CHAPTER 7

Be the Third Pig

Building an OV Organization

If you defer investing your time and energy until you see that you need to, chances are it will already be too late.

—Clayton Christensen

Do the right thing. Since I was young it’s been ingrained in me, which makes doing the wrong thing feel so wrong.

While I was at UPS, one long-standing policy was, “We pay our bills promptly. We do this because it is right, because it is a good business practice, and because it strengthens our reputation and our credit rating.” But in December of 2018, a vendor with whom I worked closely had a big payment due. My manager asked me to push the payment into 2019.

“I won’t do it,” I said. “It’s against our policy.”

“It is,” he said, and I saw the pain on his face. He was a UPS veteran, loyal to its core culture and founding vision. “You’re going to have to do it anyway. This is coming from above us.”

I knew what he meant. The directive from the UPS leadership was part of a larger effort to drive results fast enough for Wall Street to recognize and reward. It went against everything in me.

Holding the payment was symptomatic of a seismic shift at UPS.

The company was founded in 1907 by Jim Casey, who, at the Plant Managers Conference in 1954, laid out UPS’s ten-year vision “to act as the delivery department of retail stores … at rates lower than any other means of transportation.” The following year, Jim Casey and his managers established the core principle which would undergird his vision: the employees who helped pioneer UPS would have ownership of the company.

This partnership philosophy helped fuel UPS’s steady growth until 1999 when the company went public and started to make decisions that began undermining this foundational principle. Still prioritizing growth, UPS made a series of acquisitions to expand into supply chain solutions. The company also created a financial services division, UPS Capital. In theory, management still controlled the company, but appearances belied the reality. UPS had gone from a company owned by managers and managed by owners to a company that now had to defend its decisions to disconnected investors every quarter.

This was not a failure of integrity or good intention, both of which remained a vital part of the UPS culture. But it had forgotten the “you” in its long-retired slogan, “What can brown do for you?” Instead, it drove the company inward, serving the demands of its shareholders instead of optimizing employee and customer experience.

UPS had gone on the defensive, even as the digital economy began to reveal leaks in the company’s competitive moat. Technology solutions exclusive to the large logistics companies that could afford the expensive and complex systems were now becoming available from the cloud to startups on a pay-by-the-drink basis. Everyone from multinational accounts to individual consumers was exerting more influence as they acquired the greatest source of power since the dawn of time, information.

UPS was on the proverbial horns of a dilemma it had created: how to answer to investors as it sought to transform the company.

In response, UPS brought in outside consultants and effectively isolated its most valuable asset—its employees—from its customers and each other. The consultants were heavily biased toward metrics that few people could impact directly. As discussed in chapter 6, the management profit-sharing program was discontinued, and UPS managers stopped referring to each other as “partners.” The metrics driving the business reflected the loss of an esprit de corps among the managers. Only one metric, ultimately, mattered: Return on Invested Capital (ROIC). This pragmatic approach caused UPS to pull on the efficiency lever at the expense of exploring new revenue streams.

Reality is already unforgivingly complex, to which disruption adds truths not yet discovered that are equally if not more complex. You don’t know what you don’t know. And it’s good to know that you don’t know what you don’t know. The problem with many established companies is that they have relied for decades on what they know—and fail to address what they don’t know. Motorola, GE, Yahoo, and JC Penney were staffed with intelligent leaders who racked up substantial commercial success before and after their tenure. They came into these storied companies with biases they looked to confirm. Those biases left unchecked would hinder them and their companies simply because they worked against diversity of thought and discovery—a willingness to explore the unknown.

These dilemmas of disruption are remarkably persistent whether the firm is public, private, or family-owned. Overcoming internal biases and allocating precious resources to unproven opportunities, lower-margin products, or initially small customer segments does not happen without fierce debate, ever. However, through this uncomfortable debate and the acceptance stage of organizational velocity, resilience is created.

