If you click on the URL below, you can watch a status update from a VP of BP, outlining the latest efforts to plug the leak and control environmental damage.
http://bp.concerts.com/gom/kentwells_update24052010.htm
While it remains absolutely inexcusable that an organization of BP's size, stature and experience would not have had a standard emergency plan in place, it's fruitless to ruminate over it further. All resources must be forward-focussed on solutions.
What's more productive and enlightening is to witness the shift in power that technology is forcing, and how this trend is a two-edged sword.
First, BP says in the video that so far they've received over 15,000 suggested solutions from the public(!)Of course, they've already deployed 20,000 professionals from the industry (even including experts from competitors)and given the complexity of the issue, I'd imagine the 'right' solution will come from the latter. But technology (the Internet)allows the public to easily and instantly vent their emotion and contribute opinion, and it also allows BP to keenly feel the full breadth and depth of public opinion. Perhaps even ten years ago, any one of the Seven Sisters oil companies might have simply ignored the public and dealt with this problem internally and arrogantly. They would do so today at their peril. A widespread boycott of BP could spread through the Internet like grass-fire, should the public perceive that BP was reacting irresponsibly. No company can risk that outcome.
Perhaps BP would have taken their current course of action anyway, but the fact remains that given the shift in power to the public, they are almost forced to do so today.
From a corporate perspective, it could be said that this shift in power is an annoyance; one that shifts management's time, energy and resources towards something that before could be ignored. But there is another edge to the sword, so to speak, and it has a hugely positive benefit.
Any ability to interact with others on a broad scale, to collaborate, is a blessing by any measure in today's competitive business arena. So while the Internet facilitates a ranting public, it also enables BP to engage in real-time conversation, to ensure they have their 'day in court' every day, through status updates. It allows BP to manage the rumour mill by supplying timely facts to any who care to listen. In my opinion, BP has done a good job leveraging this technology on their website. I am impressed by the high-cost, multi-tiered approach they've adopted, and while I'm certainly no expert, watching their video left me thinking that their approach was both logical, committed and sincere.
Even more important to ponder though, is how this shift in power might beneficially transform even the very structure of organizations. How will the capability to interact and collaborate in real-time with the global talent pool affect the traditional boundaries and definitions of employment in companies? P&G has already tapped into this capability in the area of product development, actively soliciting new product ideas from the public. In 2002, Goldcorp posted all their data for the Red Lake mine on the Internet, with a six figure prize for the geologist who told them where to drill next for gold. It worked; with many geologists collaborating successfully, none of whom Goldcorp had previously even heard of.
Immediate two-way access to all the intelligence on the planet is changing the rules of the game. The resultant transparency will force the 'leaders' of less conscientious companies to act more responsibly. That's a good thing (are you listening Wall Street?) Many organizations will simply try to cope with the shift in power that the Internet has caused; to identify the 'must do's' and grudgingly comply, but the smart ones will embrace it as a boundless opportunity to access brilliance, innovation, and creativity.
Regardless, the shift in power is here to stay.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Leading based upon principles, not party
I feel somewhat remiss that my blogs on leadership often deal with US examples (Obama), but I must confess that of late I am not impressed with leadership in Canadian politics. I did recently hear Michael Ignatieff speak, and admit that while I was initially against him, he seemed informed and sincere in his speech, and even showed a bit of (dare I say!) passion. So we'll see what actually happens.
But what we have just witnessed in the US should be examined carefully because it represents the epitome of leadership behaviour. First, Barak Obama became convinced that reforming health care was an absolute 'must' in order to position America competitively for the next century. Having heard arguments from the best and brightest on the issue, he decided it had to be done, even if it risked forfeiting his second term if efforts failed. When, during the eleventh hour, senior Democrats advised he pull back, and table a diluted, mini-version of the bill in order to reduce risk to his Presidency, only he and Nancy Pelosi insisted that they continue to push forward with the full bill. Nutshell version: do the right thing for the country regardless of party politics or personal risk.
Second, Obama had already engaged in critical strategic programs 'under the radar' and in parallel with the highly controversial and media covered health care issue. Witness the US/Russia nuclear arms reduction treaty, the FLOTUS national initiative on reducing obesity, the quiet overhaul on the national education system, channelling of stimulus funding to create jobs in the renewable energy fields, the desperately needed financial reform legislation, and today, the announcement to allow off-shore drilling for oil.
Effective leaders focus intensely on the most critical issues, but also keep multiple plates spinning at the same time. Examining each program, we will also find that they are all strategically aligned to achieve an overriding objective for the country.
For Obama, that objective means protecting and positioning America to lead in this century, which means facing the serious obstacles it has created for itself. Every program needs to be aligned to serve that objective. So reducing health care costs (notice that the Obesity program systematically attacks the problem from the source, too) will lower indebtedness, and allow more competitive economic growth globally. Revamping education will ensure their workforce is capable of competing in the burgeoning hyper-speed Internet economy. Financial reforms will ensure the greedy few cannot jeopardize the majority and crash the global system. And allowing short-term offshore drilling will alleviate the stranglehold currently enjoyed by foreign oil producers, while allowing research into renewable energy to gain a foothold and eventually deliver American energy independence.
Will all or any of this work? Who knows? But the important leadership lesson is two-fold: to have the courage to put the most important objectives above personal and party agendas, and to carefully align all efforts to yield synergistic results. Should time and fate defeat eventually the initiative, Obama can rest easy that he led the right way.
But what we have just witnessed in the US should be examined carefully because it represents the epitome of leadership behaviour. First, Barak Obama became convinced that reforming health care was an absolute 'must' in order to position America competitively for the next century. Having heard arguments from the best and brightest on the issue, he decided it had to be done, even if it risked forfeiting his second term if efforts failed. When, during the eleventh hour, senior Democrats advised he pull back, and table a diluted, mini-version of the bill in order to reduce risk to his Presidency, only he and Nancy Pelosi insisted that they continue to push forward with the full bill. Nutshell version: do the right thing for the country regardless of party politics or personal risk.
Second, Obama had already engaged in critical strategic programs 'under the radar' and in parallel with the highly controversial and media covered health care issue. Witness the US/Russia nuclear arms reduction treaty, the FLOTUS national initiative on reducing obesity, the quiet overhaul on the national education system, channelling of stimulus funding to create jobs in the renewable energy fields, the desperately needed financial reform legislation, and today, the announcement to allow off-shore drilling for oil.
Effective leaders focus intensely on the most critical issues, but also keep multiple plates spinning at the same time. Examining each program, we will also find that they are all strategically aligned to achieve an overriding objective for the country.
For Obama, that objective means protecting and positioning America to lead in this century, which means facing the serious obstacles it has created for itself. Every program needs to be aligned to serve that objective. So reducing health care costs (notice that the Obesity program systematically attacks the problem from the source, too) will lower indebtedness, and allow more competitive economic growth globally. Revamping education will ensure their workforce is capable of competing in the burgeoning hyper-speed Internet economy. Financial reforms will ensure the greedy few cannot jeopardize the majority and crash the global system. And allowing short-term offshore drilling will alleviate the stranglehold currently enjoyed by foreign oil producers, while allowing research into renewable energy to gain a foothold and eventually deliver American energy independence.
Will all or any of this work? Who knows? But the important leadership lesson is two-fold: to have the courage to put the most important objectives above personal and party agendas, and to carefully align all efforts to yield synergistic results. Should time and fate defeat eventually the initiative, Obama can rest easy that he led the right way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)