|
|
#590
Innovative Leader
Volume 12, Number 12 December 2003
The
Knowledge Revolution
by Noel M. Tichy, Ph.D.
Dr. Tichy is
director of the Global Leadership Partnership in the University
of Michigan Business School. He is author of The Cycle of
Leadership: How Great Leaders Teach Their Companies to Win
(HarperBusiness, New York, 2002).

We are living
in a revolutionary era. The hardware era is giving away to the
software age, and as a result, the economic and social landscape
of the world is undergoing seismic changes. The world is also
struggling with massive geopolitical turmoil, as evidenced in
the 9/11 attacks, not only in the Mideast but around the world.
Right now, more than fifty ethnic wars are occurring. We are
entering a twenty-first century where our optimism must be
tempered with the realities of a very uncertain and violent
world.
Times of
transformation like this are always messy. Inevitably, they
involve errors and excesses. As corporate leaders and investors
grapple for new and better ways to deploy assets, the pendulum
swings too far and it suddenly reverses course. One day Ariba
was planning to double in size from 2,000 to 4,000, practically
the next day it was laying off 35% of its workforce. All over
Silicon Valley the story was repeated. For many entrepreneurs,
dreams of hypergrowth suddenly morphed into nightmares of sudden
death. In the “old economy,” companies such as Procter &
Gamble, General Electric and Charles Schwab, got caught in the
recoil as well.
In our
eagerness to move ahead, we tend to forget that while some
things change, not all things change. Human nature does not
change. Business cycles still happen. People still get greedy,
or overexcited. They get carried away with their own press
clippings and fall under the spell of their own hubris. They go
to excess. So we experience booms and busts that cloud the
overall picture. But through these cycles, the world sometimes
does move on to new trajectories. And despite the messiness of
the locomotion, we are clearly on a new trajectory now, as
biotech and digital technologies alter the landscape of business
and everyday life.
There are many
ways to describe the challenges that leaders face in the new
millennium. Peter Drucker talks about an era of overwhelming
information, in which both enterprises and individuals will have
to learn to organize information as their key resource. Experts
talk about networking and the ability to create and manage
alliances as core competencies in a fluid world. Lester Thurow
sees a knowledge economy in which genetic engineering, new
materials, robotics and other knowledge-based technologies will
have increasingly profound impacts.
All of these
things, and many others, are true. Like the industrial
revolution, the knowledge revolution is reordering the ways that
people relate to one another and to work. The instant
availability of information has broken down the walls separating
individuals, institutions and economies. Intangibles have
replaced physical goods as the primary source of customer
value. And the brains and energy have replaced plant and
equipment as the resources most critical to producing that
value.
Further, in an
always-on, 24/7 world, everything is constantly in motion. Not
only are there new technologies, new applications and new
effects every day, but our vantage point changes each moment as
we get deeper and deeper into the new territory.
During the
tech-stock boom in the late 1990’s, the old, the physical and
the predictable lost value, while investors clamored for the
new, the virtual and the volatile. Solidly profitable
industrials were squeaking out price/earnings ratios in the
single digits, while IPO’s with no profits in sight pulled down
price/revenue multiples in the hundreds. It appeared
that start-ups were about to take over the world. Then in March
2000, the bubble burst. Wall Street did a 180 degree turn, and
almost overnight tech stocks went from darlings to dogs.
In the euphoria
that led up to the spring 2000 sell-off, a lot of entrepreneurs
were able to attract investors with nothing more than hope and
hype. These ventures were among the first to die when the
capital markets tightened. A lot of other companies that had
good ideas but bad timing or bad management also got squeezed
out. And even many of the fundamentally sound and profitable
companies in the e-commerce and high-tech sectors saw their
valuations fall by 50% or more. But the fact that the capital
markets overinflated a lot of prices in the late 1990’s and then
overcorrected in 2000 doesn’t mean that it was all just
Tulipmania.
The fact is
that the world has been fundamentally changed by information
technology. Quick reversals in the capital markets are simply
emblematic of the new environment. The new reality, in which
all companies are going to have to compete, is one of constant
communication, continuous transformation and rapid-cycle
change. In technology, customer markets and the labor market,
as well as in the world requires dealing with change. It
requires recognizing shifts and mobilizing networks of smart,
energetic people to react quickly and intelligently.
It’s a New
Game for Everyone
In this new
knowledge-based economy, it’s clear that the practices, systems,
policies and mind-sets that won in the old industrial economy
will not do the job. So leaders, whether they are starting with
four friends in the basement or as the head of a corporation
with hundreds of thousands of employees, must build, or rebuild,
teams that can win in the new game.
It’s as if the
International Olympic Committee has just invented a new sport
for the next round of game. There are no world-class players
yet, but in a very short time competitors will have to develop
the needed skills. For the leaders of companies like GM, P&G
and Kodak, the challenges are obvious. Like overweight,
out-of-shape athletes, they need to develop agility, flexibility
and speed. Meanwhile, new upstart high-tech companies may have
agility, flexibility and speed, but they are like preadolescent
kids. Most of them are skinny, weak and totally out of
control. They may have moments of dazzling brilliance, but
neither the muscle nor the discipline to go the distance.
So, it is no
forgone conclusion, as many believed in the late 1990’s, that
the scrappy start-ups will emerge as the winners in the new
millennium while the old behemoths face extinction. And it’s
not the other way around, either, as investors were betting by
the spring of 2001. Experience, marketplace recognition and
financial resources won’t automatically assure that the older
established companies will be able to absorb or knock off all of
the new entrants.
Rather, the
issue is going to be who is best at generating knowledge,
harnessing the energy of workers and making sure that it is
targeted to the most productive uses. The winners in the future
will be organizations that are big, fast and smart. The
challenges that leaders will face along the road to building
such organizations will depend on where they are starting. But
at the end of the day, whether a three- or 300,000-person
organization, they will need the same qualities to win.
The
Destination
The ultimate
destination for all leaders is sustainable value creation. This
is reflected in the value of assets over time. Are the people,
capital, information and technology worth more today than
yesterday? For publicly traded companies, this is reflected in
the long-term market capitalization of the company.
What is new and
makes this particularly tricky in today’s world is that
sustained value creation requires an organization to be both big
and fast.
Jack Welch went
on a twenty-year journey to try to make GE a “big company with
the soul of a small company.”
Until now, most
leaders have been willing to settle for making a trade-off
between big and fast. In fact, the principles of good
management taught in the leading business schools prescribe
layers of controls that increase with size of the organization.
The best managed companies have been considered to be those with
the best controls. But today, the trade-off between speed and
scale is no longer acceptable. To be a winner, a company must
have both. |