Releasing Friction

UPS’s situation in the early 2020s points to the difficulty of balancing what’s great about a company while adapting to a new business context. A market bursting with pandemic-driven demand, capacity shortages, and new competitors. It’s not for the weak of heart, but it can be done. As founder Jim Casey did in UPS’s ascendant years, a strong leader will rally the company around a straightforward, compelling narrative and inspire change for everyone. This kind of change is not incremental. It requires a complete overhaul that first begins with a shift in mindset.

But, of course, a story is not enough. Organizations need a supporting structure that provides the best opportunity to win. Put the two together, and you have what I call an organizational velocity (OV) organization; it’s the proverbial house of bricks that the forces of change can’t blow down.

An OV organization understands and addresses two tendencies of human nature: our desire for change and our penchant to resist change. Our resistance, often stronger than our desire for change, creates friction. Unless the purpose is to create fire, friction generally rubs the wrong way. It restricts movement and retards progress. In an organization, resistance can manifest in many ways, including the hoarding of information. Information, obviously, is power. It’s revolutionary. It changes everything. Its opposite is ignorance which breeds fear, failure, and the fear of failure. Want your organization to take off? Want to allow for persistent advantage? Reverse resistance by getting information flowing.

An OV organization despises ignorance. So it disseminates information rather than bottlenecking it. Internally, it opens the channels for information to flow by creating an open, agile and adaptable environment where people are encouraged to experiment without the fear of failure. Failed experiments are welcomed as learning experiences; which fosters faster change. It’s a virtuous cycle.

An agile and open internal environment can also pragmatically and quickly shift in response to external changes. This requires a mind shift in leadership from command and control style (which increases friction) to sense and respond (which reduces friction). We tend to react to events in two ways. We either move toward or away from whatever happens, but naturally, we tend to be defensive. OV companies create an environment that changes this defensive mentality into an offensive mindset—open and curious.

Charles Koch, CEO of Koch Industries, proves that becoming OV is about attitude, not age. His creation of Market-Based Management (MBM) may be his greatest legacy. MBM has been Koch’s overarching approach to value creation and capture across the Koch companies. This means that beyond culture, MBM also serves as a strategic roadmap to how they think and where they focus their resources. MBM is made up of eight guiding principles: integrity, stewardship and compliance, Principled Entrepreneurship, transformation, knowledge, humility, respect, and self-actualization.¹ This is not just words on paper at Koch; it’s a way of life. Darin Dredge, a Director at Koch subsidiary Guardian Industries explained, “We don’t acquire companies and try to turn them into Koch Industries. We buy companies like Georgia-Pacific, Guardian, and Infor, and use MBM to change the culture of those firms. This is because even with MBM, all companies under the Koch umbrella will have their own unique characteristics.”² According to Darin, some of this is driven by industry, the history of the organization, and many other factors. Hence, they say all of the companies in the portfolio are powered by MBM, which Charles Koch regularly credits as the most important factor in the company’s long-term success.

The Big Payoff of a Small Bets Strategy

Risk is both the dopamine and the beta-blocker of an organization. High risk, high reward is for high rollers. But most people aren’t built with that kind of risk tolerance. The leaders in OV organizations understand this. They start to change culture with a strategy that gradually increases risk tolerance while also opening an organization to thinking outside the box. In efficiency-minded companies, the box is existing revenue models, and the energy of the organization is focused on optimizing what’s in the box. But there’s a much better approach to increasing revenue, what I call the small bets strategy.

The more efficient the firm, the harder it is to change processes and move assets in response to changes in the market. Without OV, more efficiency only slows the demise of an organization; it doesn’t create its future. Efficiency streamlines an existing process, but it doesn’t create new revenue streams. This is where small risks need to become a part of the overall strategy.

The most important data is that which hasn’t been created yet. Small bets in the form of experiments, pilots, or proofs of concepts can help firms discover that data and accelerate their learning cycle. The strategy is based on the premise that outcomes are always unknown, especially where human behavior is involved. Being right in time is as important as being right in concept. By funding three projects, for example, taking three different paths to the same outcome, companies can get to the optimal solution more quickly. (I discussed this multi-pronged process, using small-bet pilots, in chapter three). Of course, that means you funded two projects that would end up being mothballed. For companies that prize efficiency, this method could seem like heresy until they realize they have been efficiently producing an inferior product. Their less efficient, small bets competitor has come up with something better. By testing multiple options, they have reached the best solution while cutting their time to market.

