intro’d to Esko here.. via share by Bernd:
first published in 2014
Esko Kilpi is founder and principal in Esko Kilpi Oy, a leading research and consultancy firm working with the challenges of knowledge work and digital work environments. The organization is based in Helsinki, Finland. In addition to his work as an executive adviser Esko Kilpi takes part in academic research and lectures on the topics of organizational learning, knowledge based view of the firm and interaction technologies in Nordic countries, Europe, Middle-East, Far-East and USA.
Knowledge work is not about jobs, but about tasks and interaction between interdependent people
It is not the corporation that is in the center, but the intentions and choices of individuals. This view of work focuses attention on the way ordinary, everyday work-tasks should enrich life and perpetually create the future we truly want through continuous creative learning. Work and learning are the same thing.
rev of everyday life ness
The organization is not a given hierarchy, but an ongoing process of responsive organizing
Success is increasingly a result from skillful participation: it is about how we are present and how we communicate.
In old age the emphasis shifts from doing to being, and our civilization, which is lost in doing, know nothing of being. It asks: being? What do you do with it? – Eckhart Tolle
Today, we stand on the threshold of an economy where the fundamental processes of coordination are being transformed. Familiar economic entities are becoming increasingly irrelevant as the Internet, not the traditional organization, becomes the most efficient means to coordinate effort and exchange value.
The big opportunity is in new relational forms that don’t mimic the governance models of industrial firms.
Rather than thinking of organization as an imposed structure, plan or design, organization arises from the interactions of interdependent individuals who need to come together.
The way I see it, the lack of a connecting agenda may be one of the big challenges facing the emerging post-industrial society.
Most of the information that is relevant will be discovered and created during the execution of the task, not before. As a result it is not always possible for a manager and a worker to agree on a coherent approach in advance. Nor is it normally possible to follow a predetermined process map. The variables of creative work have increased beyond systemic models of process design.[..]systemic change, much more than just kicking out the bad managers and inviting new, better managers in.
It is not necessarily about common goals or shared purposes any more. Linear/mechanistic and systemic/organic concepts of an enterprise reduced variety. A complex/social business concept increases variety. This leads to greater responsiveness and agility
Things are inherently unpredictable and uncertain. There is no linearity in the world of human beings. This is why our thinking needs to develop from the sciences of certainty to something more applicable, the sciences of social complexity.[..]All human systems are connected and connected systems cannot be understood in terms of independent parts. The study of isolated parts offers little help in understanding how the parts self-organize and what emerges as the result of network connections. The notion of emergence is central. The aim is to discover emergent patterns.
When we talk about relations, we often take false examples from nature: for example murmuration and bird flocks. We are well aware that the V shape of a bird flock does not result from one bird being selected as the leader, and the other birds lining up behind the leader. Instead, each bird’s behaviour is based on its position relative to nearby birds. And yes, the bird flock demonstrates a striking feature of emergent phenomena. But the birds do not need to figure out the rules of flight that guide how they organize themselves. These rules of self-organization are genetically hardwired. Nature provides this for the birds. Birds then are not “free like birds”.
When it comes to people it is a very different story. Mother nature does not provide deterministic rules for cooperation. We are free to choose, or not to choose, our own ways of doing things together. Accordingly we are ourselves responsible for formulating the principles we use to organize our life.
Social systems are thus fundamentally different from natural mechanisms. Sciences of social complexity are not the same as sciences of complexity.
The biggest problem is that we still believe that the unit of work is the independent individual. Self-organization is then thought to mean a form of empowerment, or a do-whatever-you-like environment, in which anybody can choose freely what to do. But connected, interdependent people can never simply do what they like. If this happened, they would very soon be excluded. The relational view of social complexity means that all individuals constrain and enable each other all the time. We co-create our reality and the common narrative.
The task today is to understand what social technologies, social complexity and networks really mean. The next management paradigm is going to be based on these.
because we do have choice.. how to facilitate that..
2014 – Metrics in Knowledge-Based Organizations
not transactional but interactional…
the idea that the relationship changes toward more interaction….. work is not repetitive… the situations are created and we learn.. rather than goals in future…
now.. more important to be very aware of what is actually going… instead of focus on goals.. focus on what is happening..
strategy is choices we make in regard to what we do and what we don’t do…
startup scene has taught us the idea of pivoting/changing course.. by far only way to survive in rapidly changing environments..
you don’t want to reduce opportunities.. you want to be more aware of what those opportunities might be and want to create more opportunities…better we are at sensing and responding…
the way we understand what is happening around us is based on not so much what we can see but what we can do
7 min – in order to be successful in mobile tech – need to be good at 1/ hardware stack, 2\ radio stack (single processing side), 3\ application stack
as you don’t have the skills.. you don’t see what is going on… the better we are at sensing/responding.. understanding what we can’t/don’t see regarding opportunities… better off we’ll be
from reporting to someone else to reflecting myself… the new competence.. and yet.. normally in everyday life today.. there is no room for this…
personal development… mass society was about generic models… this is the whole way we school/educate people.. what is good for you is also good for me… and that is total nonsense… imperative to understand… how the slightest difference in two people and two moments in time.. changes the whole picture…
11 min – if you see books/ideas where you are supposed to close gaps.. leave immediately..
