Leading through disruption

There is no doubt that emerging technologies such as the internet have provided incredible advantages and opportunities, as examined in my past few posts. However, the other side of the coin of innovation is the amount of disruption that those technologies cause. A 2016 KPMG survey of hundreds of CEOs found that 65% "believe that the next three years will be more critical for their industry than the previous 50 years". Furthermore, 85% revealed "The time I have to think strategically about the disruption and innovation shaping our company’s future" (KPMG, 2016). Companies have to constantly react to changes faster than ever before and anticipating potential changes is increasing becoming a requirement for leaders (Burrus, 2015). This post will examine some of the other implications that now face leaders and how they can work to stay current.

As Dr. Jeffery Tobias described, companies have to become comfortable with the "new normal" environment of disruption innovation and leaders will need to adapt, with anticipation being the primary skill required. Burrus (2015) lists three major ways leaders can be more anticipatory: make the future more visible, identify hard trends, and look outside your industry for solutions. While some of these actions seem somewhat straight forward it can be difficult for leaders to implement them successfully. That is where Weinberger's (2011) advice on using the networking of knowledge can be very beneficial. 

Weinberger (2011) described five ways to benefit from the internet and the wealth of information it provides, instead of being bogged down and looking at the it like we did with the old source of knowledge: books (p. 119). First, he mentions that open access, unlike traditional academic journals with high entry costs, is needed (Weinberger, 2011, p. 183). Secondly, information must be categorized so metadata can allow for ease of use. Next, linking everything together allows for a broader range of topics to be explored as well as providing references as needed (Weinberger, 2011, p. 189). Finally, institutions need to incorporate knowledge into the network and strive to teach everyone. With a strong sense of curiosity that Weinberger describes, leaders will be not only better able to anticipate changes but also adapt and react when unexpected innovations occur.

With all that being said, I believe that we are living on a cusp that is going to have far reaching effects that will be hard to predict and even harder to plan for. While the range of experts' predictions on when it will happen might differ, with an average around 2040/50, many believe that the singularity could/will happen in our lifetime. 

The ramifications for this level of disruption is unprecedented and would make the impact that the internet brought seem small. Take for example the new startup company Kernel that is working on brain-computer interface (BCI) to solve a myriad of problems such as trauma or Alzheimer's. Recently, they have shown the ability to improve the memory of rats with an implanted chip and even going so far as providing one rat's memories to another rat (Dwoskin, 2016). Imagine the revolution that could occur if all the memories of a subject matter expert were just transferred to a new recruit. Talk about retaining institutional knowledge!

As leaders we still need to work to react and anticipate change in order deal with the disruptions that technology creates. However, soon advancements in technology, such as AI and BCI, might change the very notion of what it means to be human, and that can be hard to plan for.

References:

Burrus, D. (2015, September 30). Leading in a world of disruption. [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-burrus/leading-in-a-world-of-dis_b_8221852.html.

Dwoskin, E. (2016, August 15). Putting a computer in your brain is no longer science fiction. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/08/15/putting-a-computer-in-your-brain-is-no-longer-science-fiction/?utm_term=.0eb9cfa6714a.

KPMG. (2016). [Leading in the age of disruption] [Infographic]. Retrieved from https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2016/07/CEO-LeadershipSegment.pdf.

Tobias, J. (2016, June 30). We have to get comfortable about being in a world of disruptive innovation [audio file]. Retrieved from https://soundcloud.com/unswbusiness/jeffrey-tobias-agsm-leadership-innovation.

Weinberger, D. (2011). Too big to know: Rethinking knowledge now that the facts aren't the facts, experts are everywhere, and the smartest person in the room is the room. New York, NY: Basic Books.