A small bets strategy does not originate in a conference room but from the OV process of continually and iteratively observing and accepting before acting. It’s the serenity prayer applied to OV. Accept what you cannot change so you can change what you can. Acceptance ultimately leads to the right action. Multiple hypotheses are formed, and those hypotheses are tested simultaneously in “the real world.” When a hypothesis proves true, then you act.

Importantly, the intent to act on a successful small bet must be established before any discovery begins. Companies can find themselves in pilot purgatory if they are just dipping their toe in the water of innovation. Without a commitment to learn, iterate, and act on outcomes, small bets tend to lack the involvement and support of the leaders that would need to implement them, and the learnings end up on the shelf.

Done right, the organization learns and iterates in the relentless OV cycle of observing, accepting, and acting; everyone constantly discovers new information, tests hypotheses, and acts. This ensures actions have variety—and are unpredictable, accelerating your momentum and putting your competitors on roller skates.

The Joy of Discovery

Our basic emotions are negative—and numerous. Fear, disgust, anger, sadness, and surprise dominate our mindset. The small bets approach capitalizes on our one positive emotion: joy. It is an iterative testing process of learning that culminates in the joy of discovery.

You start with what you don’t know. What you learn as you engage in the process of small bets leads to additional hypotheses that are then tested. The entire OV process can be thought of as one of discovery versus testing. For example, in-market tests for a new product, you’re typically looking for something specific such as product acceptance, willingness to pay, or the relative value of product features. Discovery is being open to customer responses you didn’t expect. The process of testing, engaging directly with the external environment on a problem or opportunity of significance, puts you in a position to discover. In the OV process, this is a critical input to the Observe phase. You don’t have to go far to find someone with a story about how someone went to an industry event and discovered a great opportunity through a chance encounter. You’ve probably also heard stories from people who went to industry events and were bored to tears. Testing is predictable; discovery is not.

In the early days of e-commerce, my colleagues and I at UPS developed a shipping solution that allowed manufacturers to create shipments using the same system as their suppliers; everyone would know what is being shipped, when it was shipped, and when it arrived. We took the solution to a large auto manufacturer who tried it out and told us, “I wouldn’t use it to ship on the same platform as my suppliers, but I would love to use this as a campus shipping solution. It would be of great value to the company if we could administer shipping across the campus to reduce out-of-contract purchases.” We hadn’t thought of that. In testing solution A, we discovered solution B, which UPS later rolled out under the brand name CampusShip. Only by actively engaging with the external environment—your partners, your customers, your broader stakeholder groups, can you put yourself in a position to discover.

The power of the small bets strategy is that it allows you to discover the right solution as opposed to confirming the right solution. How much time and money is wasted in businesses today debating a course of action that can never be discovered within the enterprise’s four walls?

Rethink the Game. Redefine Risk

The genius of OV companies is that they are not trying to beat anyone at their game. They are rethinking the game entirely. This includes how they reorient their employees’ understanding of risk to be more willing to engage in behaviors that propel the firm forward.

The key is to redefine risk as part of the process of discovery and future success. Then, change the culture to embrace risk.

Japanese companies, excellent at sustaining businesses over the long term, are now creating a dejima to allow risk-averse managers to experience trial and error. The word means “exit island,” an autonomous Dutch trading post hidden from Japanese society during the Edo period.³ As an incubator for new opportunities, the dejima is somewhat isolated in a beneficial way; it allows employees to experience what failure feels like and how it can lead to future success. It creates a safe zone for risk-taking. Company leaders can encourage managers to take on challenges without fear of failure and not punish them during annual performance reviews Over time, the dejima changes the culture from many risk-averse isolated units into an organization with a risk-taking mentality.

