Archiv der Kategorie: Corporate Culture

Harvards View on Types of Project Managers

Read harvard business review here: https://hbr.org/2017/07/the-4-types-of-project-manager

Few issues garner more attention among top executives than how best to grow their organizations. However, few executives work systematically with the types of employees they need to realize various growth opportunities. Your organization’s growth opportunities fall into four different categories, and in order to develop your business in a commercially sustainable manner, you need four specific types of project manager to pursue them. These types emerged from our ongoing work of understanding how different business development projects can drive strategic renewal in organizations, and the matrix below has helped in capturing potential misalignments between employees and projects.

The employee types and the growth opportunities that they are best at pursuing can be positioned along two dimensions: (1) Is the growth opportunity in line with our existing strategy? (2) Can a reliable business case be made? These two questions create a matrix that distinguishes the four different kinds of project leaders, each of which is optimally suited for a different type of project.

Will every organization need all four types of employees to sustainably develop and grow their organizations? We argue that even the most stable and conservative industries may be threatened by disruption — and the most dynamic and hypercompetitive industries also entail incremental growth opportunities that can be quantified and realistically assessed. Consequently, there is often a job for all four types of employees in most organizations, although the optimal dose of each can differ. At the very least, executives need to be aware of the variety of growth opportunities that they may be losing out on by leaning heavily on a single type of project manager.

The Four Types

The four types pursue different growth opportunities and follow different communicative logics to gain support within the organization (see the table below). In other words, you need them all because they see and support different types of growth opportunities. In that respect, they complement each other. This does not necessarily mean that you need an equal number of each, as most organizations must predominantly rely on executors to ensure the alignment and feasibility needed to maintain profits in the short term. However, you will need a few prophetsgamblers, and experts to be able to identify and pursue growth opportunities at the periphery that can help you renew your organization beyond the chosen path. In the following, we further explain the characteristics of each of the different types.

Prophet. This type of project manager actively pursues business opportunities that lie outside the existing strategic boundaries in an area where it is extremely difficult to obtain trustworthy data concerning the likelihood of success. Hence, the prophet seeks to gain organizational followers for a grand vision of a growth opportunity that is strategically different from the status quo — and without trustworthy quantitative evidence, consequently relying on organizational members making a leap of faith in support of the vision. Obviously, running such projects is risky, as it is likely that the growth opportunities will not materialize, and therefore that the employee may be a “false prophet.” Be that as it may, a prophet is needed to challenge the existing strategy and to pursue overlooked growth opportunities.

A constructive use of this employee type is found at Google, which has a unit called X (formerly Google X), which is a self-proclaimed moonshot factory. Employees in this unit seek to solve big problems using breakthrough technologies and radical solutions. Hence, the projects in X tend to be outside Google’s current domain and strategic focus. In such projects, it is typically impossible to realistically assess the likelihood of success before they are tried out.

Gambler. This type of project manager actively pursues business opportunities that lie within the existing strategic boundaries but have no good business case attached, as trustworthy data concerning the likelihood of success is lacking. Hence, the gambler seeks to gain organizational followers for a big bet on a growth opportunity that is consistent with the current strategy but without trustworthy quantitative evidence. In other words, gamblers play by the rules of the game as they pursue growth opportunities within the existing strategy, but they cannot predict the likelihood of success. Consequently, the gambler seeks to engage other organizational members who also like bets. This can obviously be viewed as an uncertain path, as there is some likelihood that the growth opportunities are not feasible and that they may therefore result in significant losses. However, gamblers are necessary, as they can update the existing strategy by pursuing analytically overlooked growth opportunities.

This type of project champion is documented in a study by Paddy Miller and Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg, which shows that MTV’s first digitally integrated and interactive program, Top Selection, was initially tried under the radar before the project’s backers had sufficient proof of concept to get managerial approval to continue. This project was driven by gamblers, as they stayed inside the existing strategic boundaries but were unable to document the likelihood of success before the idea had been tested.

Expert. This type of project manager actively pursues business opportunities that lie outside the existing strategic boundaries but for which trustworthy data builds a solid business case. Hence, experts wish to gain organizational followers for a change in action in favor of a growth opportunity that is inconsistent with the current strategy but is supported by solid, trustworthy quantitative evidence. Consequently, experts rely on organizational members actually listening to their advice. Although the growth opportunities are well supported and should therefore be feasible, the main challenge is to make organizational members aware of the need for strategic change and of the urgent need to act in this regard. The expert is needed to challenge the existing strategy by pursuing well-supported growth opportunities that lie outside the organization’s current strategy.

Experts in action are seen in the well-known story of Intel’s transition from memory chips to microprocessors, where key employees within the organization tried to persuade Intel’s management of the value of the opportunity for some time. It took the executive team several years of internal soul-searching before they were ready to make the organizational transition. In this case, the growth opportunity was outside the existing strategy, but it was possible to document the commercial potential and the likelihood of success with some certainty.

Executor. This project manager actively pursues business opportunities that lie within the existing strategic boundaries and have great cases. The executor gains organizational followers for a sure-thing growth opportunity that is consistent with the current strategy and is backed by trustworthy quantitative evidence. In other words, there is no risk, no uncertainty, and no challenge — just a need for execution. Consequently, executors rely on organizational members to follow their rigorous analyses of a strategically embraced project. This can be viewed as the most certain path to success, as the growth opportunity is well documented and aligned with the existing strategy. However, the executor can only point to a limited number of growth opportunities that are low-hanging fruit — the executor cannot provide insights into the more radical and unknown business opportunities. Many who bear the formal title of business developer systematically analyze, prepare, and support growth opportunities that lie within the strategic boundaries and for which it is possible to realistically assess the likelihood of success.

