The application for Transitioning a Mixed-mode Vehicle to Autonomous Mode was applied for in May, but had been hidden from public view until this week.  Patent experts note that Google’s patent will not prevent others developing rival self-drive vehicles.

“This patent, which is effective in the US only, would only be enforceable to prevent other companies from using the same specific method and not to prevent other companies also providing autonomous vehicles in general,” said Andrew Alton, a patent attorney at Urquhart-Dykes & Lord.

Apparently Google has been testing a fleet of driverless cars for several years.  The test cars have travelled along Highway 1 between Los Angeles and San Francisco, over the Golden Gate Bridge and elsewhere. Two humans were on board at the time – one to oversee the driving and intervene if necessary, the other to monitor the equipment from the passenger seat.

On hearing this, we here at Zeitgeist got to thinking about the ‘self driving organization’ – a Nirvana state where everyone understands where to focus and leadership to drive the organization becomes just an outdated business practice.  Then we remembered that unlike a technical object with no feelings, conscience and will, human beings are significantly complex beings that require leadership to maximize their potential.

While the concept of organizational self-governance has been studied for years, perhaps the Brazilian firm Semco SA is the only organization to have successfully managed industrial democracy with any degree of success.  Ricardo Semlar’s organization has been visited by many major companies and yet the move to copy the model has been non-existent despite the growth and financial rewards achieved by Semco through their model.

To this end then, it seems like we are destined to continue down the investment in leadership path as we deal with complex adaptive systems more commonly labeled as humans.  The move away from command and control to more of a self governing culture is certainly more appropriate for the latest generation of employees but for us at least, leadership and good governance is here to stay.

Experts say driverless cars could become a commercial prospect sooner than most people believe.  For leaderless organizations the prognosis is not so good…

Prior to this performance they were famous for being on the wrong end of the worst soccer defeat in International Football history, when they crashed to no less than perpetual football under-performers Australia, by the incredible score of 31-0 back in 2001.

So, on this Thanksgiving weekend here is one team that has a lot to be thankful for and observers at the match likened their celebrations to those of a team that had won a World Cup or Champions League title!  And, as an estimated 45 million Americans travel this weekend to celebrate with a turkey dinner, there will be a small community of Samoans perhaps enjoying the occasion that much more.

The story is an inspiring tale of relentlessly pursuing results despite continual set-backs.  At times we visit clients where many set-backs have been experienced and it appears (certainly to them) that they are never going to win.  How then do we coach them to maintain the focus and motivation to keep going?

The answer is as complex as it is simple in concept…  Vision.

Having a clear vision of the desired end state is key.  By focusing on the end game, the result or the future state (call it what you will), the leadership team will retain the faith that they are doing the right things and, like our American Samoan friends, eventually get the win.  We often mention the ability of leaders to see the future threats of Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity as espoused by the futurologist Bob Johansen.  By doing so we can focus on the antidote – Vision, Understanding, Clarity and Agility.

The modern leader needs to be relentless in pursuit of the vision and the results… It is, after all, the results that count!

As for American Samoa it is yet to be determined if this run of form will continue beyond the one game winning streak but we will be watching the forthcoming results closely.

• A volatile financial and economic crisis.
• The ‘corporatization’ of national politics.
• An increasingly vocal ‘disenfranchised 99%’.
• Increasingly ineffective political leadership – particularly in Europe.
• Growing nationalistic rhetoric.
• Rampant insider trading and overt market manipulation.
• Sudden bank runs driven by a collective loss of confidence in the banking sector.
• Demands for cash bailouts from China after ‘friendly’ economic partners fail to respond effectively.
• The manipulation of border controls leading to mass migration.

Although it might look like a precis of last night’s news, this is the backdrop to James Clavell’s Noble House – published 30 years ago, in 1981 – A fictional novel closely based on life, business and politics in 1963 Hong Kong.  The close parallels with current events suggest that, as ever, there is much to be learned from the events of recent history.

However, if we were to add to this list the latest news regarding the US re-militarization of the Pacific, growing pressure on the Syrian government from the Arab League and the ‘systemic crisis in of the Eurozone‘, it appears that not only is ‘change’ perpetual but that the rate of change is accelerating.