The acid test for whether a company is embracing risk or paying it lip service is to see what happens when a risky project goes wrong. Kevin O’Meara is a supply chain vice president at Shaw Industries that inherited a very large project with some very large problems. By the time his team determined the project was sinking, they had already spent a lot of money and had committed even more. As is typical of OV leaders, Kevin did not cower, hide the evidence, or distribute blame. He said they were going to the CapEx committee and would tell them we made a mistake. “So Mea Culpa, we’re wrong, but the right thing for the company is to stop the project and acknowledge we were wrong. Shaw calls these meetings ‘after-action’ reviews, and the goal is learning.” O’Meara continued, “We went into the committee and, I’ve got to tell you, that was when I knew I had joined the right company and found a home. There wasn’t any person in that meeting, including our CEO and CFO, who went down the path of whose fault, why did this happen? Insinuating that somebody’s head has got to roll, which absolutely would have happened in other companies I’ve been.” O’Meara’s manager, Executive Vice President David Morgan then posed the quintessential OV question, “Okay, we paid the tuition, now what did we learn?” That’s what happens when you can be vulnerable; you become a learning company. Said O’Meara, “It’s what did we learn today, not what we know.”⁴

Breaking the Bureaucracy

Haier’s microenterprises is a recent successful example of reorienting a company around taking risks. Haier is a modular structure on steroids, not too different from the “pizza teams” at Amazon (e.g., individual teams shouldn’t be larger than what two pizzas can feed). Haier CEO Zhang Ruimin, who has always been obsessed with breaking the bureaucracy, issued midlevel managers an ultimatum: either be fired or become independent entrepreneurs. It was “the hardest decision” the CEO had ever made, but it was meant to transform the company from a few monolithic businesses into some 4,000 microenterprises, or MEs, most comprising just 10 to 15 employees.⁵

Zhang turned his company into a hive with a mindset of “one for all and all for one.” He gave the leaders of each ME the suite of decision-making powers regarding strategy, people, and distribution. He also introduced several internal platforms to facilitate transactions among MEs, likening the idea to an app store. It enabled coordination but did not direct it. It also gave MEs the freedom to adjust their own supply chains according to specialized knowledge and up-to-date information. They could then act rapidly to reduce disruption and recover more quickly than their competitors. During the pandemic, these MEs buoyed the business by responding to market changes more swiftly than competitors.

Allowing for employee entrepreneurship is how you till the ground for OV to bloom.

Separating from the Death Hug

Haier’s microenterprises show what can happen when a company liberates all units to observe, accept, and act. They can innovate at speed because they are not subject to the drag of processes typical of a centrally structured hierarchy. Creating velocity demands being separate from the drag of archaic MBA-modeled decision-making processes.

Some firms, like Haier, decentralize their entire structure to speed up decision making and learning. Still, others create a separate innovation group or innovation environment. Top corporate innovation labs include GoogleX, Amazon Lab126, Coca-Cola’s KOLab, and Lowe’s Innovation Lab. Family-owned businesses may have a distinct advantage over public companies by the mere fact that executives can “act like founders,” even if they are third or fourth-generation leaders. Founder-led companies don’t always have pedigrees, but they have a philosophy about how a company should act and behave. This often translates into less bureaucracy, leading to less friction and increased speed.

The common factor for companies that succeed at being innovative is their commitment to “keeping a wall around innovation, so the mothership doesn’t hug it to death.” The “mothership” can hug new innovations to death by not distinguishing between efficiency and exploration. This can take the form of continuous progress reports, or “Committee Roulette,” to get approval for every move forward, expecting a short-term financial return. Business planning for innovation is an act of futility. Once you start measuring innovation projects with ROIC or NPV, you’re encouraging managers to invest in sure things. Real innovation is never a sure thing.

Benchmark the Best

Who would you look to as a beacon of OV, an organization to aspire to? Consider the challenge ING CIO Peter Jacobs faced transforming a traditional financial services company with roots dating back to 1762 into an agile firm able to change continuously. Jacobs recognized the hypocrisy of claiming agility without addressing the existing organizational structure and governance. They stopped benchmarking against other banks and began learning from technology firms. ING adopted peer-to-peer hiring from Google, and an onboarding program inspired by Zappos.⁶

Change Your Metrics

Innovations, by definition, are not predictable. Your metrics should focus on learning—speed of learning, quality of learning, and percent of pilots that turn into commercial offerings over a two-to-three-year period. The most important financial metric at this stage is gross margin. A sufficient group of customers must receive enough value from the innovation to pay you more than the cost of providing the value.