For instance, DuPont has a systematic approach for assessing and implementing growth opportunities. It entails a phased and systematic handling of new opportunities within a disciplined framework built on best practices, providing standardized guidance throughout the process from initial concept to subsequent commercialization. A comprehensive business case is essential to initiate the process — and as the approach involves key work streams and “blocks of work” that the core team must plan and execute in an effective manner, it is particularly suitable for executors.

How Do They Interact?

The various types of project managers may struggle in their interactions with each other. For instance, a prophet may see an executor as overly bureaucratic and rigid, while an executor may view a prophet as unrealistic and disorganized. Consequently, conflict tends to loom among the different types.

What typically happens is that the logic of one of the types becomes dominant throughout the organization. The fact that a single logic pervades the organization at the expense of the others may mean that key employees of a different type leave the organization and take their ideas with them. Moreover, relying on a single type of logic may lead to organizational inertia, which is dangerous in dynamic and evolving markets. You need to ensure enough room for all of the logics within the organization, ideally by introducing boundary-spanning individuals who can navigate among these logics. In this regard, it is beneficial if top management adopts a “bridging” role to allow for coexistence and diversity.

As an executive, you can similarly seek to stimulate a fruitful understanding and interaction among the different types of employees. For instance, having identified the different types within your organization, you can set up a workshop where one type meets and discusses with their alter ego (that is, executors talk to prophets, and gamblers talk to experts). This interaction can help clarify differences in opinions, routines and values — which may help create a greater mutual understanding and respect among the different employee types.

Do Executives Contribute to the Problem?

Executives partly contribute to unsuccessful projects and unrealized growth opportunities when they don’t think through who should be assigned to which projects. Prophets, gamblers, experts, and executors each have their own strengths and weaknesses that are optimally suited to fit certain project types. Therefore, no type is inherently better or rarer than the others.

Executives contribute to organizational failure when they misalign projects and project managers, but this fact is often hidden in the ruins of a failed project. There may be a tendency to see prophets and gamblers featuring on prominent magazine covers or taking newspaper headlines if they succeed with their high-profile projects. For this reason, executives tend to assume that prophets and gamblers are the best. In such cases, executives may be likely to promote good executors to run a prophet-type project, as senior management may think that the executor is finally ready for this big opportunity (with potentially disastrous results). Or executives may assume that they should tap prophets to run a project that really needs a great executor — which may lead to managerial befuddlement when the prophet doesn’t succeed. Instead of assuming that certain types are better than others, executives need to be aware of, value, and give appropriate room to all four types — and match them with the right projects.

The bottom line is that the diversity of styles offers a competitive advantage in terms of business development, and all four types are necessary pieces of your organizational constellation, even though the optimal dose of each may differ. As an executive, it is crucial that you:

  • Make sure you have each type within your organization
  • Make room for each type to work in their own manner
  • Make sense of their respective ideas, by following their respective logics
  • Make time for matching projects and project managers correctly

Meeting the various types where they are, and paying attention to their diverse ways of thinking, will help you obtain the needed diversity among your employees to develop your business. Moreover, this resonates with comprehensive findings that emphasize that the hallmark of great managers is that they discover and capitalize on the unique strengths of individual employees.

Growth and business development are top priorities in most C-suites across the globe, but too few executives focus on maintaining a wide range of people to ensure the identification of novel opportunities. Therefore, executives who want to develop their businesses need to first develop the right amount of staff diversity to drive a diverse portfolio of growth opportunities. Only when diverse people are on board can an organization drive commercially sustainable growth.


Carsten Lund Pedersen is Postdoc at the Department of Strategic Management and Globalization at Copenhagen Business School, where he researches in project-based strategy, employee autonomy and matching employee types with business development projects.


Thomas Ritter is a Professor of Market Strategy and Business Development at the Department of Strategic Management and Globalization at Copenhagen Business School, where he researches business model innovation, market strategies, and market management.

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Take Down Request by the Spiegel Germany Online

Dear Spiegel Online (www.spiegel.de)

Never before in the existence of this personal blog (since 2011 – the day Steve Jobs died) have we received an article take down request where a correctly quoted article that we posted was requested to be taken down AND a website wanted money for the max. 1-2 hours that we had the article online.

Our vision: We create Innovation, enable exchange and try to give the best ideas to the world by always correctly quoting them.

By following take down requests immediately (yesterday it took us 10 minutes between their email at 14.47 and us having it taken down fully at 14.57) we comply with the internet rule-set of respecting other wishes fully. As a consequence we have never encountered any troubles with anyone and we would like to keep that this way.

Since June 19th 2017. Then it happenend: German Online Newspaper The Spiegel, head of law department Jan Siegel, requested the take down of the cooperational column written by internet activist Sascha Lobo that we thought would fit perfectly to the innovational approach on our website. We are not sure if we can post the link to the article but as a reference here it goes:

http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/homepod-alexa-und-co-bevormundung-durch-kuenstliche-intelligenz-kolumne-a-1151017.html

We are deeply sorry that we cannot feature Sascha Lobo anymore, although he states on his website that his texts can be used under the Creative Commons Licence when correctly quoted by naming him as author and with the URL provided and most importantly unchanged. That’s what we did and now “The Spiegel” tries to money punish us with this?

So the authors rights are diminished by the newspapers rights?
Does anybody understand German author rights?
The author explicitly states on his website  http://saschalobo.com/impressum/ „Die Texte (mit Ausnahme der Kommentare durch Dritte) stehen sämtlich unter der Creative Commons-Lizenz (CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0 DE).“
In our understanding this means that you can use the text under the Creative Commons Licence for free when being private like here at dieidee.eu. So that the newspaper later cannot deny this and cannot punish you with money requests for literally a handful article impressions?

