We are pleased to announce the first speakers for our Collaboration Week pop-up on April 17th.
Join us at Somerset House for the climax of our Collaboration Week programme. On Thursday 17th April, from 12pm-6pm, we’ll be hosting a pop-up event in the West Wing at Somerset House, featuring guest speakers, a collaboration questionnaire and the opportunity to speak to our team of experts in the Collaboration Surgery.
Lightning talk programme
Our programme of lightning talks will be kicked off at 12.30pm by Hot Spots Movement COO Tina Schneidermann, who will be followed by a range of speakers including:
- 1pm – Gail Kirby, Vodafone, on Building trust between individuals and managers
- 1.30pm – Professor Lynda Gratton, Founder, Hot Spots Movement, on Productive Practices
- 2pm – Steve Goldberg, Technical Writer, Venda, on Rewarding and recognising collaboration
- 2.30pm – Emma Birchall, Head of Research – Future of Work, Hot Spots Movement
- 3pm – Deborah Bickler, Save the Children, on Building critical capability through global collaboration
We’re still finalising our running order, so we’ll be announcing themes and adding speakers throughout the week.
Complete our specially formulated collaboration questionnaire and return it to us to receive your personalised collaboration report.
Do you have a burning question about collaboration? Want some tips on how to improve your teams? We’ll have a team of collaboration experts on hand all day to answer your questions and share their knowledge – just book yourself an appointment on the surgery board when you arrive.
By Lynda Gratton
Something that is becoming increasingly apparent in the discussion around corporate resilience is that creativity matters. Large organisations are building vast banks of talented and creative employees to ensure they are ahead of the competition. However, when it comes to tapping into the potential inherent in this talent pool, they can find themselves at a loss, frequently going back to the same small group of people for their next big business idea.
With employees scattered over the world it can be challenging to find out what your people are thinking. In an attempt to mitigate this, many companies already have open innovation programmes to help them discover the thoughts and ideas of individuals both inside and outside their organisation. Practices such as sharing business plans with a wider audience and inviting employees to provide input are proven to have a positive impact on sales.
One avenue for surfacing ideas which I think too many companies ignore is experimentation. This can be a particularly valuable process when you are faced with problems to which no-one has a ready-made answer.
It seems obvious to me that if you are faced with an unknown, you need to experiment around the issue to find an answer. All the breakthroughs we have seen in medicine, for example, have come through a process of hypothesis, experimentation and clinical trials where several different options are tried out and compared. Despite the scientific record, very few companies dare to experiment. Recently, when I was seeking out examples of corporate experimentation for my book, The Key, I found that they were few and far between. In fact, the only two that made it into the finished book were at Roche and Xerox. This is despite the fact that one of the biggest changes in the workplace – flexible working – was the result of repeated experimentation at BT.
Looking at the examples of experimentation I did find, most of them were led by scholars or academics, such as Professor Ruth Wageman, who led the self-managing teams project at Xerox. This is another indication that companies are apprehensive about experimenting themselves. And if companies as a whole are poor at experimentation, their HR departments are worse. And yet, I feel that if companies would only dare to try, experimentation has a wealth of benefits to offer. Take, for example, the sphere of performance management. HR teams, managers and employees all agree that current processes are ineffective, but none of them have alternatives. Experimentation would be an ideal way to find methods that really work – and, as with BT, for your organisation’s discovery to become the model that others follow for decades to come.
Lynda Gratton’s latest book, The Key: How Corporations Succeed by Solving Some of the World’s Toughest Problems will be published on June 1st and is available to pre-order through Amazon now.
By Lynda Gratton
If you could name a single factor as the biggest enemy of employee retention in your organisation, what would it be? My guess would be job design – specifically, the availability of career customisation.
You might think your organisation already offers career customisation and improved job design, but let me make my point clear: improving job design is not that same as bringing flexibility into work. Many – if not most – large corporations have flexible working arrangements. But when it comes to improved job design – by which I mean initiatives such as phased retirement, job share schemes and, on- and off-boarding ramps, they are lagging far behind. I estimate that such companies have a period of three years at most to introduce these elements of job design before the lack of them starts to have a serious impact.