Your metrics should also reflect how customers drive the innovation that delivers more significant gross margins. Amazon has changed the metrics with its cell-based network. And it’s all based on their core value of being customer-obsessed. The cell-based network creates an intense focus on a problem to solve directly related to a clear relationship with the external customer, not internal customers that shift your focus inward. This kind of innovation travels outside-in: from the outside customer into upper management. A corresponding good metric is the number of innovative projects being overseen by senior management. Companies like Texas Health Resources use executive sponsors that “own” the project to ensure it achieves its value and meets user expectations.⁷

Outside the Mothership

Established organizations may need to let new initiatives grow outside the mothership. For example, a Fortune 50 consumer goods company was buying small brands that weren’t succeeding inside the big brand company. The company switched to incubating these smaller brands outside the company with their own teams and metrics to great success. When I was with the UPS Logistics and Distribution business, we didn’t do so well with a similar scenario. We purchased some well-run health care logistics companies in Europe that went from stars to dogs in a matter of months. Did we get fooled? Did management stop executing? No. UPS just applied its higher non-operations cost to the smaller company, and margins deteriorated.

This is another area where the Board of Directors plays a critical role. Someone on the board needs to take an active part in guiding the innovation business unit. This will help the CEO manage the inevitable trade-offs between the innovation businesses and the core business.

Other established organizations set up separate entities within the organization to avoid the death hug. Former SAP executive Gil Perez employed this strategy by creating a competency center to encourage free thinking. He created spaces where workshops could be created, staffed with coaches who could do design thinking with customers and internally. “Over time,” he told me, “everybody got certified or was engaged in a design thinking session.”⁸

Perhaps the best way to keep the mothership from smothering innovation is to make everyone an innovator. This is the ultimate goal. Former Alibaba Group executive Lee McCabe scoffed at the position of Chief Innovation Officer at many big companies. “Everyone should be a chief innovations officer. Innovation should be a part of the culture, with everyone encouraged to question and test everything. Even as every customer is humming in digital reaction, every employee should have a digital mind.”⁹

The Alibaba executive is defining not only a tech-oriented culture. He is describing tech as the only way of life within an organization. Implicit in an OV organization is a competency to develop and improve its technological skills and capabilities. Especially since the half-life of a learned technical skill is estimated to be less than five years, meaning a skill learned today will be about half as valuable in less than five years.¹⁰ According to the World Economic Forum, artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies will create the need for over 133 million new technology roles between 2019 and 2022.¹¹ Companies that understand the implications of the widening tech skills gap are investing heavily in this skill development. For example, Amazon launched its in-house Machine Learning University in 2016.¹²

Right Leaders with the Right Stuff

As I have stressed throughout this book, all mindset shifts within an organization hinge on leadership. OV organizations require the strongest kind of leaders. The question is how to find them.

A typical approach is to cultivate the most promising performers within an organization. However, the best players are not always the best leaders. What helps an individual succeed—talent, hard work, and discipline—does not always correlate to success in leadership. The best leaders or coaches are the ones that can bring the most out of each individual while orchestrating a 1+1=3 symbiotic relationship with everyone else in the organization.

Professional sports demonstrate this. Bill Belichick was not a household name as a player at Wesleyan University but became the winningest coach in NFL history. On the other hand, Wayne Gretsky (aka “The Great One”) had a lackluster career as coach of the Phoenix Coyotes. So why did Belichick and others like Mike Ditka and Phil Jackson succeed while star players didn’t? Perhaps the single most significant factor is that they were understudies of the best NFL coaches of all time, Belichick under Bill Parcels and Ditka under Tom Landry. Jackson honed his skills over eleven seasons as an NBA assistant.