We hope to be able to resolve this matter in a friendly and respectful way with the Spiegel as we state here clearly no harm done, no harm will be done in the future, and please state clearly on your website which author (or internet activist as with Sascha Lobo) allows the usage of his texts on any internet website.

Your thankfully
dieidee.eu

Freaks – die wahren Helden – die Disruptoren der neuen Arbeitswelt – die Querdenker als neue Elite

Irgendwie ist der neue Mitarbeiter doch ein Spinner, sichtbar tätowiert oder ein echter Comupter-Nerd? Gewöhnen Sie sich an das Ungewöhnliche, denn laut Experten sind gerade die sogenannten „Freaks“ die besten Führungskräfte und schon bald werden dies auch die deutschen Unternehmen erkennen. Da kann es gut sein, dass Ihr neuer Chef in Kürze irgendwie „anders“ ist. Doch was hat es eigentlich mit den Freaks auf sich und wieso taugen sie besser zur Führungskraft als der 08/15-Mitarbeiter?

Sind Freaks die besseren Führungskräfte?
Traut Euch, anders zu sein

Inhalt
1. Deutsche Unternehmen setzen auf den angepassten Durchschnitt
2. Wonach suchen deutsche Unternehmen ihre Führungskräfte aus?
3. Wer ist eigentlich ein „Freak“?
4. Die Schwächen sind das Problem
5. Wie können Peak Performer integriert werden?
6. Für welche Unternehmen eignen sich die Spiky Leaders?

Deutsche Unternehmen setzen auf den angepassten Durchschnitt

Bislang halten die deutschen Führungsetagen keine großen Überraschungen bereit: Angepasste Anzugträger tummeln sich in den leitenden Positionen, hier und da eine Frau – aber nicht zu viele. Tatsächlich suchen die meisten deutschen Unternehmen für ihre Führungspositionen nach angepassten und leistungswilligen Mitarbeitern. Wieso? Weil Sie kein Risiko darstellen, Beständigkeit versprechen und ein hohes Maß an Zuverlässigkeit. Der Durchschnitt bringt es deshalb im Beruf am weitesten.

Freaks hingegen feiern eher als Selbstständige ihre Erfolge und stellen da schon einmal die gewohnten Marktmechanismen auf den Kopf.

Doch wieso machen sich die deutschen Unternehmen eigentlich nichts aus eben dieser Fähigkeit? Aus den Querdenkern, Risikofreudigen und wahren Genies? Echte Talente und herausragende Stärken, das sollte eine Führungskraft mitbringen. Da sind sich zumindest viele Experten einig…

Wonach suchen deutsche Unternehmen ihre Führungskräfte aus?

Eine bei Statista veröffentlichte Umfrage gibt hierauf wenig überraschende Antworten: Demnach erachten 100 Prozent aller befragten Unternehmen die Kommunikationsfähigkeit als besonders wichtig für eine Führungskraft. 99 Prozent setzen zudem auf eine hohe Motivation, 98 Prozent auf bereits erbrachte Leistungen im Unternehmen.

Statistik: Erachten Sie folgende Eigenschaften bei Führungskräften als wichtig? | Statista
Mehr Statistiken finden Sie bei Statista

Die Personalberaterin Uta von Boyen kennst sich bestens mit dem Thema aus: Nach Allroundern werde gesucht, Beständigkeit und Mittelmaß. Schul- und Hochschulnoten, Assessment-Center und normierte Lebensläufe seien die Auswahlkriterien für neue Mitarbeiter und Führungskräfte müssen in erster Linie leistungsbereit sein. Es ist das Prinzip „Befehl und Gehorsam“, das in vielen Unternehmen in den Führungsetagen ausgeübt wird – welches jedoch eigentlich in der modernen Wirtschaft nichts mehr verloren hätte. Denn in den immer schneller werdenden Zeiten der Globalisierung und Digitalisierung müssen Unternehmen auf neuartige Geschäftsstrategien setzen, um dauerhaft gegen die nunmehr weltweite Konkurrenz bestehen zu können. Und hierfür, so Uta von Boyen, seien gerade Freaks die besseren Führungskräfte.

Wer ist eigentlich ein „Freak“?

Als „Freak“ in diesem Sinne bezeichnen die Experten alle jene Mitarbeiter, die aus dem üblichen Rahmen fallen. Es handelt sich um Querdenker, Menschen mit Spezialbegabungen und ausgeprägter Persönlichkeit. Freaks bringen Unruhe in ein Unternehmen, fungieren als Visionäre und haben häufig Schwierigkeiten damit, sich in die gegebenen Strukturen einzufügen. Sie werden deshalb auch „Peak Performer“ oder „Spiky Leaders“ genannt. Es sind eben jene Menschen, die unangepasst arbeiten, neue Ideen hervorbringen und ebenso herausragende Stärken wie eben auch Schwächen mitbringen.

Die Schwächen sind das Problem

Genau hierin liegt aber das Hauptproblem der Unternehmen mit den Peak Performern: Sie haben Schwächen. Und Schwächen werden in der modernen Arbeitswelt nicht geduldet. Der Sinn steht daher stets nach der möglichen Minimierung der Schwächen anstelle der Förderung von Stärken.

