Jul 302015
 

Communication between groups of people is most effective when participants are engaged, and the discussion is both inclusive and collaborative. Creating an ethos of conversation, rather than a one-sided presentation, for critical discussions can better leverage the collective intelligence of the team, make solutions to organisational problems better and more comprehensive, and improve ownership for execution of ideas.

I wrote last year of the importance of being prepared to defend your pitch – ie approaching the meeting with a view to actively engage in a deliberately stimulated dialogue, rather than hitting and hoping an unbriefed audience with a battering-ram of a deck. This piece in the Harvard Business Review looks in more detail at how to effectively define the setting and content to generate a conversation. Of course there’s always the question of giving away your thinking before the meeting (although whoever has the deck ready before the morning of the day – and isn’t there always the assumption that no-one looks at it prior anyway?).

The HBR piece speaks to the importance of engaging with the client during the development process – and this is a challenge in itself with the increasing limitations on client contact during the increasingly regimented pitch processes. However, by setting out with the intention to deliver the pitch content ahead of time it should help structure the pitch development process to build in rather more time to reflect on the content than the time it takes to drive to client HQ. And by taking the time to really challenge the internal team on the anticipated questioning it should stand the pitch team in an ideal position to go beyond knowledge demonstration, taking advantage of a captive audience, and starting to build a relationship through the chemistry of conversation.

converse

Create a Conversation, Not a Presentation

Mar 302015
 

An interesting piece in the HBR to encore yesterday’s post…

We have become a society of specialists. Business thinkers point to “domain expertise” as an enduring source of advantage in today’s competitive environment. The logic is straightforward: learn more about your function, acquire “expert” status, and you’ll go further in your career.

But what if this approach is no longer valid? Corporations around the world have come to value expertise, and in so doing, have created a collection of individuals studying bark. There are many who have deeply studied its nooks, grooves, coloration, and texture. Few have developed the understanding that the bark is merely the outermost layer of a tree. Fewer still understand the tree is embedded in a forest.

Dec 122014
 

How do you effectively manage creativity to result in a more innovative organization? Particularly in a science-driven sector where silos exist between functions at both client and agency sides and the cultures of creative, strategic, scientific, medical and marketing span a continuum that is often hard to interconnect. Achieving a balanced approach to the fundamental tension between harnessing and unleashing these distinctive talents is not easy. This piece in the HBR characterises the important paradoxes well.


sixparadoxes


Organizational innovation requires both organizational willingness and ability. Clearly, any group that wishes to innovate must be able to collaborate, experiment, and integrate possible solutions. That is, it must possess the skill to undertake those activities productively. But, given all the barriers to innovation, leaders and their people must also be willing to do the hard work of innovation. Successful organizations develop a deep sense of community that helps individuals endure the tensions and stress, and that prevents the organization from flying apart due to all the opposing forces at play.