The Ethical Issues of the Internet: Intellectual Property and Copyright

If you are like me, and millions of others around the world, then you are a fan of the HBO series Game of Thrones. Game of Thrones also has the distinction of being the most pirated show of all time (Goldman, 2016). Piracy has always been an issue in the entertainment industry and the internet only has compounded the problem. However, when it comes to intellectual property rights and copyright when it comes to the internet, piracy is only a small subset of the ethical issues that are now occurring. Additionally, despite first appearances, there is still arguments being made about the ethical issues surrounding intellectual property and copyright law. One of the key ideas to many people concerning the internet is the notion that it provides a forum for the flow of ideas, something that seems to be at odds with traditional intellectual property rights.

Intellectual property is defined by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), as the "creations of the mind, such as inventions; literary and artistic works; designs; and symbols, names and images used in commerce" and is protected by various laws including patents, copyrights, and trademarks (WIPO, n.d., p. 2). However, as the Game of Thrones example shows, some of the largest contributors to the rise of violations with intellectual property are due to the ease of access and low costs associated with copying information provided on the internet. Additionally, the internet provides a layer of anonymity that makes protecting intellectual property harder and quickly it becomes apparent that maybe traditional view of intellectual property rights might not be a model that fits the internet (Bessen & Maskin, 2004, p. 1).  Despite these hurdles, many intellectual property and copyright laws underwent a transformation in the 1990s due to the increasing popularity of the internet (Flanagan & Maniatis, 2008, p. 69).

Intellectual property and copyright law have their history in the Paris and Berne conventions, respectfully (WIPO, n.d. p. 3). The first major treaties that deal with the exploding digital world and the internet were the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), both in 1996 (Flanagan & Maniatis, 2008, p. 86). Many readers might be familiar with these treaties as the law passed in the United States implement the changes, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

However, due to the rapidly changing technologies and innovation occurring during that time (and possibly the misunderstanding of the internet for many lawmakers) many facets of the treaties were either uncovered or carried unintended consequences. Take for instance the fact that according to Google, 57% of all DMCA takedown notices are sent from companies targeting their competitors, with 37% not even being valid (Gibbons, 2009).  Another example, and one of the biggest complaints about the DMCA, is that people are not allowed to legally "rip" or copy CDs or DVDs they have purchased in order to create backup or personal copies. The webcomic xkcd demonstrates why, thanks to proprietary protection software and changing technology, this is such a problem; especially as more people begin to buy strictly digital media products, like music on iTunes.   
 

It is this principle of fair use is where a lot of legal and ethical gray area begin to appear. Take down notices and fair use claims are now common to many more people because of social media and internet sites such as Youtube. In fact it wasn't until recently that courts even upheld fair use as an affirmative defense against copyright claims, and force companies to act in good faith concerning fair use before issuing a DMCA take down notice (Lenz v. Universal Music Corp, 2015). That case is currently being appealed and the Supreme Court is deciding whether or not to hear it. And if you wanted to see the video Stephanie Lenz posted that Universal Music deemed copyright infringement, it is right below.

While Universal was originally able to take this video down as a copyright violation, I doubt many people would find the video itself unethical. In fact, it would have probably been much smarter for Universal to reach out to the creator of the video, providing links to Prince's album, instead of the knee jerk reaction to remove it entirely. A short-sighted view that has now cost them a fortune in court costs. This video also highlights a viewpoint that many people have regarding the internet and how its inherent interconnected nature makes the traditional copyright and intellectual property right ideas seem ill fitted.

Bessen and Maskin (2004) argue that two unique aspects about the internet in particular make it troublesome for traditional intellectual property and copyright laws: interactive communication and sequential improvement (p. 2). Take for instance this blog, at the bottom you can comment and a discussion can occur, but the intellectual property rights begin to get muddled, a large problem consider that online discussion happens on almost every website now, not just blogs, but Youtube, news websites, etc.

The other issue is with sequential improvement, especially in regards to software which is constantly being developed based on innovation and competition (Bessen & Maskin, 2004, p. 4). Patent eligibility is still in a gray area when it comes to software and the internet. When is a competitor stealing your ideas versus just improving on them? Is something as fundamental as online banking as an idea eligible for a patent? It seems that for now patent eligibility is destined to be determined at a case by case basis, see the famous Alice Corp v. CLS Bank International case in 2014 as an example of software being determined illegible for patent, while the recent case of Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp. (2016) upheld patent eligibility claims.