Die scheinbar besten Mitarbeiter sehen die Unternehmen deshalb in angepassten „General Managern“. Ein Prozess, der bereits in den Schulen beginnt, ja mancherorts sogar im Kindergarten oder der Vorschule. Wer aus dem Rahmen fällt, erhält Nachhilfeunterricht oder gilt als schwer erziehbar. Die scheinbaren ADHS-Fälle nehmen immer weiter zu, nur weil ein Kind keine acht Stunden ruhig in der Schulbank sitzt. Wer besondere Begabungen oder originelles Denken mitbringt wird nicht weiter gefördert. Stattdessen wird der Unterricht starr durchgezogen und die Schüler auf die goldene Mitte eingeebnet. Wieso? Weil der Durchschnitt den Weg des geringsten Widerstands bedeutet.

Spiky Leaders hingegen, müssen mit viel Aufwand in ein Unternehmen integriert werden, sollten diese nicht bereits desillusioniert und demotiviert aus der Schul- und Hochschullaufbahn herauskommen. Dabei hat uns die Geschichte immer wieder gelehrt, dass gerade diese Peak Performer einen hohen Wert für die Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft haben. Sie haben in der Vergangenheit gar immer wieder das Überleben der Menschheit gesichert, da sind sich Historiker und Evolutionsbiologen einig. Und hätten Sie Steve Jobs nicht auch zu Beginn seiner Laufbahn als echten Freak wahrgenommen?

Wie können Peak Performer integriert werden?

Das größte Problem darin, die außergewöhnlichen Begabungen der Peak Performer in einem Unternehmen zu nutzen, liegt also in ihrer erfolgreichen Integration in das Unternehmen. Hierfür muss es seine Führungsstrukturen überdenken und neue Konzepte erstellen. Spiky Leaders funktionieren meist in kleinen Teams am besten, wo sie mit dem angepassten Durchschnitt zusammenarbeiten können. Ein Unternehmen funktioniert nämlich ebenso wenig nur mit „Freaks“ als ganz ohne. Es geht also um eine effiziente Zusammenarbeit zwischen Peak Performer und 08/15-Mitarbeiter. Die Zusammensetzung dieser gemischten Teams ist eine wahre Herausforderung, zumal die Unangepassten häufig menschlich schwierig sind, als „stachelig“ wahrgenommen werden. Dadurch bringen sie aber eine positive Dynamik in jedes Team und eine produktivere Arbeitsatmosphäre. Dynamiken bringen schließlich Ergebnisse hervor – Stillstand nicht. Es gilt also, die Organisationsform eines Unternehmens der Integration von Peak Performern anzupassen:

  • Feste Strukturen müssen aufgelockert werden.
  • Der Spiky Leader muss individuelle Freiräume genießen.
  • Seine Talente und Stärken müssen effizient gefördert und gezielt eingesetzt werden.
  • Die Schwächen der Peak Performer gilt es frühzeitig aufzufangen.

Für welche Unternehmen eignen sich die Spiky Leaders?

Es geht nun nicht darum, dass jedes Unternehmen in jedem Team mindestens einen Spiky Leader besetzt. Im Gegenteil: Ob ein Peak Performer für Ihr Unternehmen geeignet ist, wer, wie viele und in welcher Position, das hängt von Ihrer jeweiligen Organisationsform sowie der strategischen Ausrichtung des Unternehmens ab. Häufig sind Peak Performer gerade in in geringer Anzahl auf wichtigen Schlüsselpositionen gut besetzt. Zudem sollte stets nur höchstens ein „Freak“ pro Team eingesetzt werden. Allerdings ist die Akzeptanz der Peak Performer in einem Team nicht immer einfach und sie stellen damit ein hohes Risiko dar. Ein Risiko, welches bislang nur die wenigsten Unternehmen bereit sind einzugehen. Wer jedoch bereits jetzt begreift, dass ganzheitliche Führung in Zukunft auch auf Querdenker nicht verzichten kann, ist der Konkurrenz in der Globalisierung einen großen Schritt voraus.

Was denken Sie von den Peak Performern? Haben Sie bereits Erfahrungen mit ihnen gemacht oder würden Sie sich vielleicht sogar selbst als einen solchen bezeichnen? Es ist und bleibt ein spannendes Thema…

https://arbeits-abc.de/querdenker-als-fuehrungskraft

The evidence is piling up — Silicon Valley is being destroyed

Silicon Valley is the story of overthrowing entrenched interests through innovation.

Children dream of becoming inventors, and scientists come to Silicon Valley from all over the world.

But something is wrong when Juicero and Theranos are in the headlines, and bad behavior from Uber executives overshadows actual innovation.

$120 million in venture funding from Google Ventures and Kleiner Perkins, for a juicer? And the founder, Doug Evans, calling himself himself Steve Jobs „in his pursuit of juicing perfection?“ And how is Theranos’s Elizabeth Holmes walking around freely?

Eventually, the rhetoric of innovation turns into …. a Google-backed punchline.

These stories are embarrassing, yes. But there’s something deeper going on here. Silicon Valley, an international treasure that birthed the technology of our age, is being destroyed.

Monopolies are now so powerful that they dictate the roll-out of new technology, and the only things left to invest in are the scraps that fall off the table.

Sometimes those scraps are Snapchat, which managed to keep alive, despite what Ben Thompson calls ‚theft‚ by Facebook.

Sometimes it’s Diapers.com, which was destroyed and bought out by Amazon through predatory pricing. And sometimes it’s Juicero and Theranos.

It’s not that Juicero and Theranos that are the problem. Mistakes — even really big, stupid ones — happen.

juicero 8Business Insider/Alyson Shontell

It’s that there is increasingly less good stuff to offset the bad. Pets.com was embarrassing in 2000, but that was also when Google was getting going. Today it’s all scraps.