Finally, if the underlying global situation can change so dramatically, so continuously, is it any surprise that ‘change leadership’ and ‘change management capability’ are considered to be the essential, differentiating, skills of the modern leader in business?

The enquiry report published this week points to a poorly maintained stretch of track which caused a train to derail at 92 mph and the sad death of one passenger and 88 others injured as the train left the tracks and crashed down an embankment.

David Lewis, an engineer with the company, broke down in tears on Monday when he told the hearing he had forgotten to inspect the track near where the crash happened.  He said he was “under pressure” when he failed to check a section of the rail line five days before the derailment.

Colleagues confirmed to the inquest that staff had to put up with “bully-boy” management and that the inspection team was under-staffed, not given the right tools or given sufficient time to carry out the necessary and prescribed track checks.  Even more concerning was the fact that Mr. Lewis has previously advised his management team of his concerns with the failures in process and inadequacy of the situation in maintaining a safe rail network.

As leaders we need to take note of such tragedies and the many others like them.  Clearly all businesses face pressures of hitting targets, driving down costs and meeting investor expectations but the focus needs to be on the right things.  Ignoring front line staff concerns, not providing the right tools and not addressing failures in core processes can only lead to failure.

For most of us failure comes in the form of lost revenues, increased costs or staff attrition.  A rail network and similar dangerous industries have higher stakes and people can and do actually lose their lives.

So next time you feel under pressure to take a short cut, ignore a subject matter expert’s concerns or feel the need to drive your employees beyond what is reasonable, take a moment to reflect and consider the consequences.

One of our key mantras here at Zeitgeist is “do the right thing” in all situations.  If you know, understand and do the right thing, results will follow.

In the past year, problems have spread from Greece to the Irish Republic and Portugal, to Spain, and to Italy. Now, even France is beginning to look vulnerable.  As a result, many commentators are of the view that the outcome of this meeting will determine the future of the single currency in Europe.

Once again the situation is described as ‘being on a knife edge’, with the potential economic ramifications, both for the EU and the rest of the world, profound.  And yet there still appears to be a basic lack of consensus amongst Europe’s leadership over the true situation and how best to address it.

At this stage many areas of disagreement remain and many issues still need to be ‘fixed’, including; how best to expand the European Financial Stability Facility (better known as the bailout fund for debt-ridden countries), how to reduce Greece’s debt mountain before it is forced to default and how to protect those banks that are vulnerable as a result of lending to highly-indebted countries.

Of course, the situation is further complicated by political self-interest.  A sub-plot to all the discussions is the realization that a ‘bad deal’ for their own country would dramatically shorten the career of the leader in question.  This is at the heart of the row between France and Germany over Greece’s “haircut”.  In essence, Greece will simply be allowed to pay back less than it actually borrowed. This means those institutions that lent money to Athens will have to write off some of the money they are owed.  France is concerned because its banks have lent more heavily to Greece, and are therefore more exposed, than those in Germany.

So, here we are: a continuing lack of consensus regarding the ‘true’ underlying situation; no agreed plan to address the root causes of the issues; disagreement over priorities and urgency; stakeholders still promoting their own interests ahead of the greater good; systemic slow decision-making and, most worrying, no respected, unifying leadership.

If the EU was a business, its days would be numbered.

By the 4^th of July, America’s founding fathers approved a simple document penned by Jefferson that enumerated their grievances and announced themselves a sovereign nation.  We know this document today as the Declaration of Independence – the founding of a new empire.

It was also totally illegitimate and illegal… or at least that was what lawyers from the UK argued during a debate at Philadelphia’s Ben Franklin Hall on Tuesday night.  The event pitted British barristers against American lawyers to determine whether or not the American colonists had legal grounds to declare secession.

While undoubtedly an interesting debate, we drew parallels in business where we often see client organizations debating at length decisions or issues made in the past that are either irrelevant to the focus on key results or where there is no chance to change the decision that has been made or it is an outcome that cannot be influenced or amended.

Spending time debating such issues is fruitless, unproductive and frankly costs money.  It is also too easy to become victim to past decisions and to blame today’s performance on things determined in the past outside of your tenure or sphere of influence.