This is becoming an urgent issue. As things stand, when people want to customise their careers they do so by leaving the company. The most valuable people are building their career elsewhere because companies are not providing what they need.
This talent drain is just one reason why companies need to ramp up their experiments and pilots in the field of job design: and it’s about to get worse. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, life stage is becoming an increasingly important factor in people’s career choices – and people reach these stages at vastly different ages. For example, some employees will choose to become parents in their 20s, while others do the same in their 40s. As people start to live longer, we will see more and more people rejecting traditional linear career paths and opting for careers that move sideways, downwards, or even pause for a while. It is the companies that are dealing with these issues already – and the ones that act now to start handling them more effectively – that will prove resilient over the coming decades.
The importance of scale
So why are so many companies, many of whom have already invested heavily in flexible working and job design, failing so miserably in this respect? One reason is that companies have for too long associated the idea of career customisation with motherhood. Often because when women in particular leave an organisation, there is an immediate assumption they are doing so to start a family. In fact, what I’ve noticed about my MBA students at LBS is that often when they leave a company, it’s to start their own business. And a key reason for this is that doing so empowers them to take charge of their own job design.
A damaging side effect of associating career customisation with motherhood is a lack of scale. You may have some great improved job design initiatives but failing to scale them beyond the concept of maternity leave means that employees will continue to achieve career customisation by moving on.
The solution to this problem is to make career customisation fluid, mainstream and transparent. Healthy, loyal employees have control over how, when, where they work and can manage their careers in tune with the rhythms of their life. To enable this, employers need to let workers know that the design of their job can change according to their circumstances and that customisation is available to everyone, not just mothers. Above all, they need to know what their options are at each stage of their life and career, so that they can make the appropriate choices.
By Lynda Gratton
The topic of emotional vitality has recently become increasingly popular in HR circles – and the general consensus is that if you are an employee, your emotional vitality is suffering at the hands of your employers.
This might be important news to individuals, but why are so many companies interested? Why do they care if people are stressed or tired?
The reason is that as work becomes more complex, balance and creativity are becoming increasingly vital to competitive advantage – and it’s a well-established research finding that while tired, stressed people are perfectly able to do their normal everyday tasks, they are also less able to be creative.
Stress is your biggest risk
So, what exactly are organisations doing to destroy their employees’ emotional vitality? The #1 answer everywhere is stress – and there are three reasons why.
- Demands and obligations – Stressed people often cite the number demands and obligations placed upon them at work as a key cause of stress. What this tells us is that stress often originates from the design of work, with many employees finding themselves faced with ridiculous demands as a result of poor management and duplication of effort. To combat this, companies need to design work to manage the demands the demands placed on people and to reduce the amount of unimportant tasks people are required to perform.
- Discretionary time – My research shows that when it comes to stress, the issue is not the hours people work but whether they have the capacity to take time out to rejuvenate themselves. We could all work for 12 hours a day. In fact, many of us have been selected for our jobs because we have the ability to do so. The important thing is that we can’t do it all the time. What matters is not simply taking time off, but when we do it and whether we feel we can do so. There’s nothing wrong with expecting employees to be always-on as long as they know that is the nature of the job and they have ample time to recuperate.
- Constraint – If you ask what drives Gen Y workers what drives them mad at work, presenteeism is often the answer. Younger employees resent the need to stay in the office until 10pm and the constraint of having to be “seen”. In fact they find it upsetting, since working additional hours affords them little advantage. Crucially, this is not about flexible working but about job design and recuperation.
These issues matter because stress is a huge problem – one so big, it’s actually business risk. In fact next time you conduct a risk analysis, you should probably include stress on your risk list. And as you can see, job design is key when it comes to mitigating this risk.