When platform monopolies dictate the roll-out of technology, there is less and less innovation, fewer places to invest, less to invent. Eventually, the rhetoric of innovation turns into DISRUPT, a quickly canceled show on MSNBC, and Juicero, a Google-backed punchline.

This moment of stagnating innovation and productivity is happening because Silicon Valley has turned its back on its most important political friend: antitrust. Instead, it’s embraced what it should understand as the enemy of innovation: monopoly.

As Barry Lynn has shown, Silicon Valley was born of anti-monopoly.

Elizabeth Holmes TheranosElizabeth Holmes, CEO of Theranos.Larry Busacca/Getty

In 1956, a Republican administration and AT&T signed a consent decree forbidding AT&T from competing in any but common carrier communications services. The decree also forced AT&T to license its patents in a non-discriminatory manner to all comers.

One of those patents was for something called the transistor, which two small companies — Texas Instruments and Motorola — would commercialize.

In the 1960s and 1970s, an antitrust suit against IBM caused the company to unbundle its hardware and software, leading to the creation of the American software industry. It treated suppliers for its new personal computing business with kid gloves, including a small company called Micro-Soft. In the 1990s, a suit against Microsoft allowed another startup named Google to offer an innovative search engine

and ad business without fear that Microsoft would use its control of the browser to strangle it.

The great business historian Alfred Chandler, in his book on the electronic century, called antitrust regulators the „Gods“ of creation. Antitrust was originally understood as a uniquely American „charter of economic liberty“.

But there hasn’t been a Sherman Act Section 2 anti-monopolization case for 15 years. And the anti-merger Clayton Act is not being enforced. Neither Bush, nor Obama, nor Trump (so far), has seen fit to stop the monopolists from buying their way into dominance and blocking innovation.

Take Google.

Sergey BrinSergey Brin is the President of Alphabet, Google’s parent company.Robert Galbraith/Reuters

Yes, the company created an amazing search engine over fifteen years ago. Since then, the company bought YouTube, Doubleclick, Maps, and Admob; it buys a company a week at this point. And it often shuts down products that don’t reach 100M+ users, while investing in luxury juicing machines. Surely Google is creating cool technology. But is that technology really being deployed? Or is it locked away, as patents were in AT&T’s 1956 vault before the government stepped in?

What once were upstarts and innovators are now enthroned. For instance, the iPhone is ten years old. Innovation means waiting to see if Apple will offer a bigger screen.

Innovation means waiting to see if Apple will offer a bigger screen.

It’s almost as thrilling as seeing yet another press release about how self-driving cars are almost working. I’m on the edge of my seat.

This is a ridiculous situation. Silicon Valley helped created the personal computer! It commercialized the internet! Popularized email!

Its scientists and engineers change the world. We have such amazing technology, and such big problems. But our liberty to address those problems in the commercial world must be protected by a democracy in the form of antitrust rules and suits, or Silicon Valley will die.

American flag phone iphoneMark Wilson/Getty Images

Is that what Silicon Valley scientists and business leaders really want? To invest in and produce subpar juicers while everything cool waits on Jeff Bezos’s whim? Is that what they dreamed when they were young? Is that why they admired astronauts and entrepreneurs? Was their goal really to create „anti-competitive juice packet lock-in“?

That is where a lack of democracy has brought us, and Silicon Valley.

It is time for leaders in Silicon Valley to start demanding from our government the birthright of every American, which is an open market for commerce, innovation, and personal liberty.

It is time to demand antitrust, so that what once were innovative upstarts, and are now Kings, do not stop the next wave of innovation. Then there will be so much more to invest in, so much more to invent, and so much more to actually create.

Matt Stoller is a fellow at the Open Markets Program at New America. He first shared a version of this story on Twitter. The original tweets are below.

stoller 2Screenshot/Twitter

stollerScreenshot/Twitter

/end of story 🙂

http://www.businessinsider.de/the-evidence-is-piling-up-silicon-valley-is-being-destroyed-2017-4

Introverts tend to be better CEOs — and other surprising traits of top-performing executives

So what did make CEOs successful?
After analyzing all of their data, the researchers found that roughly half of the candidates earning an overall ‚A‘ rating in their database, when evaluated for a CEO job, had distinguished themselves in more than one of four management traits.

(Only five percent of the weakest performers, meanwhile, had done the same.)

The four were:

  • reaching out to stakeholders;
  • being highly adaptable to change;
  • being reliable and predictable rather than showing exceptional, and perhaps not repeatable, performance;
  • and making fast decisions with conviction, if not necessarily perfect ones.

The image most people have of a straight-from-central-casting CEO is usually something like the following: An extroverted, charismatic, confident executive who climbed a mistake-free ladder to the top with a degree from an elite school.

But a new 10-year study from a leadership advisory firm and economists from two business schools, published in this month’s Harvard Business Review, finds that the most successful chief executives often don’t fit that mold.

The researchers behind the study, called the CEO Genome Project, used a database of assessments — comprehensive performance appraisals and extensive biographical information — of 17,000 C-suite executives, including 2,000 CEOs. The database, created by the consultancy ghSmart, includes everything from career history to behavioral patterns to how the executives performed in past jobs, decisions they’ve made and demographic information.

Their analysis, which included help from statisticians, data scientists and financial analysts, examined a sample of 930 of those CEOs to come up with the traits and patterns that most predicted which ones became a CEO. They also gathered information on the performance of 212 of them to compare how top-performers‘ behaviors lined up with the traits that tend to get CEOs hired.

What they found surprised them. A little more than half of the CEOs who did better than expected in the minds of investors and directors were actually introverts, not the usual gregarious CEO known for glad-handing customers.