ellen langer – as discrimination increases, prejudice decreases
new skill for everyone – pattern recognition
learning is not from outside.. but from people around you.. what is going on .. and specific.. how you interpret it.. so.. your ability to be better at interpretation is one of key skills of knowledge work
i have a problem with quantified self movement… we are always learning in interaction… we never learn alone… a basic thing in quantified self.. is focus on way you do things diff than others… learning is always finding out differences in doing things…
we are deeply social.. no one of us can do changes.. it’s the world changing and you changing all at the same time…
what i’m really asking myself and i don’t have an answer.. is whether it is quantified self.. or if it is quantified …?
the real thing is to be social and see where we can go from there
18 min – data w/o interpretation is just trash – we have to be self referential.. if someone looks at my data w/o understanding the context.. it doesn’t help me… time and place matters… 1 yr discussion w/boss doesn’t help me
19 min – the sense and respond world takes the context very seriously .. but also takes very rapid learning loop as the basic way of doing things.. i need to be able to interpret my data every day
the quantified self movements value .. is in it being social.. and data points can’t be once a month et al.. we make wrong interpretations.. we have a lot of data but we interpret very badly.. discuss how to be better in reflecting… talking about it..
perhaps again too.. in what data we’re focusing on..
from waggle dance page:
after listening to Louis Rosenberg.. and previously to Esko Kilpi (where he said we aren’t hardwired like ie: birds that swarm because we choose/think.. but believing in my mind that we are hard wired to dance together as one.. per individual whimsy) wondering if tech can help augment ni/one ness.. the convo of one ness.. by slowing down the (rapid prototyping to slow ness) waggle interaction (well – not really slowing… more time warping..rather than what Louis is seeking or seems to be seeking with his magnet pulling puck) so that we can both shorten the distance/lag time between intention and action.. as well as lengthen/relax (allow for an echo ic chamber ish) the time to decide/think/reflect..
so.. looking into this just now.. be\cause..
perhaps the biggest myth leading us to group think.. is thinking that we have to choose/negotiate toward one decision..
perhaps the waggle dance.. is more about offering choices/directions.. w/no compromise, rather than get us all deciding on ie: one place to move to. because now tech is capable enough.. to ground the chaos.. and facilitate our whimsy and finding our tribe..rather than coercing us toward a group decision.
watching Louis’s unu magnets drive the puck.. unsettling. all i could think of was.. coercion.. popular persuasion.. too fast to think/reflect.
fb share by Jon:
It is only a few network connections away
If the median was just below six in 1967, it is safe to assume that the researchers who claim that the same number today is below four, or even lower, may be right.
i’m thinking pi degrees..
The populist thinking still follows the logic that we can choose not to be interdependent. We can build walls and opt out.
This is not possible because what really happens arises in the complex interplay of all the network actors with all their intentions, which is why leaders cannot choose outcomes although they can choose their next action.
We often create things together that nobody wants to create.
The important implication is that meaning does not then arise independently in each actor first to be then subsequently expressed in action. Actions are not independent. Meaning is not attached to any single act but is perpetually created in interaction. Cognition is relational.
We cannot ignore or opt out. It is not possible. We need to take part in the bucket brigades, and not only when our own house is on fire. Quoting Hannah Arendt:
“No more is required, and no more can reasonably be asked, for this planet to remain a place fit for human habitation”
Jen Hetzel Silbert (@jhsilbert) tweeted at 4:21 AM – 11 May 2017 :
THIS. “A new agenda connecting people and business” — @EskoKilpi https://t.co/e4AbYqLgWT#TechHire #OpportunityatWork #futureofwork #TheBIF https://t.co/wNVYxez6Ya(http://twitter.com/jhsilbert/status/862613608638947328?s=17)
The fewer the words, the fewer the ideas, the narrower the thinking and the less power in people’s minds. The language of this totalitarian world was called “newspeak”.
begs we go idio jargon
I interpret “Onlyness” as a form of responsibility that grows from your own context. *Response-ability, the ability to choose what you do, will be one of the key work skills in the future. It is the polar opposite of the learned helplessness created during the industrial era. Learned helplessness is a belief that we are at the mercy of external forces – the managers, the employers and the markets – and not in control of what is happening to us.
*response sounds like at mercy of external forces..
Knowledge of your abilities, interests, strengths and weaknesses is essential to becoming response-able in *choosing and changing your career. These are the most important criteria. However, the overwhelming majority of **job seekers react to purely external things, the conditions created by employers or financial pressures.
*back to limiting our words.. ie: career..?
**isn’t job seeking purely external..?
We need a new agenda connecting people and businesses!
