"
Team:Arizona State E/Less
From 2012e.igem.org
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
| + | <Center> | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012e/c/c6/ASUiGEME12_PursuitofLess.jpg"> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012e/c/c6/ASUiGEME12_PursuitofLess.jpg"> | ||
| + | </Center> | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
Latest revision as of 03:54, 28 October 2012
Case Study #4: Success--The Pursuit of Less
Passion is important. Finding the right group of people is important. Then why doesn't the recipe of a batch of the right people, a vision of a common goal, and a pinch of start-up capital automatically bake the cake of success?
This is the subject of a Harvard Business Review article written by Greg McKeown's, CEO of THIS Inc., a leadership and strategy design agency.
The Clarity Paradox
There are four key phases that explain the Clarity Paradox--a new paradigm in how companies should approach business practices
Phase 1: When we really have clarity of purpose, it leads to success.
Phase 2: When we have success, it leads to more options and opportunities.
Phase 3: When we have increased options and opportunities, it leads to diffused efforts.
Phase 4:Diffused efforts undermine the very clarity that led to our success in the first place.
Wait a minute. The Clarity Paradox is trying to tell us something we might have already deduced from reading the above four statements...
"Success is a catalyst for failure".
Why? This doesn't make any sense? Shouldn't companies that become successful exponentially become more successful?
Apparently, this isn't the case. Many companies that once graced the sidewalks of Wall Street took on "too much", and fell into the trap of over stretching not only their capital, but their intellectual resources as well, as described in further detail in Jim Collin's book, How the Mighty Fall[http://books.google.com/books/about/How_the_Mighty_Fall.html?id=LgtE3DMl7QIC].
The Case of Enric Sala
Enric Sala was for many years a professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. However, he always felt as if there was something missing in his career life. He realized this and then left his job at the prestigious institution to work for National Geographic. While he experienced success there, he was introduced to many new and exciting opportunities that diverted his attention away from his end goal. While he felt closer to what he wanted to do in Washington D.C., he didn't feel quite there yet. His success took away his focus from what he wanted to do. Finally, he became an explorer-in-residence with National Geographic, diving in remote locations and using his proficient in science to drive global science policy decisions. While Enric found success in his previous jobs and had many great opportunities in those fields, he ultimately turned those down to acquire his dream job.
[http://www.ted.com/talks/enric_sala.html Hear More about Eric…]
A Case for Less
How do companies learn from The Clarity Paradox and Enric Sala? There are two conclusions from this case study that can be applied to any company--particularly in Synthetic Biology--that can increase organizational performance and pave the road to clarity-derived success.
1. Extreme Criteria:
Creating guiding principles to project ideas and execution in a way similar to uncluttering a desk or closet is important to create space for better, more important things. Synthetic biology companies often focus on a specific niche they excel at. Due to the ever-changing nature of science and innovation, it is increasingly important for companies to find specific markets, skills, and strategies that work best for their products without having to succumb to newer competition.
Specifically, using more extreme criteria to know when it's safe to jump on a new opportunity prevents companies from sifting through hundreds of potential ideas, funding mechanisms, and product avenues. Instead of searching through the equivalent of a phone book of ideas, it becomes more ideal to establish a very strict framework for what should and what should not be pursued, hence, the pursuit of less.
How does this work in practice? Instead of looking for every opportunity available, companies should evaluate the strengths of their team composition and take steps from there. In addition, teams should look for high-priority problems that can be significantly addressed by the team.
If the idea is present but the team is missing, the opposite strategy can be utilized. Searching for the best talent in a niche field of work pays more dividends than finding multiple "jacks of all trades." Large technology ventures like the Iridium project, for example, used this strategy to grow a group of 20 business leaders into a multi-billion dollar venture.
2. Ask "What's Essential?":
Life is like the second law of thermodynamics. It keeps getting messy. Like picking up a book, reading half of it, and moving on to another, companies often pick up multiple intrapreneurship ideas and run with them to the halfway point. Rather, by focusing on less and maximizing the potential of the best, and only the best, opportunities stated by the "extreme criteria", organizations can continue to develop stronger ideas into successful products and services. Similarly, following the strategy of either completing or eliminating an old project before beginning a new one prevents the addition of new activities that might divert focus away from more important ventures.
Apple is a great example of this strategy. Many computer companies make the same types of products--laptops, desktops, tablets, and in some cases, mobile phones. Many of these companies make multiple versions of their products, each with different features, design schemes, software, and specifications. However, Apple took just one unifying design scheme for its computer products. While the technical specifications of each product differ, the overall product design is the same. Following Simon Sinek's model of putting the WHY question first, Apple took one simple vision and transformed it into the most prosperous organization on the planet.
These conclusions don't necessarily mean we should say No to everything, but rather that companies should be very selective in their choices and eliminate pieces that take up time that could have been more productivity used elsewhere to progress the ultimate goal of the organization.
It seems that in order to bake a cake of success, the key is throwing in less, not more.