Of course, great players can become great leaders, but it’s not guaranteed they will. Companies often make the mistake of assuming a high-performing employee also has the right stuff for leadership. As a result, they will push high performers into management regardless of their motivations or skillsets. A Gallup study found that companies fail to choose the right manager for the job 82 percent of the time. Why? The top two reasons are previous success in non-managerial roles and their tenure with the company.¹³

Conversely, successful OV companies seek leaders who engender trust and have exhibited the Disruptor Trifecta introduced in chapter 4; they possess good judgment, know the industry, and are tech-savvy. Consequently, they know how to establish goals and boundaries and what to do with their data. Access to technology is table stakes; how firms use the technology separates the good from the great. A golfer can have the best clubs and balls available, but it’s the golfer’s skill that will make the ball fly true. In addition, disruptive leaders must be ambidextrous, skilled at balancing growth and efficiency. Most managers are comfortable with efficiency; few can combine it with a mindset conducive to exploration and leaning into the unknown.

I return to Bill Belichick because he is also the most disruptive coach. He constantly confuses the opposing team and maximizes opportunities in the disrupted environment. Belichick’s genius is not just his ability to devise efficient systems to handle a football game’s complex and highspeed flow. He also knows how to manage players, most of whom are not superstars. What they are is teachable, and what they learn is the “Belichick Way.” They are led by a coach who leans into the unknown with every game. The genius of Belichick is less a matter of strategy than of team-building.

A great leader looks for the right people to lead. To get people to lean into risk and delight in discovery, a leader must first inspire them. You know when you’ve inspired them because they are doing things because they want to, not because they have to. They are doing the work that propels the firm forward, even when it’s not part of their performance metrics, and nobody is looking over their shoulder.

Going back to the golf analogy, buying the best clubs won’t necessarily improve a golfer’s game. The real battle is for the hearts and minds of people swinging the clubs. Running an OV organization is more than surviving digital disruption and implementing a digital strategy with digital people.

The legendary UCLA coach John Wooden built a wildly successful basketball program based on a philosophy of life he called the Pyramid of Success. The cornerstones are industriousness and enthusiasm, as characterized by people who are passionate, positive, and completely present to every person and task in front of them.¹⁴ Wooden was all about the fundamentals. My Uncle sent me to a John Wooden basketball camp when I was in high school. I had grand visions of playing games all day and sinking a few shots in front of the Wizard of Westwood. Much to my dismay, we did drills for three days straight before we ever played a game. He knew if you weren’t willing to put in the time off the court, you wouldn’t be worth your time on the court. The Pyramid of Success was not just about success in basketball; it was about success in life. Industriousness and enthusiasm need to be cornerstones of your OV organizations.

To find potential OV leaders from within the organization, put people on your skunkworks, pilots, and other experiments. Challenge them. Put them in uncomfortable situations. Adversity will reveal their character, one way or another. Then, keep forcing those leaders who show an aptitude to move with OV to flex their OV muscles. Over time, and with enough leaders, you will have engrained OV into the fabric of your company.

Another trait of an OV leader is digital fluency. While you can admire people who become digitally savvy, be careful not to put them in positions that require digital fluency. At top positions, you need digital natives who have internalized technology and for whom it’s second nature. Compare it with the difference between a student studying four years of Spanish—even studies abroad and is immersed in the language—and a native speaker from Costa Rica. They don’t have to think about the language; it’s part of who they are. Therefore, companies must develop OV leaders who are digital natives.

OV organizations must also create an environment where innovative ideas emerge. Karin Hut and David Dye from the University of Colorado found five reasons people don’t speak up to contribute solutions, suggest innovations, or advocate for customers.¹⁵

As discussed earlier, every idea left unsaid is a potential value the organization and the individual will never access. OV organizations get their people to tell them what they’re thinking. And encourage them to “say more.” As the Japanese proverb goes, “The frog in the well knows nothing of the mighty ocean.”¹⁶

Finally, OV organizations embrace diversity—not only of opinions but of experiences. Several years ago, I told a good friend that our son had told us he was gay. “We already knew it,” I said, “and we were relieved he was comfortable enough to tell us. I want to understand how he feels so I can help him navigate his God-given path.” At this, my friend laughed. “You have no more of a chance of understanding what it’s like to be gay as you do to be black.” Upon reflection, I realized she was right. It’s lived experience that brings a diversity of thought. And it’s the same with an organization. For true diversity within an organization, you need people who have lived different experiences. Just as biodiversity stabilizes an ecosystem, people of diverse backgrounds within an organization can help it thrive.

