In this post, I’d like to return again to my Organizational Plasticity Index (OPI), introduced in my post “Why Business Is Like The Brain.” We’ve already expanded on one aspect of the model, and here, I’d like to explore another, synaptic connection, which equates to the systemic organization of the relationships and communication channels within a business. The OPI model that compares businesses to the brain, using key aspects of brain function as a metaphor to help make sense of the healthy, or dysfunctional, running of a business. The model is useful because it helps me work with clients to identify the unseen “pathways” within their business that go beyond chain of command diagrams, workflow models, and mission statements. The OPI rating helps me to measure the long-term resilience of the businesses I work with.
The “synaptic connections” within a business relate to the way relationships function: both linear and lateral; hierarchical and “official” and informal. If I were to map these out, they would appear more like constellations or complex webs of connections than hierarchical family trees. The more closely I have studied these connection-maps, the more I became convinced that they mimic the similar lattices and asymmetrical cross-hatching of connections that appear between neurons in the brain. The similarity is uncanny.
At the moment, this complexity is compounded by the incoming and fast-evolving impact of AI on teams, and the fact that managers must now evolve to manage teams that marry AI and human roles and expertise. This requires a sophisticated combination of computational thinking and a manager’s most human qualities: emotional intelligence, intuition and creativity.
Every year, there are a few items of clothing that become hot. For example, last fall, a Zara coat seemed to become a “must have” item. The coat even had its own Instagrampage with more than 8,000 followers. Many factors contribute to this phenomenon like celebrities — and people with large social media followings — wearing the “hot” item.
When we have detailed social media data, it is relatively easy to identify patterns of influence to predict these trends. But what happens when we don’t have social media data? After all, social media platforms charge tremendous fees for access to that information. Can we use traditional data to detect underlying trends between groups of consumers and improve demand estimation? If so, can we use that information to optimize personalized promotions to increase profits, and also to present “the right individual with the right item at the right price?”
In a recent study, I looked at these questions with MIT Operations Research Center PhD students Lennart Baardman and Tamar Cohen and collaborators from Oracle Retail. We found that the answer to both questions is: yes. We began our study by building a customer demand model and algorithm that incorporates customer-to-customer trends or influences. We then applied the information about customer demand to make promotion decisions. With this method, profits increased between 5-12%. The model can be used by any retailer of any size for any product.
As an expert in organizational communication and leadership, I saw the dismissal of the councils as a dramatic and important moment in the relationship between top business leaders and the president. But does it spell the demise of the often difficult partnership between President Trump and corporate America?
A permanent breach?
CEOs like Merck’s Ken Frazier rightly voted their conscience when they began to abandon Trump’s American Manufacturing Council and the Strategic and Policy Forum. Frazier, the first to resign, said he felt “a responsibility to take a stand against intolerance and extremism.”
The Wall Street Journal, however, was quick to point out that many companies have stopped short of saying they would refuse to work with the White House in the future.
Indeed, despite the heated rhetoric, one thing is clear: Corporate America wants and needs to work with the administration, while the president benefits from a healthy relationship with America’s CEOs.
So if they both need each other, the question becomes how this increasingly tenuous relationship will play out.
From social to natural and applied sciences, overall scientific output has been growing worldwide – it doubles every nine years.
Traditionally, researchers solve a problem by conducting new experiments. With the ever-growing body of scientific literature, though, it is becoming more common to make a discovery based on the vast number of already-published journal articles. Researchers synthesize the findings from previous studies to develop a more complete understanding of a phenomenon. Making sense of this explosion of studies is critical for scientists not only to build on previous work but also to push research fields forward.
In a systematic review, an author finds and critiques all prior studies around a similar research question. The idea is to bring a reader up to speed on the current state of affairs around a particular research topic.
Last week, Amazon acquired Whole Foods in a move that has many wondering what this means for the direction of the economy. In my view, Amazon’s acquisition of Whole Foods does to organics what Uber did to the sharing economy: it takes something that was born out of a different economic logic (a grocery store dedicated to healthy food) and then molds and morphs it to fit into an economic operating system that is firmly based in the old paradigm—i.e. in a paradigm that aims for world domination rather than serving a goal of shared prosperity and well-being for all.
In this post, inspired by a number of gatherings with change makers across sectors in China, Europe, and the Americas during the past few weeks, I outline a framework for understanding how the current limits of capitalism we are bumping up against in sectors such as food, finance, health, education and business are all related to the same outdated economic logic or “operating system” (OS). We need a new economic operating system, one that reinvents how we work together as neighbors, as businesses, as cities and as larger systems. Below I describe briefly the evolution of these five sectors from OS 1.0 to where we are today, which in most cases is OS 2.0 or 3.0.
The pressing challenges of our time, i.e. the challenge of losing our environment (ecological divide), our societal whole (social divide), and our humanity (spiritual divide) calls for reinventing our systems of food, health, education, finance and management towards 4.0. This essay lays out the rationale for OS 4.0 and a possible way to get us there through an Asian-American-European initiative called 4.0 Lab.
Five Sectors, One Problem
As the labels of the new economy have gone mainstream (green, organic, sharing economies) the underlying economic reality stays the same. That is to say, the immense buying power of giants like Amazon squeeze the supply chain, workers, farmers, and the planet through the same patterns of exploitation and structural violence that gave rise to the movement for a new economy in the first place.
On one level you could describe the problem by saying that companies like Amazon and Uber misperceive the new economy as just another app that runs on their old corporate operating system (i.e. world domination through economies of scale). In reality, though, the new economy is not just another app—it’s a radical upgrade of their entire operating system. The difference between the old and the new paradigms can be summarized in three words: ego vs. eco. Ego-system awareness means “me first”, while eco-system awareness means an awareness that focuses on the well-being of all.
There is a profound systemic barrier that exists in all major sectors today. It’s not only the mainstream players like Amazon and Uber that are stuck in their current economic operating systems; many of the innovators who once broke through that model are now also stuck. The global food system is still profoundly destructive. The health system is still sick. The educational system is unable to learn. The global financial system is heading full throttle into the next crash—as if 2008 never happened. Foundations and philanthropists still place their assets in the old economy, thereby harming people and planet, in order to use some of the profits to fund projects that alleviate symptoms but don’t deal with root causes. The innovators in all these spaces are stuck in the niches that first gave them space to develop something new. But now these niches are increasingly crowded, and mainstream players adopt the new labels and sound bites while often perpetuating the old models.