We like to remind our clients of the act of driving in such circumstances.  There is a reason that the windshield of a car for looking forward is far bigger than that rearview mirror.  While it is important to remember the past, the good leaders are those that can keep it in context, understand the influence on today’s circumstance but maintain perspective.  The past is not always a good predictor of the future.

If you are interested at all, the final debate vote fell in favour of the American argument, perhaps unsurprisingly bearing in mind that the event was held mere yards from where the original Declaration was drafted…

Without doubt the most tragic event was the untimely death of Apple’s talisman Steve Jobs and, no doubt, his passing puts their recent issues with the poorly executed roll-out of the new iOS 5 Software Update into context.  That said, Apple’s leadership will still be working very hard to divert the attention of both the media and their loyal customers towards the launch of the ‘new’ iPhone 4S instead of the ongoing glitches and concerns with iOS 5.

At almost the same time RIM, who until now were known as ‘the safe, secure and stable’ choice, experienced the worst system failure in the history of their Blackberry Smartphones – causing tens of millions of customers to experience service outages for three days.

What is interesting about these events is the very different approaches the two companies have taken with respect to communicating with their customers and the media.

Apple have long been the masters of ‘good news’ – almost without exception concentrating their considerable resources towards building up the positives (often communicated by the dynamic Mr. Jobs), rolling out endless teaser messages and reinforcing consumer expectations with carefully scripted ‘expert’ analysis as a central cog in their ‘scarcity marketing’ strategy.

Once again, despite a lukewarm reception to the launch of the iPhone 4S and the failed roll-out of iOS 5, Apple has decided to focus on the long line-ups of customers desperate to claim one of their new smartphones before (inevitably) initial demand outstrips initial supply – and scarcity leads to increased desire for the product and increased demand.

Conversely, RIM has regularly failed to achieve the same slickness or impact in its’ marketing and has relied on the differentiated strengths of its products, particularly in the corporate sector, to maintain demand. However, this recent system failure, layered on top of declining sales and eroded share value has perhaps forced RIM to change its’ style.

For example, this week saw an extremely rare joint appearance of RIM co-CEO’s Mike Lazardis and Jim Balsillie at a press conference on Thursday morning where they personally apologized for the technical failings.  Until then, the company had been criticized by customers for not giving out sufficient information about the problem and even as late as Wednesday evening, neither CEO had even spoken about the problem.

Is this the start of a new communication strategy for RIM?  Recent research has shown that companies that communicate effectively have a 19.4% higher net market premium than companies that do not.  Furthermore that effective communication is a leading indicator of future financial performance.  Could it be that Mike and Jim have realised they need to take a very different approach if RIM is to survive, let alone excel?

Improving Communication in Practice

In reality improving communication is far more challenging than simply having your joint CEO’s rock up to a press conference to eat a slice of humble pie. However, all organization leaders and managers have a critical role to play in communication and especially so if it is internal to the organization.

Here are the top 8 areas for any leader to consider if they want to improve communication in their organization:

Purpose :  Be clear before you start of what you wish to achieve.  Is this an internal or external message? If you are seeking to motivate, re-engage or educate your team, the focus and content of the message will be very different from an external piece intended to shift market value.

Predictability :  Give as much information as you can about what will happen and when.  If difficult decisions are preceded by fair warnings, the impact is greatly lessened.  But keep the information focused and relevant to those on your team – the high level statements will take care of themselves.

Understanding & Context :   Explain why any changes being made are necessary.  Provide some context in terms of the bigger picture.  If you don’t know yourself, then make sure you find out before you start explaining to your team.

Control :  Take the complex scenario and break it down into bite sized and manageable steps. Get some early wins.  If you can’t control what is going to happen, at least provide the option for your people to have input into how it’s going to happen.  Change being done with you is much more preferable than being done to you.

Perspective :  Understand what is being communicated from the other person’s perspective not just your own.  What is the message saying and how will they feel about it… Work hard to demonstrate empathy.

Accountability : Communication within the team is the manager’s responsibility.  If the change is potentially unpleasant, the temptation is to blame it all on the senior managers but accountability rests with you.  Translate the corporate goals into tangible, real world messages for your team.

Frequency :  In calm waters you can let the boat drift but in stormy seas you need a firm hand on the tiller.  Raise the frequency of formal communication events such as team meetings, one to ones and regular updates.

