What We Do...

Leadership

Innovation

Team Coaching

Sports Coaching

Executive Coaching

Mediation

Change Management

Article

Mining Human Potential

10-09-2009

A major factor which has facilitated human survival as a species has been our genetic variation. This variety enables us to adapt to environmental challenge. Some wonder about whether medical science has allowed us to escape the usual rule of “survival of the fittest”. However, the mere existence of medical science is evidence of our adaptability. A great mind like Stephen Hawking has found expression as a result.

We can never know exactly how another human experiences something as simple as a colour or a sound. We can’t “be in that person’s mind”. What is apparent is that difference people experience situations and problems from widely varying standpoints.

Many factors are at play here. Genetic variation tops the list. Next is the basics of life – nutrition, shelter, protection from harm. Now consider the range of family environments from which we come. This is taking place in a particular cultural and geographic setting. Each person is at a particular stage of their life trajectory (anywhere from childhood to old age.) At any point a person will be living in a particular social environment (single, part of a nuclear family, single parent etc.) All of us are subject to the usual stressors of life (financial, parenthood, divorce, grief, disease etc.)

It is no wonder then that our perspectives of people, situations and problems vary so much. The variation in people and their perspectives is the main reservoir for the mother-load of human innovative potential. My father often cautioned me about the shortcomings of dismissing a person’s view on the basis of a superficial (usually negative) impression. “Everyone will have something to offer” he said.

The evolution of “hierarchies” as ways of running human affairs is a given in most parts of the world. What varies is the particular form the hierarchical structure takes. At stake here is who has the power to make telling decisions effecting large numbers of people, and how they’re chosen. Ideologies vary wildly, and often reflect the underlying state of affairs in a country (the economy, education, social history and culture etc.) Desperate times often produce dictatorships, when the inefficiencies of the democratic process seem inappropriate to many. Democracy does not have expediency as a core value. Hierarchies are the commonest management models used in businesses.

No matter what political system operates, hierarchies have some things in common. The first is that as one moves higher in the hierarchy there are fewer people at each level. Whilst this is occurring, these individuals are further and further removed from the “coal-face”. This is where the “business” of an organisation is done. This is where the organisation’s representatives meet “the customer”.

Whilst all this is occurring, a vertical communication system is in force. This insulates those higher in the system from the mundane, time consuming stuff done at lower levels. The “leaders” occupy the upper levels of the hierarchy. A necessary correlate of this is that the more important the decisions, the fewer people there are making them.

Clearly the chairman of BHP hasn’t the time, nor the inclination to be setting the explosives for an open cut mine. Simple practicality and expenditure demand this.

But there is something more at stake here. The rate of change in the world in the 21sr century is accelerating at rates unimagined in the 1950’s. How organisations and businesses adapt to this will determine whether they survive or not.

Some businesses already mine the intellectual potential of their people. Toyota’s success baffled the Americans for years. The secret was that Toyota encouraged and rewarded good ideas from anyone in the country. They receive about 600 per month and review them all. No wonder they are so far ahead. The same principles apply to major corporations such as Google and the Gore Corporation. These two have a major accent on innovation, a “flat” management structure and are roaring successes. Not only that, but they are very popular companies to work for.

It is not rocket science to set up systems to tap into an organisation’s human potential. However, it often constitutes a major change from the status quo.

Senior management often feels threatened by this change. They feel their status and roles are being somehow undermined. Far from this being the case, it actually makes their job easier. Someone will always have to organise the systems, review the ideas, OK the budgets and expenditure, be the “face of the business”, prioritise strategies etc.

But, this will be better informed if the “idea stuff” is shared. This doesn’t mean “hand it over”. It means others can be thinking about big picture issues as well as their mandatory tasks, should they wish to.

I have a program which applies mainly to middle management in organisations. With my colleague Dr Elizabeth Foley we apply to principles of tapping into people’s potential to improve innovation.

Latest Articles

19-02-2010
Death in the Luge in Vancouver - Is This a Symptom of Something Else?

22-01-2010
Erwin Rommel - Lessons for Leadership and Management in the 21st Century

09-12-2009
Christmas Business

05-11-2009
Functional Foods, Fads or Pharmacy by Another Name

29-10-2009
Immigration: Populate and/or Perish

Work Fit Analysis

Archive

What We Do...

Article

Mining Human Potential

Latest Articles

Newsletter