„The biggest aha, overall, is that some of the things that make CEOs attractive to the board have no bearing on their performance,“ said Elena Lytkina Botelho, a partner at ghSmart and a co-founder of the project. „Like most human beings, they get seduced by charismatic, polished presenters. They simply do better in interviews.“

Botelho says she doesn’t necessarily think introverts are always better performers, but that they may be more prevalent, and do better in her sample, because boards are so attracted to them.

„I’ve been in the room and had directors express the concern — ‚this person is such a strong introvert, how will they really lead?‘ “ she said. Similarly, candidates who displayed a lot of confidence had more than double the chance of being chosen as CEO, the study found, even though particularly confident CEOs were no more likely to show better performance once they got the job.

Meanwhile, only 7 percent of the best-performing CEOs — who ran companies from Fortune 10 behemoths to those with just $10 million in annual sales — had an Ivy League degree, despite the conventional wisdom that pedigree matters. „There was zero correlation between pedigree and ultimate performance,“ she said, acknowledging that number could be higher if they were just looking at large Fortune 500 firms.

Another misconception boards make when picking their next CEO is to choose candidates who have an impeccable career trajectory, with nothing but a resume full of achievements lining their path from MBA to the boardroom. But nearly all of the executives in their sample who were candidates for a CEO job had some kind of major mistake, the project found, such as overpaying for an acquisition or making a wrong hire, in their assessment. Nearly half of them also had what the researchers called a career „blowup“ that pushed them out of a job or cost the business a large amount of money — and three-quarters of that group went on to actually become a CEO.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2017/04/17/introverts-tend-to-be-better-ceos-and-other-surprising-traits-of-top-performing-executives

Der Kreis derer, die als Chief Disruption Officer überhaupt nur annähernd in Betracht kommen, hat den Radius „null“

Ich bin eine eierlegende WollMilchSau – und der neue Chief Disruption Officer Deiner Firma!

Eierlegende Wollmilchsau

Eierlegende Wollmilchsau

Fotolia #83825279 | Urheber: jokatoons

Herausforderung: die Auftragsklärung

Ein neuer CDO soll bei den Konzernen oft den „Tanker bewegen und in Schnellboote verwandeln“, schließlich hört und liest man ja überall von Startups, Agil, Dynamik, Disruption und stetiger Veränderung. Da stellt sich doch die Frage (typischerweise an HR) wer erstellt den das JobProfil für einen Job, den es noch nie gab und dessen Ziele so faszinierend unterschiedlich, ja widersprüchlich sind. Schließlich wird jeder seine eigene Vorstellung davon haben, was der künftige CDO „endlich“ angehen soll – fragen Sie doch mal Kollegen aus unterschiedlichen Funktionen!

In der folgenden Liste habe ich einmal einige (Achtung Buzzword-Bingo) zusammengefasst:

Typische CDO Erwartungsperspektiven:

  • Neue(s) Business Modell(e) finden, entwickeln und bitte gleich den Return on Investment im ersten Jahr sicherstellen
  • Change Manager (Disruption, Innovation…) der die gesamte Organisation in die neue Arbeitswelt führt
  • Neue Vertriebs- und Finanzierungskanäle – vom Crowdfunding über Crowdstorming, Crowdworking und Social Marketing
  • Digital Mindset / Organisationsentwicklung – nachhaltige Veränderung der Unternehmenskultur
  • Board Coaching / Trainer für die anderen Vorstände
  • Smart Factory – die intelligente Fabrik, digitalisierte, automatisierte und vernetzte Produktionsumgebungen mit neuen agilen Werkzeugen bis zur Losgröße 1 (zugleich stetig wachsender Fokus auf Service-Orientierung stattfindet – also „nicht-produktion“)
  • BigData / Analytics / Predictive – alles was man mit Daten, deren Analyse und Vorhersagbarkeit so treiben kann
  • Rechtsanwalt – Arbeit 4.0, Zusammenarbeit mit Externen, Compliance… siehe unten „illegal“
  • Neues IT Framework – moderne Softwarearchitekturen, Werkzeuge und Apps einführen
  • Digitales Vorbild / Botschafter – Sichtbar werden für neuen Arbeitsstil, Führungskultur – am Besten auch nach außen werbewirksam
  • Digitale Prozesse / Digitale Effizienz – den systemischen Organisationsmotor generalsanieren
  • Social Media extern – von Arbeitnehmerattraktivität über Recruiting (von natürlich Digital Professionals) bis zu Wirkungsverbesserung durch virales Marketing
  • Interne Kommunikation und Zusammenarbeit (Enterprise Social Networking)… – die gesamte Belegschaft, inklusive Fabrikarbeiter mobil, vernetzt, zeit- und orts-unabhängig sowie skallierbar in Arbeit 4.0 führen

Diese Liste an Erwartungen ist sicher alles andere als vollständig, soll aber zeigen, dass es nicht einfach ist, das Profil für diese Position so zu definieren, dass der Inhaber überhaupt eine Chance hat Wirkung zu entfalten. Schließlich gilt es neben den fachlichen Aufgaben auch die bestehende Kultur, Politik, Seilschaften etc. kennen zu lernen und dann nachhaltig zu verändern.

Herausforderung: Woher nehmen, diese CDO – eierlegende WollMilchSau?