Bessen and Maskin (2004) feel that because of the unique challenges surrounding the internet, a weak form of intellectual property law makes more sense. They go on to say,

moderately weak intellectual property protection is optimal. The best sort of intellectual property rights are strong enough to prevent direct copying and knock-off products, but weak enough to encourage the greatest amount of cross-licensing and sharing of information between competitors.

I would have to agree with them, and it appears that as the internet continues to evolve, intellectual property rights and law must continue evolving right along side it, or risk becoming obsolete altogether. The whole problem is captured eloquently by the National Research Council's Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in the Emerging Information Infrastructure who said:

The committee believes that the issue of intellectual property in the information infrastructure cannot be viewed as solely a legal issue (as it was, for example, in the white paper Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure, IITF, 1995)1 or through any other single lens. Such an approach will necessarily yield incomplete, and often incorrect, answers.

Without the answers, the ethical gray areas concerning the internet and intellectual property and copyright law will persist.


References:

Alice Corp v. CLS Bank International. (2014). 134 S.Ct. 2347.

Bessen, J. & Maskin, E. (2004). Intellectual property on the internet: What's wrong with conventional wisdom? Retrieved from http://www.researchoninnovation.org/iippap2.pdf 

Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. (2016) U.S. App. LEXIS 8699, 2016 WL 2756255. Retrieved from http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1244.Opinion.5-10-2016.1.PDF

Flanagan, A. & Maniatis, S. M. (2008). Intellectual property on the internet. London, United Kingdom: University of London Press.

Gibbons, T. (2009, March 15). Google submission hammers section 92A. PC World.  Retrieved from http://www.pcworld.co.nz/article/483729/google_submission_hammers_section_92a/

Goldman, D. (2016, April 25). One million people watched pirated copies of the Game of Thrones premiere. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/25/media/game-of-thrones-piracy/

Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. (2015). 801 F.3d 1126. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12567649168680108221&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

National Research Council. (2005). The digital dilemma: Intellectual property in the information age. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 

World Intellectual Property Organization. (n.d.). What is intellectual property? (WIPO Publication no. 450E). Geneva, Switzerland. 

The networked worker...good, bad or just different?

The popular webcomic PhD Comics, demonstrates perfectly one of the more serious side effects that the internet has had on science reporting, and something Weinberger (2011) discusses in Too Big To Know. The internet has both enable scientific advances and discoveries to flourish while at the same time provided people the echo chambers needed to remain ignorant (Weinberger, 2011, p. 156). And as noted in the comic linked above and by Weinberger (2011), the media tends to gravitate towards eye catching, even if incorrect or misleading, headlines (p. 157). But the insights regarding the positive and negative effects of the internet in terms of scientific reporting can also be applied to how workplaces are now dealing with networked workers and the opportunities and challenges that they bring to their organizations.

Jarche (2013) several advantages that networked workers bring, all directly related to an employees access to the internet. Among them are the the fact that value is created by the connections that each employee has, a prime indicator of relationship capital (Jarche, 2013). Additionally, the scalability  that the internet provides has reduced the need for the traditional management functions. I'm sure everyone can think of an example in their workplace in which they directly e-mailed a colleague instead of coordinating efforts through a manager. This phenomenon is only amplified in the wirearchies that are developing compared to traditional hierarchies, as discussed last week.

That is not to say that networked workers are not without flaws. This is shown with the range of challenges that are present in one of the more popular networked worker trends, telecommuting. While there are many arguments and research on both sides, an article in 2013 by Network World notes that employees find work positive with bosses physically present and that virtual communication is more rife with lies compared to face-to-face communication (Bednarz, 2013). Finally, and maybe not too surprising, are the results of a survey that shows most teleworkers don't put in a full day of work (Bednarz, 2013).

