Big organisations are frequently portrayed as the barriers to positive change. And whilst they are certainly responsible for many social and environmental ills, this is not the whole picture; they continue to play an invaluable role in a variety of ways.
Appraisals are a classic representation the mechanical, outdated management model. And after decades of failed iterations and a wealth of behavioural science recommending they're abandoned, organisations are now lining up to leave them behind.
Most employers experience tension between employee generations. They always have. This is by no means a new phenomenon. And not all tensions must necessarily be removed - tension can be a great lever for innovation and change. Here are three things to encourage to use the tension in a productive fashion.
We've been inspired by Tara Joyce (@elasticmind) at Rise of The Innnerpreneur and her book "Pay What It's Worth". So, in line with our commitment to innovate and help build the relational, trust based economy of the future, we're trialling a new fee model across most of our services: no fixed prices, no hourly rates, just #paywhatitsworth
According to the Pew-Templeton Global Futures Project c85% of the global population is formally affiliated to a spiritual worldview. On top of that, a proportion of those not formally affiliated would still, nevertheless, describe themselves as spiritual.
Yet despite this reality, the modern corporation has (mostly) sought a highly "aspiritual" approach to its strategic and operational thinking. Which means people have been attempting to leave it at the door. But people can no more leave their worldview at the door than they can their lungs. Eventually, something was bound to give.
When the Industrial Revolution took off, there was a sudden need to manage large numbers of people. There were only two widespread models of non-feudal leadership available for inspiration: the Church and the Military. Both had a formal, hierarchical, top down structure. And a top down leadership model had worked well in a more agrarian system for managing productivity, so a top down model was understandably adopted.
Complexity in business has become the norm: complex terms, complex phrases, complex systems, complex change programmes, complex just about everything. Complexity isn't inherently bad, nor is it always avoidable: the global economy and the network that gives it life, for example. The problem is when we add to that complexity unnecessarily, believe that complex systems require a complex approach to sustain or improve it, or assume that complexity is a higher intellectual standard than simplicity. Because we shouldn't, it doesn't and it isn't.
A dictionary will tell you that honour is ultimately a level of respect; respecting standards, respecting people, respecting achievements. But the dictionary falls short. And when we stop at respect, so can we. Because "respect" isn't enough.
Over recent decades, corporates showed us they cared through their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) agendas; most of which have been a fringe component to a business's main activity. But regulators and conscious stakeholders are increasingly disinterested in something on the fringe: authentic, holistically prosperous business is now the order of the day.
A couple of years ago, before the Real Lettings Property Fund had raised any significant capital, we were nevertheless confident it could illustrate how a standard investment vehicle, with an innovative idea, could provide both a market led financial return and a measurable social impact. In our case, this meant helping people trapped in London's temporary housing problem, just one step from sleeping on its streets, find somewhere to call home.
All giving, however small, is worthwhile. And at this particular time of year corporations up and down the country are kindly putting their hands in their pockets to help those in need. And that should be applauded.