Wie einer der Headhunter mal so schön formulierte:

„der Kreis derer, die als CDO überhaupt nur annähernd in Betracht kommen, hat den Radius „null““

Es gibt keine Ausbildung zum CDO, typische Karrierewege erzeugen meist „system-stabilisierende“ Vertreter, wer will einem „jungen Wilden“ die Verantwortung über einen Konzern geben. Die Zahl derer, die in ähnlichen Rollen erfolgreich sind, ist äußerst überschaubar – Nachahmung schwierig- und oft auch nicht einfach übertragbar… auch die großen Consulting Riesen sind hier sicher keine Hilfe, da deren Reifegrad hier ähnlich jungfräulich ist (Es gibt keine Blaupausen, die man aus der Schublade ziehen könnte, keine Beweise, kaum Studien die als Handlungsanleitung taugen)

Also wird nach Kompromissen gesucht, das kann dann z.B. so aussehen:

  • wir nehmen eine(n), der schon Vorstand war/ist … dort findet man kaum Digital Natives (damit ist nicht vorrangig das Alter, vielmehr deren Haltung gegenüber neuen, disruptiven Entwicklungen gemeint, die noch nicht allgemein als erfolgreich, bleibend und wichtig/prägend anerkannt sind), aus Karrieregründen kaum jemanden, der mit Transparenz, Beteiligung und agilen Methoden risikofreudig umgeht
  • wir nehmen eine(n), der IT kann … wohl einer der häufigsten Fehler, Digitale Transformation mit IT zu verwechseln. Wohl ist ein guter Teil (ca. 20%) mit Software, Tools und IT KnowHow verbunden, der Großteil geht aber um völlig andere (oft sehr IT fremde) Themen – es geht sehr viel um Führung! siehe Liste oben
  • wir nehmen eine(n), der schon ein Startup erfolgreich gemacht hat … das führt auf beiden Seiten zu großen Enttäuschungen: Freiheit, Sicherheit, Vorgaben, Rahmenbedingungen, Größe, Internationalität… Assimilation garantiert
  • wir nehmen jemanden, der Karriere machen will und großes Potential zeigt … Wer Karriere machen will ist meist doch recht Regel-konform unterwegs. Wer traut es sich „alles“ in Frage zu stellen bei einem System, in dem er/sie groß werden will? Risikobereitschaft, Fehler machen (dürfen) sind nicht die üblichen Treiber einer erfolgreichen Karriere
  • wir suchen jemanden von Extern – klar, neue Besen kehren gut… wie sieht es aber mit der damit verbundenen sehr langen Anlaufzeit aus. Kann es sich z.B. ein Automobilkonzern in der heutigen Lage leisten jetzt mit jemandem bei null anzufangen, was die internen Kenntnisse, Netzwerke (oder besser Verstrickungen), Politik, Kultur angeht?

Den „fertigen“ CDO zu finden dürfte also ein schwieriges Unterfangen sein – eine Lösung wäre in meinen Augen mit der aktuellen Priorität zu beginnen und zu versuchen die fehlenden Merkmale zu intern zu entwickeln (ideal parallel mit allen anderen). Neben Kultur, Führung ist sicher „neues, konstantes Lernen“ auf allen Ebenen höchst relevant.

aus: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/der-cdo-wirds-schon-richten-harald-schirmer

These 15 startups didn’t exist 5 years ago — now they’re worth billions

Silicon Valley can create immense value in just a short time. Just look at these 15 startups that didn’t even exist five years ago, which are now valued at $1 billion or more, according to venture capitalists.

zooxZoox’s cofoundersZoox

For the purposes of this list, Business Insider asked PitchBook Data to pull a list of US-based companies that were founded in 2012 or later — since we’re nearing the end of 2016 — and that are private tech companies with a valuation of north of $1 billion.

We then ranked them from least to most valuable based on their post-money valuations.

Here are the companies that achieved billion-dollar valuations in the last five years:

Cylance

Cylance

Cylance CEO Stuart McClureYouTube/Cylance

Founded: 2012

Valuation: $1 billion

Cylance built a product that uses artificial intelligence to analyze a file you’re about to open, determine if it’s malware, and then stop it from executing — all in less than a second. It solves the problem of email phishing scams, which are still a favorite method of hackers, and has over 1,000 customers, it says.

Cylance was founded by Stuart McClure and Ryan Permeh, two well-known names in security who are perhaps best known for their work at McAfee.

 

 

Compass

Compass

Compass

Founded: 2012

Valuation: $1 billion

While Compass functions like a traditional broker, the company’s promise is using technology to reduce the time and friction of buying and selling a house or apartment. In July, Compass released an app designed to replace „stale“ quarterly market reports with more dynamic information. In the app, buyers and sellers can search by standard things like neighborhood, number of bedrooms, price range, and so on. But they can also look at more advanced metrics, like year-over-year analysis of median price per square foot, days on the market, and negotiability.

 

 

Illumio

Illumio

Illumio CEO Andrew RubinIllumio

Founded: 2013

Valuation: $1 billion

In 2014, Illumio emerged from stealth. Six months later, it had already racked up a billion dollar valuation, thanks to its new approach to security.  The idea involves watching the applications themselves to make sure they aren’t doing anything they are not supposed to do, indicating a hacker or a virus. It places a tiny bit of code (called an agent) on every computer and operating system to watch all the apps. Companies can then install the software that watches the apps in their own data center, or they can hire Illumio’s cloud service to watch the apps for them. And then the security follows the app wherever it goes, even if an app moves from one server to another, or from the data center to a cloud computing service.

 

Carbon3D

Carbon3D

Carbon3D

Founded: 2013

Valuation: $1 billion

Carbon3D grabbed headlines and attention for its method of seemingly creating shapes out of a liquid resin soup.  It’s much more complicated than that, but Carbon3D has caught the eye of everyone from Ford to Johnson & Johnson. While Ford imagines a future of speedy customizable parts, like custom designed cup holders, healthcare operators are looking at Carbon3D for a fast way to create surgical parts.