With all the pros and cons of networked workers in mind, a couple particular things jumped out at me. The first is that while networked workers might be less reliant on the traditional manger role, there is still a great need for leadership. Aside from the benefit in job satisfaction discussed above, a leader can provide the vision and guidance to employees. With proper and effective leadership the opportunities of a freely available internet and networked workforce are more easily turned into competitive advantages and can outweigh the negatives. 

References:

Bednarz, A. (2013, February 28). Is Yahoo's telework ban shortsighted or savvy? Data says both. NetworkWorld. Retrieved from http://www.networkworld.com/article/2163977/smb/is-yahoo-s-telework-ban-shortsighted-or-savvy--data-says-both.html

Jarche, H. (2013, November 5). Networks are the new companies. [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://jarche.com/2013/11/networks-are-the-new-companies/

Weinberger, D. (2011). Too big to know: Rethinking knowledge now that the facts aren't the facts, experts are everywhere, and the smartest person in the room is the room. New York, NY: Basic Books.

The Changing Nature of Work and Leading in a Wirearchy

It's no secret that the Internet and technological growth have changed the nature of how people interact with knowledge. This shift in knowledge and knowledge management (as discussed in last weeks blog post) can even been argued to have changed how people think. Due to the web's nature and shape, hyperlink thinking as Weinberger (2011) described it, has changed information from being presented in a long form. He expands upon this idea in his book Too Big to Know, when discussing how long form knowledge was adopted to present information and make arguments based on having to work with a medium such as books, something that is no longer true today with the Internet (Weinberger, 2011). In addition to changing how people think, technology has also changed the way that people have begun working in dramatic ways; individually, in teams, and in organizations. Husband (2017) has developed a paradigm to explain the new way this work is structured, wirearchy.

Wirearchy can be described as "a dynamic two-way flow of  power and authority, based on knowledge, trust, credibility and a focus on results, enabled by interconnected people and technology" (Husband, 2017). My direct experience in a wirearchy is limited. That is in due largely in part because the military is, and in my opinion will continue to be for a long time, much closer to a traditional hierarchy in terms of both power and authority. I have, however, noticed the role technology has played in interconnecting people, a huge boast to an enterprise as complex and global as the military. And while still very traditional in many ways, the military is not immune to the very real changes that are occurring to other workplaces in the 21st century.

Workplace changes such as working in swarms and working with the collective, both changes that are described by Gartner in 2010, are also happening in the military despite the somewhat rigid hierarchy that exists. The fact is the military has always been a unique workplace environment, which in turn causes unique leadership challenges. However, leading in a hybrid wirearchy and traditional hierarchy will share some commonalities and Husband's (2017) core competencies of knowledge, trust, credibility and a results based focus are fairly universal.

One thing that I did note in Fast Company's Top 5 Workplace Trends for 2017 article was prediction regarding the changing role of HR and analytics in recruiting and engagement. In early 2017, I took over a new role in my job and one of my duties is similar in nature to HR. I am recruiting/managing a small group of potential instructors to mentor for more advanced training opportunities later in their careers. Already I have begun to create a baseline of analytics to help form the program's methodology and evaluate its success. So in a way, that trend has already affected my workplace in 2017.

References:

Dishman, L. (2016, 15 Dec). These are the top 5 workplace trends we'll see in 2017. Fast Company. Retrieved from https://www.fastcompany.com/3066605/the-future-of-work/these-are-the-top-5-workplace-trends-well-see-in-2017.

Goadsduff, L. (2010, 4 Aug). Gartner says the world of work will witness 10 changes during the next 10 years. Gartner: Stamford, CT. Retrieved from http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/1416513.

Husband, J. (2017). What is wirearchy?. Retrieved from http://wirearchy.com/what-is-wirearchy/.

Weinberger, D. (2011). Too big to know: Rethinking knowledge now that the facts aren't the facts, experts are everywhere, and the smartest person in the room is the room. New York, NY: Basic Books.