You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Intrinsic values’ category.
Currently I am working on basically a presentation linking it all together( well atleast for me). Wondering if I should share it all openly.. It starts to be, I believe, a powerful story..
The beauty is that what I am preaching I need to practice..
Arghh end of the week it is online…
Just read a blogpost on Communities Dominate Brands about Engagement Marketing at Mini.
Somehow having problems with the Engagement Marketing route.. The danger lies in it that you end up with undifferentiated product with no clear intrinsic value that is compensated with a kind of entertaining function added on top of the “so so” product to create a feeling of community or belonging. Resulting with greatly stimulated senses but no deep emotional connect based on emotions.. Hmm…
Decided to put some thought into a slide..(click on it)
My proposal for a ChangeThis Manifesto was approved. Currently my proposal is up for voting. When I have enough votes(I have no idea what enough is) it will be published.
Here is my proposal:
Value Creation: The RIGHT way
The coming years competitive advantage for corporations is created purely by right brain activities: creativity, intuition, emotion, communication and a holistic view of the world. This manifesto is about releasing the strength of the right side brain within businesses. It shows ways to create new value in an emotional driven world. This manifesto has the ambition to support companies to reach their true potential. Not through growth but through self actualization. “A company at best can be itself”
Thanks for voting for this manifesto!
Self-actualization is the instinctual need of humans to make the most of their abilities and to strive to be the best they can.
Self Actualization is the intrinsic growth of what is already in the organism, or more accurately, of what the organism is.
Maslow writes the following of self-actualizing people(REPLACE WITH CORPORATION):
* They embrace the facts and realities of the world (including themselves) rather than denying or avoiding them.
* They are spontaneous in their ideas and actions.
* They are creative.
* They are interested in solving problems; this often includes the problems of others. Solving these problems is often a key focus in their lives.
* They feel a closeness to other people, and generally appreciate life.
* They have a system of morality that is fully internalized and independent of external authority.
* They have discernment and are able to view all things in an objective manner. Prejudices are absent.
Very interesting stuff!
Please replace person/individual with cooperation… I am very eager to explore to see if Adler’s model of Psychotherapy (See image below) can be used to help cooperations in their current feeling of inferiority. Yes inferiority. Their need to grow comes from feeling inferior(not complete).
Parts from the article:
The scientific paradigm shift and intellectual climate of the 1990’s might well be ripe for a re-discovery of Adler’s original and full contribution to an understanding of human beings and their relationship to the world. He created an exquisitely integrated, holistic theory of human nature and psychopathology, a set of principles and techniques of psychotherapy, a world view, and a philosophy of living.
The core of Adler’s integrated complex of philosophy, theory, and practice was a vigorously optimistic, humanistic view of life. He offered a value-oriented psychology that envisioned human beings as capable of profound cooperation in living together and striving for self-improvement, self-fulfillment, and contribution to the common welfare.
If people have developed social interest at the affective level, they are likely to feel a deep belonging to the human race and, as a result, are able to empathize with their fellow humans. They can then feel very much at home on the earth — accepting both the comforts as well as the discomforts of life. At the cognitive level, they can acknowledge the necessary interdependence with others, recognizing that the welfare of any one individual ultimately depends on the welfare of everyone. At the behavioral level, these thoughts and feelings can then be translated into actions aimed at self development as well as cooperative and helpful movements directed toward others. Thus, at its heart, the concept of feeling of community encompasses individuals’ full development of their capacities, a process that is both personally fulfilling and results in people who have something worthwhile to contribute to one another. At the same time, the concept denotes a recognition and acceptance of the interconnectedness of all people.
These ideas of Adler’s also speak to the current discussion of the relationship between self and society. Unlike others, he saw no fundamental conflict between self and society, individuality, and relatedness, self interest and social interest. These are false dichotomies. The development of self and connectedness are recursive processes that influence one another in positive ways. The greater one’s personal development, the more able one can connect positively with others; the greater one’s ability to connect with others, the more one is able to learn from them and develop oneself. This idea has been rediscovered by recent authors (Guisinger and Blatt 1994).
Adler saw the connections among living beings in many different spheres and on many different levels. An individual can feel connected with another, with family, friends, community, and so on, in ever widening circles. This connectedness can encompass animals, plants, even inanimate objects until, in the largest sense, the person feels connected with the entire cosmos (Müller, 1992, 138). If people truly understood and felt this connectedness, then many of the self-created problems of life — war, prejudice, persecution, discrimination — might cease to exist.
The feeling of interconnectedness among people is essential not only for living together in society, but also for the development of each individual person. It has long been well known that if human infants do not have emotional connections with their caregivers they will fail to thrive and are likely to die.