What does not change in the future of work (video) bit.ly/2thucN4
work: what you do to solve other people’s problems
work changes from transactional to interactional
today.. capacity to produced is being democratized
asymmetric to symmetric relations..
we don’t have enough experiments of symmetric relations
basically.. it’s a question of what kinds of problems we solve.. what kinds of questions we ask..
is there a problem deep enough to resonate with 7 bn people today.. ?
let’s solve that first
@RiaBaeck (via Esko rt)
*Work is always solving other people’s problems and what defines those problems is that to understand them and to solve them, a person has to think not only about what she believes the right answer is, but also about what other people have seen and learned. What they think the right answers could be. Work, then, is exploration both what comes to defining the problems and finding the solutions. The network is the key resource. Every valuable piece of learning can be put to use by someone else, or somewhere else. At best, then, work is remixing and recombining successful elements to create new versions.
so that rather than ‘solving other people’s problems’ .. we spend time listening to our own hearts ..
Under circumstances of rapid technological change, the management challenge is not better planning and control, but creation of protocols that make possible *openness to possibilities.
Firms are *social and legal constructs. They are what we think firms are. It is time to renew our old construct of the firm as a newer version, a creativity- and network effects-based view of the firm, utilizing **tokens and smart contracts. The democratization of technology that is taking place at the moment does not guarantee social change, but it does create opportunities for totally new social/financial practices.
Jon Husband (@jonhusband) tweeted at 8:13 PM – 9 Sep 2017 :
“The future of management” by @EskoKilpi https://t.co/S05nXUvuqc (http://twitter.com/jonhusband/status/906702082698366977?s=17)
It is about individuals acting with each other according to the fewest number of rules that can produce global, emergent patterns of coherent, interactive behavior.
let’s try just two rules.. ie: 33 min a day .. 2 convos
goal is not to reach consensus
Post-blockchain smart contracts make possible, t.. in economically viable ways, that person A can be part in the work/learning of person B. B again plays part in the work/learning of person C, who plays part in the work/learning of A. Work is by default networked cognition. Value creation is event-based and contextually highly interdependent cooperation.
pre-blockchain listen/facil-curiosity (hlb) make possible for 7 bn to follow their whimsy.. as highly interdependent coop
This is why the goal is not to reach consensus. What an organization becomes emerges from the relationships of its members rather than being chosen by some individuals.
not competitive selection, but interactive cooperation.
Jon fb share
Something we should all be thinking about, because it will have impact on each of us.
The central idea behind ‘work’ is not going to change; work is always solving other people’s problems. ..t.. What is changing are the problems and how we solve them.
or maybe.. what will change is that we will no longer be solving other people’s problems.. (ie: time to move beyond schooling the world ness)
This model of business — solving a problem and then imposing the solution on customers — remained relevant up until the 90’s
till the 90s..?
Companies assumed the customers would consume their product forever because they were deprived of real choice. However, with the advent of the Internet, every market became saturated. And when supply and demand are imbalanced, that means that *customers can choose, and suddenly companies have to scramble to figure out something new the customer wants.
*not really.. ie: krishnamurti free will law
perhaps.. we no longer have.. customers and companies.. just people..
yes.. thinking today fb convo w Michel – and oikos ness
Esko suggests that the customer-company relationship went from transactional to interactional. All products are network phenomenon, based on context-specific interactions with customers and scaled up. If I run a company, I can no longer assume I know more than the customer. Rather, I enter a relationship of inter-dependent learning, defining the customer’s problem. *Instead of creating products, we have to create customers.
how about just creating art..
We are currently in a transitional phase between old models of business and new customer-company relationships
i don’t think so.. i think leaping to life sans customer/co
Esko predicts that this new business model will change organizational structure in a radical new fashion by replacing stockholders with customers. By using cryptocurrencies to exchange their usage rights for a stake in the company, customers will be able to feel involved in the inception of the business while the company grows and develops.
dang.. if all the tech we have now.. is only going to replace stockholders w customers..? so that customers will be able to feel involved..?
Esko predicts that the next 10 years will see a radical transformation of each main market actor: the company, the customer, the stakeholder, the worker. Instead of a hierarchical system of transactions, we will witness the rise of a more democratic and balanced model of inter-dependent influencers who will collaborate on all *aspects of commerce, ..t.. from the inception of new businesses to how the product or service is produced and maintained.
if we wake/brave up.. possibility in next few years to disengage from aspects of commerce..
Esko Kilpi (@EskoKilpi) tweeted at 4:10 AM – 25 Nov 2017 :
The future goal is to help individuals into relationships that balance complementarity, the growth of human capital and symmetric claims to long-term financial returns
Properly understood, technology is less about replacing people than it is about connecting them to each other and to their customers in totally new ways. (http://twitter.com/EskoKilpi/status/934378849151877121?s=17)
humanely understood, tech is less about replacing people than about connecting them to each other and to their curiosities in totally new ways.