single desk for their employees (it is worth watching the presentation video to fully understand the design!) – (beyond the publicity, one wonders whether is will really enhance collaboration)

More commonly, start-up companies often start cramped in a single room, and collaboration is as a requirement as simple rules of community living!. In the field I am consulting in, large projects, an integrated project team interacting in a single open-space is a must.

There is no single solution, but managers still often forget how the physical space can influence productivity and creativity. Review your office lay-out and make sure that it fits what you expect to happen within your organization!

How Innovation Will Necessarily Alter the Power Balance

Following up on our previous post on why real disruptive innovation does have to change business models, this inspirational image from Hugh MacLeod is a great complement.

original_ideas_hugh2 Real good ideas do necessarily alter the power relationships (and that is why they are always resisted, but that is another story).

Power relationships include those relationships in an organization’s hierarchy as well as those relationships in a market.

When I am facilitating, it is interesting to see how I can feel that the group stumbled upon a good idea – when someone starts feeling uneasy about this is going to change power relationships (and in general, his or her own power). Resistance starts to kick-in. It is a sure sign that we hit the nail on the head and that a good idea has been produced. It needs to be captured before it dilutes itself, and assessed to check whether it is just good, or whether it is great.

Image and inspiration by Hugh MacLeod at GapingVoid.com

How True Innovation Requires a Business Model Transformation

Tesla Motors (an electrical car-maker) is one of the hottest hardware start-ups in the US at the moment. The CEO Elon Musk is one of the stars of the new economy. Apart from the innovative quality of their product (if you have the opportunity, visit one their showrooms!), and of the underlying technologies (some say that the battery technology is going to be even more important than the cars themselves) the most interesting part of this long term experiment is how Tesla has to upend the well-set business model of car selling to be successful.

It appears that there are strong regulations in the US about the fact that cars would need to be sold through franchised car-dealerships and this creates all sorts of weird market effects. Tesla is currently battling to topple these old-fashioned regulations, and might well eventually win at that game, although that will take long consistent efforts (see Bloomberg’s paper on “Can Tesla Topple the Car Dealer Monopoly” and this post “Tesla versus the rent-seekers“). In the meantime there are strong legal cases based on old-fashioned regulations that prevent the start-up to effectively deploy its business model.

The more general question is: can there be real innovation without disruptive existing business models? Or, is a technical innovation that does not disrupt an existing business model a real transformational innovation?

We can take this question further: can established players really be innovative, because real innovation would challenge their existing business model? For example, in Tesla’s market, could conventional car makers really lead a transformation into electrical cars, because they also need to protect their conventional business and modes of distribution?

I am more and more convinced that true innovation is not technical. It is innovating at the business model level. Look for innovations in that space, because that is really what is changing the world.

Why the Fourth Revolution will Promote Meritocracy

I strongly encourage you to take a few minutes to go through this video/ transcript of a MIT research assistant about research on the impact of network connection on whether societies are meritocratic (people get rewarded in proportion of their contribution) or topocratic (intermediaries get rewarded, not the contributors). [The text on the page is the transcript of the video if you prefer reading].

A network model shows that as the number of connections increase, the system becomes increasingly meritocratic (click on the image for a large version)

Basically research shows that the more connected the network is, the more it becomes meritocratic. A very basic model suggests that if everybody is connected to 150 people on average (which is approximately the case on Facebook), the network is meritocratic only on a section of 22,000 people in your close network. The network is still topocratic (enhances the intermediaries’ value) at the size of a country. Now if your number of connections is larger, the size of the society subset which will be meritocratic will increase dramatically and you will receive increasingly more rewards from your contribution.

As the Fourth Revolution expands and the inter-connectivity of our world increases substantially, we can expect our societies to become more and more meritocratic even if it will still take time to avoid intermediaries at a country or at global level. What a better demonstration that the Fourth Revolution will bring tremendous changes to our benefit?

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30