Furthermore, individuals need to acknowledge their connectedness both to the past as well as to the future. What we are able to do in our lives depends very much on the contributions made in the past by others. A critical question that Adler saw facing each person was, “What will be your contribution to life? Will it be on the useful or useless side of life
The title that Adler gave to his system, “Individual Psychology,” does not immediately suggest its social foundation. It does not mean a psychology of individuals. On the contrary, Adler’s psychology is very much a social psychology in which the individual is seen and understood within his or her social context. Accordingly, Adler devised interventions not only for individual clients but also for families and schools.
In German, the term Individualpsychologie means the psychology of the unique, indivisible, and undivided person (Davidson 1991, 6). What Adler meant by this is that, first, Individual Psychology is an idiographic science. How an individual develops is unique, creative, and dependent on the subjective interpretations the person gives to life. Second, Adler meant to convey that an individual behaves as a unit in which the thoughts, feelings, actions, dreams, memories, and even physiology all lead in the same direction. The person is a system in which the whole is greater than and different from the sum of its parts. In this whole, Adler saw the unity of the person. In the symphony of a person’s behavior, he discerned the consistent melodic theme running throughout. This theme may have many variations in tempo, pitch, or intricacy, but it is nevertheless recognizable. Thus, to understand a person, we must look at the whole person, not at the parts, isolated from one another. After we grasp the guiding theme, however, it is easy to see how each individual part is consistent with the theme.
Been busy working on a model for value creation. Nowhere have I found a model that I truely believe. Most of the current models about competitive advantage, blue oceans and innovations have a left brain way of solving the problem. It is often based on rational decisions, cause and effect, schematics and matrices. Well we have a right brain problem..and we try to solve it with left brain answers..
So after some investigations in how the brain works and how people self actualize I tried to create a wheel that seems more balanced between right and left brain activities and internal and external activities. The current model is 3/4 right brain and 1/4 only left brain. Alot more in balance to operate in this holistic, creative, emotional and communicative age. Hard to sell that 3/4 of the time people in your company are not productive in the traditional sense?
Something I am confident to share is that the first phase of the wheel is what I call “
Imagine Intuition”. In this phase you create your wish, belief or challenge. This basically changes your perception. This is in my opinion the biggest achievement of the whole creation cycle. Many companies describe their goals through cause and effect( 10% more sales than last year, higher penetration in..) or they create a very functional mission(making the best shoes). BAM..There it just went wrong.. It doesn’t change your perception. How difficult is it to change if your perception of yourself in a larger context did not change. Therefore impossible to self actualize..(right?) Let go of your current situation. David Wolfe of Ageless Marketing wrote this about corporate selfactualization: “Maslow would view FoEs(Firms of Endearments) as having reached the organizational equivalent of self-actualization. To reach that level in human life requires “letting go” of the ego. With ego in recession, a person’s worldview changes from self-centeredness to others-centeredness. This doesn’t mean the sacrifice of one’s self-interest. Self-interest is all the better served at the highest levels of maturity. This is true of companies as well as human beings.”
So what I preach in the first step of the wheel is to wish, believe or challenge yourself. Free from form or function. This first step, often ignited by an event, is crucial in the process. Those who fail will describe themselves as” I am a moneymaking machine” those that succeed in this phase describe themself as ” I (wish) to support people in…” for example.
Have trust and let go. Believe that the rest of the creation process will fall into place. A company at best can be what it is.
Soon more on the subject. Any feedback or opinions are more than welcome..
More and more I gather evidence that the very core of a company is what I call the “Broad Thought”. The broad thought gives companies a sense of purpose. It is close to a religion. A beliefsystem. The Broad Thought influences the company culture and creates stability. The difference with a Mission Statement in my idea is that a Mission Statement is focussed on the functional excercise of the Broad Thought. An example of a Broad Thought is “Against Throwawayism” from Iittala
A well defined and effective Broad Thought has in my opinion a couple of characteristics:
1. It creates freedom to innovate(level of abstraction)
2. Not bound to function or form(so immaterial)
3. Emotionally charged(Fueled)
4. Passionately carried out by Top Management
5. Value focussed and not growth focussed
6. Defined from a serving(supporting) perspective
7. any ideas…?
The benefits of defining a Broad Thought are:
1. Bridges the gap between society and corporations
2. Offers roads to innovation (differentiation)
3. Creates room and guidance for CSR
4. Creates a subject for co-creation without the pressure of existing products
The biggest pitfall for a broad acceptance among employees of a Broad Thought is that it is communicated.. YOU SHOULD NOT COMMUNICATE THE BROAD THOUGHT… Here really comes to the big eye opener:
YOU SHOULD MAKE EMPLOYEES FEEL IT THROUGH EXPERIENCES..
More on the Broad Thought soon…
Just read an article written in 2002(!!) about the book The Support Economy. In this Harvard Business School article Shoshana Zuboff and James Maxmin discuss about the “rift between corporations and society”. Here some nice passages:
A century ago mass consumption was on the rise. People wanted more things. The answer was to produce more goods at an ever-lower cost—mass production. Corporations were organized around a managerial hierarchy invented to provide a tight inward focus on the increasingly complex processes of production and distribution. This was a massive innovation over the older model of a single owner who tried to oversee everything. Under managerial capitalism, ownership became dispersed, but control remained concentrated in the management group.
