The principles are excellent and the backstory very genuine, evidence-based, and compelling; surely applicable and worth keeping in mind at all times through a career. The one area not covered, not unsurprisingly, is how to recognise and consider the risk associated with non-conformity in leadership.
You may have come across Rory Sutherland’s book ‘Alchemy’ that recognises the potential upside of breaking from the mould with ideas and decision making, but the actual risk from the downside should a decision not be made according to logic. However, I like the idea that not all proposals / actions / decisions can be validated by way of traditional frameworks and that a corporate culture must enable and empower this, not least for those at the start of their career who may feel less constrained by the limitations of corporate systems, especially in large organisations and definitely those that are regulated.
So perhaps there is another principle, perhaps second order, and that is is a willingness to be brave, consider novelty, innovation and ideas that are the less obvious. To challenge the status quo, but with the support of the organisation, or the sponsorship of a trusted leader, and not forgetting the rules of the game (company values, legal and regulatory restrictions etc.). We need aspiring and experienced leaders to make predictable decisions (or at least follow predictable methods) but we also need leaders to demonstrate a willingness to recognise the importance of innovation too.
What do you think?
Maybe this is a construct that only works in advertising agencies, but their experience in identifying what works may serve to prove that the logic we know to be true is limited to the sum of our past experiences. If we accept this cannot be an exhaustive list of logical outcomes then we need to at least consider the role of occasional or cuatious alchemy in our careers, not least to expand our experience and knowledge.
Glad you enjoyed the article and the priniciples Mark.
I am a firm believer in challenging the status quo. However feel that is more suitable for when someone has built some credibility. That isn't to say early stage career professionals shouldn't speak up and voice their unconventional/out of the box ideas, observations and suggestions. Just be a little careful.
Many organisations say they want their people to be "more entrepreneurial" but thy don't really because that entails risk taking and an acceptance of mistakes. Context is crucial. Highly regulated industries or businesses that have a low tolerance for errors (precision engineering, healthcare etc.) desire conformity. Creative industries are more likely to genuinely want innovation. I have previously written about Netflix and what seems to work for them - https://robertyeo.substack.com/p/how-netflix-delegates-decision-making
The principles are excellent and the backstory very genuine, evidence-based, and compelling; surely applicable and worth keeping in mind at all times through a career. The one area not covered, not unsurprisingly, is how to recognise and consider the risk associated with non-conformity in leadership.
You may have come across Rory Sutherland’s book ‘Alchemy’ that recognises the potential upside of breaking from the mould with ideas and decision making, but the actual risk from the downside should a decision not be made according to logic. However, I like the idea that not all proposals / actions / decisions can be validated by way of traditional frameworks and that a corporate culture must enable and empower this, not least for those at the start of their career who may feel less constrained by the limitations of corporate systems, especially in large organisations and definitely those that are regulated.
So perhaps there is another principle, perhaps second order, and that is is a willingness to be brave, consider novelty, innovation and ideas that are the less obvious. To challenge the status quo, but with the support of the organisation, or the sponsorship of a trusted leader, and not forgetting the rules of the game (company values, legal and regulatory restrictions etc.). We need aspiring and experienced leaders to make predictable decisions (or at least follow predictable methods) but we also need leaders to demonstrate a willingness to recognise the importance of innovation too.
What do you think?
Maybe this is a construct that only works in advertising agencies, but their experience in identifying what works may serve to prove that the logic we know to be true is limited to the sum of our past experiences. If we accept this cannot be an exhaustive list of logical outcomes then we need to at least consider the role of occasional or cuatious alchemy in our careers, not least to expand our experience and knowledge.
Glad you enjoyed the article and the priniciples Mark.
I am a firm believer in challenging the status quo. However feel that is more suitable for when someone has built some credibility. That isn't to say early stage career professionals shouldn't speak up and voice their unconventional/out of the box ideas, observations and suggestions. Just be a little careful.
Many organisations say they want their people to be "more entrepreneurial" but thy don't really because that entails risk taking and an acceptance of mistakes. Context is crucial. Highly regulated industries or businesses that have a low tolerance for errors (precision engineering, healthcare etc.) desire conformity. Creative industries are more likely to genuinely want innovation. I have previously written about Netflix and what seems to work for them - https://robertyeo.substack.com/p/how-netflix-delegates-decision-making
Thanks for reading and commenting.