The Grape Vine :  Finally you need to influence the grape vine.  Keep your ear to the ground; organize some social occasions; go for a beer after work.  Test the mood within the team and catch up on the gossip.  These informal events are good for taking the temperature but they work both ways.  Items discussed informally in a social environment often find their way back into the workplace so you can use the grapevine to reinforce critical understanding.

The reality is that communication is often talked about but rarely done effectively.  The corporate communication strategy is important but, internally, the real communication goes on at the team and manager level and it is here that the real value of effective communication can be found.

Despite the best laid plans, unfortunately the original pig had to be replaced as, according to a spokeswoman for the band, “Two weeks prior to the event, the original neoprene glued pig was officially declared not airworthy and a brand new high-frequency welded PVC replica Pink Floyd Pig has been made for the occasion.”

The event, titled ‘Why Pink Floyd?’ showcased an array of new goodies from the band, including a brand-new “Best Of” album, restored live concert screen films and previously unreleased material.  None of the remaining band members attended the event.

The phrase “pigs might fly” is a figure of speech so hyperbolic that it describes an impossibility. The implication is that the circumstances in question will never occur and the phrase is often used to scoff at over-ambition.

This might be the case with Rick Parry, the US presidential hopeful.  It’s too soon to say that Rick Perry’s campaign is over, but things look bad for him.  He still leads the Republican field in national polls, but three terrible debate performances have weakened him. The latest New Hampshire poll puts him in fourth place in what is a crucial state.  His positions on immigration and compulsory vaccinations have tipped off conservatives that he isn’t as Right-wing as they thought and his description of Social Security as a Ponzi scheme has alienated centrists.  Mitt Romney has cynically but brilliantly exploited Perry’s radical rhetoric to suggest that he can’t beat Obama.  Romney is turning into a 2012 version of Richard Nixon – slippery and ruthless, yet well attuned to the public mood.

So, perhaps someone who hasn’t so far declared is suddenly worth a second look?  For months now political commentators have been saying that Sarah Palin (remember her?) is damaged goods.  Her performances in the last election and subsequent appearances on a reality show have deservedly left her open to ridicule in certain quarters.  But is it possible that Mrs. Palin has actually been playing a brilliant long game… letting the other candidates beat each other up before entering the fray?

Palin is low on personnel and campaign funding but the Tea Party knows who she is and will still back her if there is no viable conservative alternative.  Apparently she is just five points behind President Obama in a hypothetical match-up – a better position than Rick Perry!  Political commentators must surely be rubbing their hands in anticipation.

The reality though is that at this point, we are no closer to knowing who will take on President Obama in 2012.  As for Sarah Palin?  Perhaps pigs might just take to the air…

Clearly these figures are representative of a systemic failure of ‘the standard’ approach to recruitment, but how can this actually happen?  By way of illustration, we conducted a straw poll of 100 senior leaders in a variety of industry sectors and asked them a simple question… “How up to date is your resume?”

In reality, we expected the majority to say that their resume was at least moderately out of date but we were surprised to hear that over 70% of the senior leaders questioned don’t even have a resume and, in fact, they don’t recall the last time they responded to a career advertisement. 

Ask those same individuals if they were seeking to attract another senior leader to their organization what might a benchmark profile look like, and they will usually refer to one of the existing leadership group.

So what? Well, this means that in reality the person you really want to hire is not actually seeking a new role and is almost certainly not looking at your ad online or in the newspaper, no matter how nice, big, or expensive it is.

Let’s assume that you’ve reached the point where you have decided to hire a recruitment firm.  Your research into the many companies available should result in a fairly rapid realization that the majority of firms base their business models on an extension of the advertising model, supported by an extensive database of applicant resumes.

However, we’ve already established that virtually none of the leadership team has a resume registered with anyone and, if they did, they are not at this point interested in “other opportunities”.  Many of the larger retained firms do work hard to maintain an extensive network of contacts but, if that was exhaustive, we would never see recruitment firms advertising.

The approach to recruitment projects has evolved over the years but the majority of projects are still defined by senior management before being delegated, usually to an internally focused human resources department.

