Like Faris, I’m a big fan of recombinant culture. It’s the framework that underlies many the things that most capture my imagination.
The example of this that I’ve been thinking about recently has to do with the remixing of the “Philosopher” with the “Man of Action.” Of course, the most visible symbol of this comes from looking at our past presidents. Clinton, was replaced by Bush, who has been replaced by a blending of both in Obama.
It seems to me that this is a framework that’s also useful in describing some of what’s happening in our industry. We can see this in the blurring of production-oriented companies and strategy-oriented companies. I’m obviously heavily biased but I think there’s a new-found respect for strategy, but only when paired with technical ability and not when delivered by traditional consultancies. On an individual level our icons aren’t the thinkers or the doers but instead they’re more interesting blends like Noah who makes the stuff he thinks about, and thinks about the stuff he makes.
I don’t think this is a coincidence, I think this is happening because this is precisely the combination that we need to deal with the times we live in.
As the problems facing brands become more and more complex, so too do the solutions. Even the most meager social media presence can’t be comprehensively thought through or planned, nor can it simply be managed through doing alone. It seems to me that the right approach is to think as you act, to learn while you practice, to develop systems and frameworks through doing.
As the complexity of our work increases, the need for this approach becomes even greater. While it’s tempting to try to spend longer thinking about more complex problems, it’s often more productive to actually start doing them sooner. However, complex solutions require more stakeholders, so there’s an even greater need for developing frameworks and ways of thinking about what we do that can be taught and transferred.
There are, of course, fairly significant business-model barriers in bringing together these two different kinds of skills in a company. Production skills are often billed on an hourly basis, while strategy is typically priced based upon value. However, I think that the more difficult barriers are cultural. These two archetypes have historically been polar opposites and simply putting together people who embody one aspect with people who embody the other is a recipe for disaster.
In order to move a production company into a more strategic area, you’re probably going to have to alter your production staff too. Similarly if you’ve been a strategic company and you want to start doing, you might want to look at replacing your strategic resources first.
Archetypal people create archetypal companies and if your goal is to create a new kind of organization these kinds of people don’t really have a place.
Like Faris, I’m a big fan of recombinant culture. It’s the framework that underlies many the things that most capture my imagination.
The example of this that I’ve been thinking about recently has to do with the remixing of the “Philosopher” with the “Man of Action.” Of course, the most visible symbol of this comes from looking at our past presidents. Clinton, was replaced by Bush, who has been replaced by a blending of both in Obama.
It seems to me that this is a framework that’s also useful in describing some of what’s happening in our industry. We can see this in the blurring of production-oriented companies and strategy-oriented companies. I’m obviously heavily biased but I think there’s a new-found respect for strategy, but only when paired with technical ability and not when delivered by traditional consultancies. On an individual level our icons aren’t the thinkers or the doers but instead they’re more interesting blends like Noah who makes the stuff he thinks about, and thinks about the stuff he makes.
I don’t think this is a coincidence, I think this is happening because this is precisely the combination that we need to deal with the times we live in.
As the problems facing brands become more and more complex, so do the solutions. Even the most meager social media presence can’t be comprehensively thought through or planned, nor can it simply be managed through doing alone. It seems to me that the right approach is to think as you act, to learn while you practice, to develop systems and frameworks through doing.
As the complexity of our work increases, the need for this approach becomes even greater. While it’s tempting to try to spend longer thinking about more complex problems, it’s often more productive to actually start doing them sooner. However, complex solutions require more stakeholders, so there’s an even greater need for developing frameworks and ways of thinking about what we do that can be taught and transferred.
There are, of course, fairly significant business-model barriers in bringing together these two different kinds of skills in a company. Production skills are often billed on an hourly basis, while strategy is typically priced based upon value. However, I think that the more difficult barriers are cultural. These two archetypes have historically been polar opposites and simply putting together people who embody one aspect with people who embody the other is a recipe for disaster.
In order to move a production company into a more strategic area, you’re probably going to have to alter your production staff too. Similarly if you’ve been a strategic company and you want to start doing, you might want to look at replacing your strategic resources first.
Technorati Tags: agencies, production, skills, strategy
Possibly related posts
Tags: agencies, production, skills, strategy
This entry was posted
on Thursday, December 17th, 2009 at 12:16 pm and is filed under industry.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Ryan Houts Says:
December 17th, 2009 at 5:35 pmI think this applies to my life.
