Innovating the self

We’re all somewhat familiar with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs [see below]. Anyone who has spent time in a company, especially in attending HR sessions is sure to have come across it in some form or another.

Source: https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html

In my humble opinion, most companies [yes, simplistically lumping East and West together] focus on providing for Level 1: Physiological needs, through provision of a Level 2 Safety need: employment. There is enough management paraphernalia on how companies fail to provide for Level 3 and 4 needs; Love, Belonging, and Esteem that I need not go into it here.  Level 4 need: Esteem seems to be often reserved for none but the highest echelons of typical corporate structure. Indeed, might it not be just a bit ironic that the hierarchical structure of a typical organization does tend to mirror the Maslow Hierarchy? 

Easy enough to come across as a bit cynical, but with all due respect to the reader, it is tremendously challenging for an organization to sufficiently engage and challenge its members such that all members can at least see the opportunity to achieve some aspect of all levels and steadily work their way towards the apex, Level 5: Self Actualization; becoming all that you can be, and finding meaning and fulfillment in both the journey and the achievement.

We can debate whether it is the job of the organization to attempt to do this or whether this is merely a fool’s errand. Perhaps a potential solution is better interface design between individual, society, and the particular employment organization one happens to belong to. But in today’s society of user experience and experience as ethos, hypercompetitive global corporate dynamics, and the fact that service, excellence, and execution become increasing parameters for differentiation and competitive advantage, it is hard to see how turning a blind eye to the expectations and needs of one’s employees can be considered good corporate governance and strategy. Given the belief [that I have] that all managers want to be good managers and aspire to be great managers, then perhaps the problem is that Maslow’s Hierarchy, while concrete in its intent, is a bit too abstract a framework or depiction of one’s idealized developmental progress to be useful to the typical manager.

Ikigai-a reason for being

A colleague of mine recently showed to my ignorant eye the following diagram:

I must admit I find this diagram refreshing and candid. It represents in a frank way a framework that includes context and placement, i.e., what the world needs and what we can be paid for supplying something valuable against that need. It speaks to profession, vocation, mission, and passion. It is a framework as useful for individuals as for corporations-challenging us to actively think and pursue our unique place in the world, our Ikigai, our unique reason for being.  I can’t think of a better career and life advice framework then to help someone systematically work out what they love to do, what they are good at, applying it to something that the(ir) world needs, and what economic value they can expect to extract by doing so. To achieve, or be in Ikigai, is to first know oneself and to then continually position oneself in such a way as to be continually addressing a need in a way that is sustaining to the self.

Similar for companies. Many companies undergoing the need for transformation must progress through these steps to find their new and unique Ikigai. For example, many CPG companies are finding that consumers are increasingly reluctant to pay them their expected economic value for their goods; whether it be over concerns about sugar, fat, salt, artificial ingredients, gluten, carbon footprint, or tobacco. The needs of their world are changing. We see the same with utilities and energy companies; as the world moves increasingly towards non-petrochemical fuels and chemicals, the key commodities and products by which they derive economic value comes increasingly under scrutiny and withdrawal of dollars.

These companies must come back to the other two basic questions; what do we love doing and what are we good [world class] at doing? Once done, then they can attack the issue of what the world needs and is willing to pay for. We often get asked by clients about what we think are their market “adjacencies,” viz., what new, nearest neighbor market can they enter with minimal risk? Of course, today’s adjacencies might not be tomorrow’s, and things that appear far away can suddenly appear in the foreground [but a subject for another essay]. Too often however, we get asked this question purely from an intellectual standpoint, as if markets are simply rational and static.

The most innovative companies in my opinion are those that know themselves well. This frees them from conventional linear thinking and enables them to turn quickly into non-adjacent areas because their passion, profession, and mission enable them to tackle new needs and new economics from a position of known strength. As the companies I am thinking of are just launching themselves in this new way, I will refrain from further comment until later when the results/fruits of their labor become more obvious to the general audience.

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” -Sun Tzu, circa 520 or so BC

One last item to turn our attention to. If the human condition is constant and the need for companies to generate profitable income a given, how do we harmonize the, what I’ll call western depiction of self actualization, i.e., the Maslow Hierarchy with Ikigai. Surprisingly (to me), I find a potential answer originating from Scotland. The following quote is from the Fair Work Framework 2016, an initiative to push Scotland ahead and differentiate it as a desired destination for businesses and workers through achievement of balance and harmony:

"We believe that fair work is work that offers effective voice, opportunity, security, fulfilment and respect; that balances the rights and responsibilities of employers and workers and that can generate benefits for individuals, organisations and society..."

"Our vision is that, by 2025, people in Scotland will have a world-leading working life where fair work drives success, wellbeing and prosperity for individuals, businesses, organisations and society."

How do they see themselves achieving this? See this diagram:

While not as simple as a Maslow Hierarchy diagram nor as elegant as an Ikigai diagram, this does attempt to granularize and architecturally operationalize the sentiments expressed above. Notable is the flywheel relationship of tying societal outcomes with workplace outcomes and the mutual output feeding into employee behavior/attitude/wellbeing/and prosperity. The three outcomes are thus tied together. What I also find interesting is the notion of innovating the workplace culture [pyramid, upper right diagram] and that there are levers and policies that stakeholders can take to affect that culture. 

Within a company, there are three basic things one can seek to innovate. 1) Products, 2) the Process by which the products are made, e.g., stage-gate, and 3) the People or underlying culture that is the mechanism by which to enact Process that leads to Product. We often get called upon to help our clients enhance their product innovation efforts. We’ll sometimes get asked to help improve the process. We never get asked to help fix the culture; partly because it is not our oeuvre to do so, but mainly that many don’t think of innovation as having anything to do with being cultural at the emotional/operational level. Yet oftentimes the same client will comment that getting their organizations to embrace the innovation is almost 90% of the battle, and 90% of the failures.

Innovating for transformation, whether for the self individual or corporate just might start and end with culture.  More later.