The importance of the work-home cycle
As research by academics such as Hans-Joachim Wolfram shows, the work-home cycle also has a huge role to play when it comes to managing and combating stress. This cycle can be either caustic and draining, or positive. Work doesn’t have the monopoly on stress – a person’s home life can be stressful too – but for the most part, people leave home feeling authentic and resilient at home because it is a place where they can feel authentic and have the opportunity to recuperate in a supportive environment. However, if people leave home feeling guilty or anxious, it can affect their stress levels at work. By the same token, if an individual leaves work feeling networked, inspired by things they have learnt, this has a positive spillover into their home life: in this context, work is good and the knowledge and connections gained there can be a source of support for the family.
To get the balance of the work-home cycle right, organisations need to stop thinking about work and home as two unconnected spheres, because they are incredibly connected. Companies must think about how they support families and about whether employees have enough scope to ensure a cycle of positive spillover.
We’re pleased to announce the theme of our Collaboration Week webinar: Leading a Collaborative Organisation. Professor Lynda Gratton will deliver a talk based on this topic, and will be joined by a special guest speaker. The webinar, which will be broadcast live at 10am BST and 3pm BST on Monday, 14th April is part of a week of Collaboration-based activities organised by The Hot Spots Movement.
- Join one of our events – contact email@example.com to register your interest for our free webinar and/or pop-up event.
- Invite your network – Do you know anyone else who is passionate about collaboration? Invite them along.
- Submit an article – We’re also taking submissions on collaboration for our newsletter and blog – so if you have an opinion or a story to tell, get in touch. To register for any of our events or to submit some content, contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
Keep checking our blog and Twitter feed for the latest speaker announcements and collaboration content.
By Dr Howard B Esbin, Heliotrope, Founder & Director Guest poster Dr Howard B Esbin takes a look at the primal origins of play, the history of using games as a collaborative tool, and their growing importance for modern business. It takes just 0.41 seconds for Google’s search engine to list 16, 200,000 results on the twinned topic of serious games and collaboration. The following search headings are representative.
- Designing collaborative multi-player serious games
- Problem solving and collaboration using serious games
- Scripted collaboration in serious gaming for complex learning
- Collaboration in serious game development: a case study
- Problem solving and collaboration using mobile serious games
Let’s start with the term ‘collaborate’. It stems from the ancient Latin ‘collaborare’ meaning to ‘work with’. The contemporary definition is “work jointly on an activity, esp. to produce or create something” (New Oxford American Dictionary). ‘Cooperation’ also stems from the Latin ‘cooperationem” meaning “working together”. The semantic roots of both words are closely intertwined for good reason. The science of evolutionary cooperation offers some insight why. Cooperation is practised by many species. Bees, for example, cooperate to produce their hives and honey. Humans learned, through long experience and adaptation, that cooperation is an immense asset for survival. ‘Play’ is another activity, like cooperation, with primal roots. “Anyone who has ever tossed a Frisbee to a beloved dog knows that playfulness crosses species lines. What does this mean? For humans and other animals, play is a universal training course and language of trust” (Fred Donaldson). Games grew naturally out of play. The original Proto-Germanic meaning of ‘game’ included: ‘joy, glee, sport, merriment, participation, communion, people together.’. In other words, our ancestors understood that games brought people together. ‘Communion’ a natural outcome is defined as “the sharing or exchanging of intimate thoughts and feelings, esp. when the exchange is on a mental or spiritual level” (New Oxford American Dictionary). “Games are formalized expressions of play which allow people to go beyond immediate imagination and direct physical activity. Games capture the ideas and behaviours of people at one period of time and carry that through time to their descendants. Games like liubo, xiangqi, and go illustrate the thinking of the military leaders who employed them centuries ago.”