The machines are already being tested less than a year after they launched. In April, it released its M1 printer.

 

 

Opendoor

Opendoor

Keith Rabois, chairman and cofounder of Opendoor

Founded: 2014

Valuation: $1.1 billion

Opendoor is betting that homeowners would take a guaranteed sale over a higher price. It calculates a fair market value and pays homeowners before re-selling the home with a 30-day satisfaction guarantee.

 

Uptake Technologies

Uptake Technologies

Getty Images/Bloomberg

Founded: 2014

Valuation: $1.1 billion

Former Groupon founder Brad Keywell started the secretive Chicago-based data analytics startup in 2014. Already it’s working with Caterpillar to be the analytics backbone of heavy industries like manufacturing, construction, rail, and more. Its sensors and data analysis should be able to help companies predict revenue and save money, according to Forbes.

Flatiron Health

Flatiron Health

Saskia Uppenkamp

Founded: 2012

Valuation: $1.2 billion

Flatiron Health is a software company that organizes the world’s oncology information and makes it accessible for doctors, patients, and researchers. In January 2016, Roche, one of the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies, made a $175 million investment in the company, which valued the company at $1.1 billion.

Zoox

Zoox

Tim Kentley-Klay and Jesse LevinsonZoox

Founded: 2014

Valuation: $1.55 billion

Despite remaining in stealth, Zoox has already raised $290 million for its unseen product. The only hint its founder Tim Kentley-Klay has given was at a conference in October when he described it as Disneyland on the streets:

“At Zoox what we’re creating…is not a self-driving car any more than the automobile is a horseless carriage. We’re not building a robo-taxi service, we’re actually creating an advanced mobility service,” Kentley-Klay said, according to the Wall Street Journal. “You can really think of it as Disneyland on the streets of perhaps San Francisco and that means a vehicle which is smart enough to understand its environment but it’s also importantly smart enough to understand you, where you need to be, what you want to do in the vehicle, and how you want to move around the city.”

 

 

Instacart

Instacart

Instacart

Founded: 2012

Valuation: $1.9 billion

Often dubbed „Uber for groceries,“ Instacart eliminates the need to ever set food in a grocery store. The service will deliver your full load of groceries, hand-picked by a personal shopper at local stores.

In 2016, the company deepened its relationship with Whole Foods after the grocery retailer invested in the company and signed a multi-year delivery contract.

 

 

Oscar

Oscar

Oscar CEO and co-founder Mario Schlosser, co-founders Kevin Nazemi and Joshua Kushner.Oscar

Founded: 2012

Valuation: $1.5 billion

Oscar founder Josh Kushner wants to transform the healthcare industry by creating a better user experience when it comes to health insurance. It launched publicly in 2013 to sell better insurance through Affordable Care Act marketplaces. Yet, the election of Donald Trump could spell trouble for the highly-valued startup, even though Kushner’s brother, Jared, is Trump’s son-in-law. According to Bloomberg, it’s still losing money as it looks to diversify away from Obamacare-only offerings — something Trump, a close family connection, seeks to repeal.

 

Quanergy

Quanergy

Quanergy

Founded: 2012

Valuation: $1.6 billion

Self-driving car startups aren’t the only billion-dollar bets around. Quanergy isn’t building its own car, but instead specializes in building LiDAR systems — the 3D sensing systems that self-driving cars use to the see the world. Already the startup has struck partnerships with vehicle-makers including Mercedes-Benz and Hyundai.

 

Blue Apron

Blue Apron

Blue Apron cofounders Matt Wadiak, Matt Salzberg, and Ilia PapasBlue Apron

Founded: 2012

Valuation: $2 billion

Blue Apron, a company that sends you portioned-out ingredients and recipes in a box, is a godsend for lazy cooks.

Though it’s only been around since 2012, Blue Apron has already generated more than $800 million in revenue in 2016, according to Bloomberg. However, it has put its IPO plans on hold as it works to decrease its customer acquisition costs and improve lifetime customer value, Bloomberg reported. Blue Apron’s potential is vast: The service appeals to millennials who want to expand their repertoire in the kitchen, as much as to busy moms straining for creativity and simplicity in their weeknight meals.

 

Avant

Avant

Avant CEO Al GoldsteinAvant

Founded: 2012

Valuation: $2 billion

One of two highly-valued Chicago startups, online lending company Avant targets subprime borrowers — people with lower credit scores. To date, the startup has given out more than 500,000 loans, totaling more than $3 billion.

 

Zenefits

Zenefits

Zenefits CEO David SacksREUTERS/Beck Diefenbach

Founded: 2012

Valuation: $2 billion

Zenefits‘ valuation took a haircut in 2016. The startup, once valued at $4.5 billion, experienced turmoil after it was discovered that its CEO had created a program designed to cheat state regulations. After installing a new CEO and launching Zenefits 2.0, the company also repriced its stock, shaving its valuation from $4.5 billion to a cool $2 billion — still a lot of money for a five-year-old company.

 

 

Pivotal Software

Pivotal Software

Pivotal CEO Rob MeeGlassdoor/Pivotal

Founded: 2013

Valuation: $2.8 billion

Pivotal sells a set of software tools and consulting services to help even the largest, most old-school companies build and develop software as if they were a tiny startup. Pivotal becomes their secret weapon as they turn to newfangled cloud computing and data-crunching technologies to stay competitive in a digital world. In May, Ford led a $253 million investmentin the company alongside Microsoft.

http://www.businessinsider.de/startups-didnt-exist-5-years-ago-worth-billions-2016-12?op=1