The problem here is that the human resource profession has been the primary contributor to the development of data management systems which are designed to generate, sort and screen resumes; a system which is shared by the majority of recruitment firms.  While these systems have proven effective in surplus markets, they have no place where critical, qualified, resources are known to be in deficit.  The caliber and quantity of options are negatively impacted and business objectives compromised.

The thing is that critical and strategic recruitment initiatives need to be just that – critical and strategic.

A recruitment project needs to be managed in similar fashion to a major business development initiative.  The target market needs to be exhaustively researched to identify information that can be utilized in the development of an acquisition plan.  The recruitment ROI (the fiscal return that should be achieved as a direct result of recruiting the ‘ideal’ individual) also needs to be determined.  Once all the viable targets have been assessed, the “ideal” options can be professionally introduced to a market aligned business plan with clearly defined contribution and benefit points that represent a logical career transition and professional acceleration opportunity.

We must acknowledge that no one voluntarily changes employment without significant expectation of improvement.  Those performing at a high level are typically receiving the professional and financial recognition to keep them engaged and unlikely to seriously consider casually presented options.  While there are definitely exceptions, they are just that, exceptions, and most business leaders would not want to base their business’s future on that.

This commentary is certainly based on current market conditions but, based on the demographics alone, available and accessible talent is expected to decrease for the foreseeable future.  Those organizations which are first to recognize that they are not the “buyer” in this market and who develop programs to define, pursue and acquire the caliber of talent essential to long term business growth, will be the ones to prosper.

This week’s guest blogger is leading human capital strategist, Mike Palmer.

Mike is a partner with Chapman & Associates, a human capital consultancy which supports clients with business intelligence, counter measure strategies and aligned advisory services to establish the ‘acquisition of expertise’ as their competitive advantage.  Mike can be reached at m.palmer@chapmanassociates.ca

It seems that each Blockbuster store employs an average of 10 people, meaning about 2,500 people could be out of work in addition to the 1,400 people who lost their jobs during the first round of store closures earlier this summer.

So what happened to this once dominant global player?  According to the Receiver last week “As a result of the significant changes in Blockbuster Canada Co.’s competitive landscape, the company’s ‘bricks and mortar’ business model has experienced significant challenges over the last few years, largely due to the proliferation of various alternatives available to media consumers in Canada.”

By way of background, in May this year Blockbuster Canada was placed into receivership by an Ontario court as a result of a combined US$70 million claim made by a number of movie distributors, including the Hollywood studios that provide its DVDs.

Previously the Canadian operations had acted as a guarantor for Blockbuster’s U.S. business, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in September 2010, while it attempted to restructure its debt.  This seemingly last-gasp action was aimed at reducing the company’s debt from circa $1bn to around $100 million, with the hope that it would enable the company to compete with rivals; something that it had not been able to do in recent years.  Blockbuster U.S. was later sold to American satellite TV provider Dish Network Corp, who declined to buy the Canadian operation but left it to pay the bills.  Dish Network also pushed to prevent Blockbuster Canada from using the highly recognized brand name going forward.

It’s all a bit of a mess… but the reality is that Blockbuster had been struggling to stay relevant in a time of increasing digital movie downloads facilitated by the dramatic increase in internet accessibility together with an associated increase in data transfer speeds opened new channels to market.

It’s clear that the Internet and accelerated digital streaming are here to stay and, with ever faster download speeds, the user experience is set to improve even further.  At the same time there has been a fundamental shift in consumer preferences and expectations.

Rivals to Blockbuster, such as Netflix, quickly took advantage of these changes and stormed ahead as they harnessed the opportunities presented.  Blockbuster, on the other hand, struggled to service its debts and the resultant lack of liquidity led them to become increasingly inwardly focused as they fought to stay afloat. As a result, Blockbuster was forced into a turnaround position, reworking its strategy and attempting to differentiate itself from rivals as the only company to provide products across multiple delivery channels.

Our recent blog ‘Navigating Choppy Waters’ spoke about the increasing challenge of staying competitive in increasingly uncertain and rapidly changing economic conditions and detailed the ‘Top 5’ steps every company must take.  The Blockbuster example further demonstrates that in order to compete over the long term, companies must focus externally and on the surrounding business realities and not just internally.