Making Remote Work Work

"Hire the right people. Having remote team members requires that we hire people who can deliver technically while working independently. At the same time, the fact that we do not have to maintain physical offices leaves us room to pay higher wages than others and attract top talent."

"Focus on outcomes. After spending as much effort as we do in bringing the right people into the firm, it only makes sense to set them free. The first and most important step in doing this is to set expectations. We tell our new teammates exactly what outcomes matter to us, and reward them for achieving and exceeding those outcomes."

"Help employees choose, and be responsible for, their own adventure. By determining the right floor and not restricting the ceiling, and by paying for value (once they exceed their outcome, consultants are paid a commission proportional to the additional work they deliver), we put the choice of how hard to work in a consultant’s hands."

"Outside of client work, we allow teammates to invest in other areas, and even provide them resources when required. For instance, we often announce an innovation budget and invite applications to pilot ideas. As a result, our teammates voluntarily design new practice areas, conduct cutting-edge leadership research, and write books. We’ve noticed that our team members adopt a strong sense of commitment to the responsibilities they take on and do not abandon them when the going gets tough. They feel true ownership. Our leadership team ensures that this balance between choice and commitment, and the value of owning the outcome, is a respected, celebrated cultural attribute."

"Centralize thoughtfully. We focus on letting our team members be the “CEOs” of their professional lives, but we have learned over time that not every aspect of choice adds value. For example, we previously enabled consultants to choose their own health care plan providers, and even set up their home office the way they wanted, but have since moved to a company plan and standard IT package to launch our team. This makes their lives easier without taking away the choices that truly matter. While there are more instances of such centralization, our leadership team maintains a very high bar for such decisions because too much control can erode mutual trust."

Street, Randy, Wang, Dina, and Tetali, Vamsi. (2017). What 20 years as a Remote Organization Has Taught Us About Managing Remote Teams. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved on February 27, 2017 from https://hbr.org/2017/02/what-20-years-as-a-remote-organization-has-taught-us-about-managing-remote-teams

Learning to Learn

"The ability to learn faster than your competitors may be the only sustainable competitive advantage."

"Learning organizations are skilled at five main activities: systematic problem solving, experimentation with new approaches, learning from their own experience and past history, learning from the experiences and best practices of others, and transferring knowledge quickly and efficiently throughout the organization."

"Learning organizations are not built overnight. Most successful examples are the products of carefully cultivated attitudes, commitments, and management processes that have accrued slowly and steadily over time. Still, some changes can be made immediately. Any company that wishes to become a learning organization can begin by taking a few simple steps.

The first step is to foster an environment that is conducive to learning. There must be time for reflection and analysis, to think about strategic plans, dissect customer needs, assess current work systems, and invent new products. Learning is difficult when employees are harried or rushed; it tends to be driven out by the pressures of the moment. Only if top management explicitly frees up employees’ time for the purpose does learning occur with any frequency. That time will be doubly productive if employees possess the skills to use it wisely. Training in brainstorming, problem solving, evaluating experiments, and other core learning skills is therefore essential."

de Geus, Arie P. (1988). Planning as Learning. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved on February 19, 2017 from https://hbr.org/1988/03/planning-as-learning

Garvin, David A. (1993). Building a Learning Organization. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved on February 19, 2017 from https://hbr.org/1993/07/building-a-learning-organization

Knowledge-based View (KBV) of the Firm

The essential elements of the KBV can be summarized as follows:

• Knowledge is the most important resource and factor of production.
• Performance differences between firms exist because of differences in firms’ stock of knowledge and capabilities in using and developing knowledge.
• Organizations exist to create, transfer, and transform knowledge into competitive advantage.
• Knowledge is related to humans.
• Individuals are intentional and intelligent agents.
• Humans are bounded by cognitive limitations; how much and what they can know have cognitive limits, and therefore they have to specialize.
• Especially in complex issues which cannot be understood by any single individual, there is a need for integration and coordination of knowledge.
• Cognition and action are related: knowledge is both acquired by and demonstrated in action.
• Knowledge is demonstrated in many forms and located on many levels: it is situated in the minds and bodies of individuals, embedded in organizational routines and processes, as well as codified in databases and books etc.
• Some knowledge can be externalized into explicit form, while some knowledge will always remain tacit.
• The form of knowledge influences how it can be leveraged and transferred. 
• Shared tacit knowledge, demonstrated for example in capabilities, is the most important type of knowledge from the value creation point of view.
• Knowledge cannot be fully managed in the same sense as other types of resources; its management more resembles the creation of suitable contexts and cultivation.
• Knowledge is dynamic: it is continuously re-interpreted and modified, and related to learning and change. 

Blomqvist, Kirsimarja and Kianto, Aino. (2015).  Knowledge-based View of the Firm - Theoretical Notions and Implications for Management. Retrieved on February 1, 2017 from http://www.lut.fi/documents/10633/109602/tijo-valintakoeartikkeli-2015.pdf

The Myth of the Bell Curve: Look for Hyper The Hyper-Performers

"Think about how people perform in creative, service, and intellectual property businesses (where all businesses are going). There are superstars in every group. Some software engineers are 10X more productive than the average; some sales people deliver 2-3X their peers; certain athletes far outperform their peers; musicians, artists, and even leaders are the same.

These "hyper performers" are people you want to attract, retain, and empower. These are the people who start companies, develop new products, create amazing advertising copy, write award winning books and articles, or set an example for your sales force. They are often gifted in a certain way (often a combination of skill, passion, drive, and energy) and they actually do drive orders of magnitude more value than many of their peers.

If we're lucky we can attract a lot of these people - and when we do we should pay them very well, give them freedom to perform and help others, and take advantage of the work they do. Investment banks understand this - that's why certain people earn 10-fold more than others."

"People often believe the bell curve is "fair." There are an equal number of people above and below the average. And fairness is very important. But fairness does not mean "equality" or "equivalent rewards for all." High performing companies have very wide variations in compensation, reflecting the fact that some people really do drive far more value than others. In a true meritocracy this is a good thing, as long as everyone has an opportunity to improve, information is transparent, and management is open and provides feedback."

Bersin, Josh. (2014). The Myth of the Bell Curve: Look for Hyper The Hyper-Performers. Retrieved on January 19, 2017 from http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2014/02/19/the-myth-of-the-bell-curve-look-for-the-hyper-performers/#2e6acad613fc 

The Case for Expert Leaders

"[O]rganizations perform more effectively when led by individuals who have a deep understanding of the core business of their organization. Being a capable general manager is not sufficient. Expert leaders are those with (1) inherent knowledge, acquired through technical expertise combined with high ability in the core business activity; (2) industry experience, which stems from time and practice within the core business industry; and (3) leadership capabilities, which include management skills and a leader’s innate characteristics."

"[T]o lead creative individuals requires both ‘technical and creative problem-solving skills’ since . . . ‘they provide a basis for structuring an inherently ill-defined task and because they provide the credibility needed to exercise influence’."

"[F]irst, that the evaluation of creative people and their ideas can only be done by individuals who share their competencies; in short, it takes one to know one (or competently assess one). Second, leaders who share the same creative and technical perspective and motivation as their followers can communicate more clearly; finally, in relation to performance, they can better articulate the needs and goals of the organization."

Godall, Amanda H. (2012). A Theory of Expert Leadership. Retrieved on January 9, 2017 from http://ftp.iza.org/dp6566.pdf