“It seems to me that the right approach is to think as you act, to learn while you practice…”
And also to bowling.
But not to buying fine art.
Larry Johnson Says:
December 17th, 2009 at 9:53 pmOnce again Adrian articulates a thought that's been bouncing around half-formed in my head. Thanks.
anaandjelic Says:
December 18th, 2009 at 11:21 pmHi Adrian,
In organizational theory, recombination is not enough to address complex problems. Instead, it is a productive friction between multiple perspectives that secures continued adaptation in the face of complexity.
More often than not, these days we start client’s challenges without really knowing in advance what the solution will be. We also don’t know which solution will succeed. This is because we are not addressing a specific, neatly formulated problem – we are addressing the whole complex brand’s environment.
Innovation involves bringing together incompatible and diverse points of view, and this process is not harmonious. Every time there’s a successful recombination (think Twitter, for example: it’s a combination between people’s tendency to lifestream and a txt-like technology), it is only because the technology and strategy worked from the starting point of their differences. The Twitter team didn’t know what they will come up with, simply because they didn’t in advance formulate the problem as “let’s make Twitter.”
If they did, then the question of innovation would be the one of mere implementation – which is what people who are savvy in both strategy and technology, like Noah, do: they are capable of implementing their ideas. But, these days, we need hell lot more than just implementation.
So, rather than altering your production staff or replacing your strategic resources, it’s better to let them keep their differences and make them interact as much as possible. In the resulting productive friction, there hide solutions for complex problems.
p.s. Schumpeter did say that innovation is recombination. But, he also said that innovation is deeply disruptive of the things that we, as strategists or as technologists, take for granted in our work. This means that the more disagreements and disruptions we can create in our organizations, the better off we will be.
adrianho Says:
December 19th, 2009 at 12:49 amHi Ana,
You make a good point, it is definitely true that progress or innovation often come from friction but I think Creative Destruction is really only a pragmatic strategy if you are willing to discard whatever is left behind and commit fully to the new thing. Within the context of an already functioning agency/company, that's a difficult strategy to take.
We have direct experience of this. At one point we thought about trying to create a model like Zeus Jones within Fallon. We realised it was impossible because it would immediately jeopardize the existing relationships and contracts that paid for 90% of the people there. In order to fully commit., we'd have been forced to walk away from old revenue models and try to create brand new contracts with existing clients. The only way for us to do what we wanted to do was to free ourselves from having to align with the past.
On Schumpeter, I do think there's an interesting line of thinking to be pursued around whether the absolutism that underlies Creative Destruction is as relevant today in our postmodern society. Postmodern technique which is what underlies recombinant culture is all about explicitly rejecting sharp divisions between things and I think that a more modern way to think about innovation is through remixing and recombining fragments from the past to create something brand new.
Thanks for the comment, good stuff to think about.
anaandjelic Says:
December 19th, 2009 at 1:23 amHi Adrian – you are right; organizational innovation (and organization for innovation) is a slow process. (and, of course you are right in your view on Schumpeter's Creative Destruction; while it sounds great in theory, its implementation is questionable in practice).
I was, though, trying to focus specifically on “productive friction” as a step further from “recombinant culture” – it's not just about combining things that belong to different domains of expertise (strategy and technology) but to draw solutions precisely from their differences.
This is the distinction I was trying to make between innovation and implementation – implementation works when you know the solution in advance. You innovate when you have no idea what the solution is.
And innovation involves bringing together incompatible and diverse points of view (recombination), and this process is not smooth and harmonious (friction).
e-Strategy Internet Marketing Blog Says:
December 21st, 2009 at 8:44 amMinnesota Monday – Communications Bloggers Posts From Last Week…
Interesting posts from Minnesota communications bloggers for the week ending 12/20/09. Culled from the Minnesota Social Media Bloggers FriendFeed room.
……
faris Says:
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:41 pmbring different pov and typologies together = good.
Polymath / hybrid thinkers = required to facilitate product friction, translate between the two, synthesize and make the awesome
http://farisyakob.typepad.com/blog/2009/04/spri...
Combinando Habilidades de Novas Maneiras « PITACO Says:
March 16th, 2010 at 1:19 pm[...] original escrito por Adrian Ho, da Zeus Jones, aqui. TAGS Adrian Ho, Artigo, estratégia, Habilidades CATEGORIAS Artigos tweetmeme_url = [...]