It's not just about doing business in an interconnected world. It's what doing business in that fashion means for the identity of the firm itself. If the network you build is the key to creating the valuable products, services and experiences to those who pay for them (the people formerly known as "customers") the question is, how to build the "best" network you can (whatever that might mean). That's clearly a different question than figuring out how to build a company and owning everything inside its walls.
When you build a company and own everything, the nature of the relationships that exist in that company follow traditional authority models, regardless of the personal philosophies of those running it. But networked relationships demand entirely different kinds of relationships, less permanent, less structurally reliable, more voluntary, more coordinated, more "intimate." The characteristics of those relationships more closely resemble those of other intimate relationships we have: respectful, mutual, authentic, trustworthy.
The problem is, we barely know how to build those relationships in our personal lives...how will we build them when there's money on the line? These changes will require a dramatic rethinking of the rules of business.
Thursday night's debate was a demonstration of the connected vs dominate world view on the political stage.
Posted by: Connie | October 02, 2004 at 10:40 AM
The "go it alone" (essentially alone, that is) theme does mirror the old model of the firm. The dilemma is the sense of unpredictability inherent in establishing a network to accomplish critical tasks. "Owning" the resources encourages us to believe the outcomes we seek are predictable; enables us to "control our own destiny."
I think it will be very difficult to loosen the certitude created by this mindset.
Posted by: Tom Guarriello | October 03, 2004 at 01:49 PM