The evolution from one episode of capitalism to another is a normal historical process. Just as mercantile capitalism was displaced by proprietary capitalism, and that new form was later displaced by managerial capitalism, it makes sense that managerial capitalism will be displaced by a new, more comprehensive form that better serves today’s populations.
Capitalism’s capacity to evolve and its incredible versatility have proven to be the single most important source of its robustness and success. In fact, capitalism has avoided devastating crises not because it is fixed, but because it changes. Each historical episode of capitalism has a limited range of adaptation, however. As markets and technologies undergo historic change, so too must the current model of capitalism.
The new individuals have plenty of things. They have access to plenty of services. But they now yearn for something that corporations have not perceived, let alone put on offer: the kind of support that will enable them to live the lives they choose.
People’s desires, needs and wants have radically changed, but corporations have remained distant and indifferent to the true nature of this change. As a result, we have a business environment in which people are chronically disappointed and frustrated by their experiences as consumers and employees. We no longer trust large organizations to serve our needs. On every level, we are experiencing a divisive “us vs. them” mentality.
Each new episode of capitalism emerges from the complex interplay of three forces: (1) New human yearnings that create a new approach to consumption and new kinds of markets, (2) technologies capable of addressing the demands of the new markets, and (3) a new enterprise logic that can link employees, technologies, and markets in new ways.
The fire is laid. What’s needed is the match. Many people already sense that there must be a better and more relevant way of doing capitalism. The search is on for a new enterprise logic that will fundamentally alter the orientation, purpose, and economics of commerce. The Support Economy is intended to contribute to that search as it invites discussion of a new enterprise logic that we call distributed capitalism. Watch the flames when these three forces finally combine. That will mark the real discontinuity between the economy of the twentieth century and that of the twenty-first.[Note: I think it is happening now]
In our chapter called “Rediscovering the End Consumer, Over and Over Again” we show how most “new” business concepts are simply self-referring. They do not move beyond the rules of a certain way of doing capitalism, and therefore they cannot possibly alter the problems they target. Instead, just the opposite occurs—the status quo overpowers new ideas and turns them into variations on the same old themes. That is why every innovation from quality circles to reengineering to customer relationships turns out to be another road to cost reduction.
Deep support means “getting my life back.” In order to provide this, deep support means that commercial entities absorb both accountability and responsibility for every aspect of the consumption experience. Deep support enables psychological self-determination. It produces time for life. It facilitates and enhances the experience of being the origin of one’s life. It recognizes, responds to, and promotes individuality. It celebrates intricacy. It multiplies choice and enhances flexibility. It encourages voice and is guided by voice. Deep support listens and offers connection. It offers a collaborative relationship defined by advocacy. It is founded on trust, reciprocity, authenticity, intimacy, and absolute reliability.
On the great blog BrandAutopsy I reacted on a blogpost from John about Starbucks. He asked readers to react on how Starbucks should act now(read here the cause of the story). He will compile the answers and a make an e-book out of it. Well here the answer I mailed.
Well you challenged me with your question what should Starbucks do. First of all I don’t know Starbucks very well, but the situation Starbucks is in is not unique. Many companies have drifted it away from their original intended experience or mission. The last 20 years businesses and brands have been the center of our society. They were the engine and many their fuel. Our firm belief was businesses(brands) need to grow. Growth is good! It brings us wealth, jobs and power. Times have changed. We are at a changing point. At the end of a consciousness. We understand that “isolated growth” and abundance in choice don’t bring us satisfaction. We are building a new consciousness. One where we divert from products, brands and companies being the beatmasters of our lives. There is a shift in power.
The current movements in media and internet are showing where the world is going. Connected and empowered people are the new centerpiece. Money is not the fuel for this motor.. It is emotions and experiences. Now that people are driving the world. They start repossessing property long lost to again the brands. Property like space(ads), time(ads), production(co-creation) and media(web 2.0). All examples of the consumer having a greater influence on our available resources. These consumers need to be facilitated and served. Like we served the brands and large corporates. Focus needs to be on co-created value.
So how should companies act how’s life have been about production. How can you change if your whole house has been constructed to produce. Here is the real advice!!(better reference me)
- Start cutting the company up in to clear functions(production, distribution, innovation, retail)
- Resource analysis: Examine where you truly outperform your competition. Examine where you have unique qualities. Access to resources and skills
- Ask yourself if you still wish to be active in each function.( We live in a transparent world where only those how are excellent survive)
- In your chosen functions start developing a way how you could serve a connected, demanding and involved customer. Open your function. Create platforms to play. Invite customers. Give access to your resources and skills. Teach them, learn them, create together, improve together, market together.
Only those how can facilitate customers to jointly create great experiences will survive.
Power to the people
Raimo van der Klein