In the end, the secret sauce of any OV organization is the people. Again, it’s not about the golf clubs; the real battle is for the hearts and minds of the people swinging the clubs. Jim Casey did this early on with UPS. His clearly defined vision encouraged manager owners to be receptive to each other and their customers. It created an environment conducive to discovery.

Without the hearts and minds of your people, you’ll spin your wheels. You’ll go through the motions of being OV without going anywhere. You’ll talk but won’t do. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter if you have the technology or a great idea unless you first have the mindset, a compelling vision, a direction with boundaries, and, most of all, the people who are permitted to speak up and even fail.

What? OV cannot survive in a heirarchial organization built for control.

So What? Great intentions become innovation theater and broken promises to employees and customers in a friction-packed organization.

Now What? Become an OV company. Get off your heels and go on offense. Remove friction in the organization, reduce the team size to promote agility and accountability, embrace diversity, align your metrics, and discover your future with small bets. Hire, develop, and promote leaders demonstrating an OV mindset.

 

¹  C.G. Koch. 2007. The Science of Success: How Market-Based Management Built the World’s Largest Private Company. John Wiley & Sons.

²  Video interview with Darin Dredge, Director, Guardian Industries, October 05, 2020.

³  J. Yanagisawa. January 28, 2020. “The ‘Dejima’ Strategy for Promoting Open Innovation in Companies: Creating an Investment Return Framework, Not a Cost Center,” NRI Journal. www.nri.com/en/journal/2020/0128

⁴  Video interview with Kevin O’Meara, December 21, 2020.

⁵  https://hbr.org/2018/11/the-end-of-bureaucracy

⁶  P. Jacobs, B. Schlatmann, and D. Mahadevan. January 10, 2017. “ING’s Agile Transformation,” The McKinsey Quarterly.

⁷  “The Role of the Executive Sponsor in Healthcare Technology Projects,” www.healthleadersmedia.com/innovation/role-executive-sponsor-healthcare-technology-projects (accessed August 25, 2009).

⁸  G. Perez. September 19, 2018. “Chief Innovation Officer, Deutsche Bank, Former SVP Products & Innovation, SAP.” Interview by Alan Amling.

⁹  L. McCabe. September 25, 2018. “Operating Partner, AEA Investors LP, Former Vice President North America, Alibaba.” Interview by Alan Amling.

¹⁰  “Skill, Re-Skill and Re-Skill Again. How to Keep up with the Future of Work,” World Economic Forum. www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/07/skill-reskill-prepare-for-future-of-work/ (accessed July 31, 2017).

¹¹  M. Milano. March 12, 2019. “The Digital Skills Gap is Widening Fast. Here’s How to Bridge it,” World Economic Forum. www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/03/the-digital-skills-gap-is-widening-fast-heres-how-to-bridge-it/

¹²  D. Gantenbein. 2020. “Amazon’s Machine Learning University is Making its Online Courses Available to the Public,” Amazon Science. www.amazon.science/latest-news/machine-learning-course-free-online-from-amazon-machine-learning-university

¹³  Inc. Gallup. April 08, 2015. State of the American Manager. www.gallup.com/services/182138/state-american-manager.aspx

¹⁴  J. Wooden, J. Tobin, and B. Walton. 1988. They Call Me Coach. Contemporary Books Chicago.

¹⁵  K. Hurt and D. David. n.d. “5 Reasons Your Employees are Holding Back on Sharing Ideas,” Fast Company. www.fastcompany.com/90526638/the-main-reasons-employees-dont-speak-their-mind-at-work

¹⁶  S. Parrish. June 12, 2017. “Thought Experiment: How Einstein Solved Difficult Problems,” Farnam Street, Farnam Street. https://fs.blog/2017/06/thought-experiment/