Liubo, for example, pictured in the photo below is at least two thousand years old. “The realm of strategy… is where games have exerted the most remarkable impact on the conduct of war, serving as a tool for, as one U.S. Army general put it, “writing history in advance”. Apropos, Lord Wellington is supposed to have famously said, “the battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton”. So we now understand that the role of play and games has been educational for a long time and instrumental in helping people work together more effectively. There are now 7.151 billion people living on this planet (as estimated by the United States Census Bureau). Practically speaking, anyone can contact anyone else thanks to ubiquitous Internet, inexpensive communication technologies, and almost free accessibility. Play and games can stretch our imaginations in so many different and beneficial ways. Giving the means to billions of people is an immense phenomenon. No wonder the “worldwide video game industry is booming with sales revenues expected to reach $101 billion dollars this year”. For example, “1 billion people spend at least 1 hour a day playing games…(which means) 7 billion hours of highly engaged gameplay a week worldwide” (ibid). On the other hand, “89% of global workers are unengaged” according to Gallup (ibid). This is costing an estimated “$2 trillion dollars is the estimated cost of unengaged workers for companies annually” (ibid). Simply put, “realizing the engagement power behind games, companies…are looking to gamification as a way to better its productivity and employee satisfaction” (ibid). Deloitte Consulting’s Leadership Academy is a good example of this burgeoning trend. “DLA is an online program for training its own employees as well as its clients. DLA found that by embedding missions, badges, and leaderboards into a user-friendly platform alongside video lectures, in-depth courses, tests and quizzes, users have become engaged and more likely to complete the online training programs… Using gamification principles, use of its Deloitte Leadership Academy (DLA) training program has increased 37% in the number of users returning to the site each week. Participants are spending increased amounts of time on the site and completing programs in increasing numbers…The technology research firm Gartner, Inc. predicts gamification will be used in 25 percent of redesigned business processes by 2015, this will grow to more than a $2.8 billion business by 2016, and 70 percent of Global 2000 businesses will be managing at least one “gamified” application or system by 2014.” In conclusion, the relation between serious gaming and collaboration has never been clearer or its value more immediate. Dr. Howard B. Esbin is the creator of Prelude, a serious game that fosters trust and collaboration. It is used in schools, community agencies, and workplace training internationally. Its design is informed by his research on social learning, imagination, and positive psychology. He founded Heliotrope, a social enterprise to promote Prelude and related research. Howard also has two decades of senior management experience in the private sector, international development, and philanthropy. The International Labour Organization, Education Canada, and UNESCO have published his work.
by Emma Birchall, Head of Research, Future of Work
Not a particularly catchy phrase is it? Yet, it was perhaps the loudest message to attendees of a recent conference on gender in the workplace.
The delegates, predominantly 20- and 30- somethings, were treated to a line up of some of the most incredible women in the fields of business, government, finance and media. Many of these inspirational leaders attributed their success to good networks, a strong sense of purpose and never shying away from risks and opportunities when they arose. Interestingly, however, many also emphasised the importance of “finding the right husband.” And in this case, the right husband was one who would be prepared to raise the kids, relocate for your career as quickly as he would for his own, and who would accept your long working hours, high stress levels and long periods of absence.
Now, few women, even us stereotypically independent Millennial types, would reject the benefits of having a supportive, caring and kind partner to turn to while we navigate our complex careers. What we might perhaps find less palatable is turning this “nice to have” into a “business critical”. (This sentiment was echoed by one attendee, who posed the question “What advice would you give to single mothers because I’d hate to add ‘find a husband’ to my to-do list?” That this question received a rapturous round of applause, spoke volumes.)
With 42% of marriages in the UK ending in divorce, finding the right husband is not a particularly resilient career plan, nor is it advice that anyone can really act on unless partner-finding takes on the same rigour as the average recruitment campaign (and while there are signals that this is the approach favoured by some, it is thankfully not yet accepted by many). Instead, perhaps we should be encouraging men and women to create sustainable and resilient networks of support including, but not limited to, a husband/wife should they desire one, find one, marry one and manage to avoid divorcing one. Likewise, the advice should perhaps be for a stronger call for real flexible working arrangements that cross something off the to-do list of single parents rather than adding to the workload.
The advice was of course well-intentioned and drawn from the particular experiences of some of the guest speakers in attendance. To request they recommend anything else would be insincere. Instead, we’ll do well to take the principle of the recommendation – building good support networks – and then tailor the rest to suit the lifestyle we ultimately half create and half have bestowed upon us by luck, circumstance and events beyond our control.
Perhaps the phrase should instead be “Behind every great leader is a support network, future-focused organization and an awareness that relationships can rarely be project managed.”
Still not very catchy though is it?