Eliot Noyes

Pattern #1

Giving Purpose

A shared purpose is an organization’s most enduring source of sustained performance. Authentic leaders give purpose through their behaviors and actions.

Read more...

Noyes_office.jpg

As the primacy of the shareholder in twenty-first century capitalism comes under attack, new ideas are appearing about rebalancing the corporation’s purpose. One unlikely source of inspiration: Eliot Noyes, a mid-century American designer whose beliefs suddenly seem both fresh and relevant again.

Noyes trained as an architect in the Bauhaus School. He became an accomplished practitioner, designing buildings that would help reimagine how Americans worked and lived. Following a stint as a curator at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, he immersed himself in the growing profession of industrial design, and went on to create truly iconic products, including the IBM Selectric typewriter. His most powerful work, however, was in the application of his deeply-held humanism to the design of the modern corporation itself.

The IBM work grew out of Noyes’ relationship with Thomas Watson Jr, son of IBM’s founder and—on his father’s retirement in 1956—his successor as the company’s CEO. Inspired by foreign manufacturers like Olivetti, Watson was fascinated with the power of modern design. “Good design is good business” was how he summed it up.

Noyes began at IBM with one-off projects. As his relationship with Watson deepened, he put forward a more ambitious proposal: a first-of-a-kind program that would unite graphic design, architecture, exhibitions and industrial design into a single, integrated corporate program.

Working from his office in New Canaan, CT, Noyes put together an extraordinary team: graphic designer Paul Rand made the famous IBM “eight bar” logo; architect Mies van der Rohe designed the IBM building in Chicago; and Charles and Ray Eames worked on exhibits and a famous collection of educational videos. As IBM’s Consultant Director of Design, Noyes was the group’s guide and mentor, emphasizing unity of vision over uniformity of output, an approach that allowed each element of the program to define and achieve its own sense of excellence.

Noyes’ vision was anchored in what he called corporate character. A corporate design program could help communicate a company’s character through purposeful design of the way people experienced it—the buildings and sales offices through which employees and customers moved; the products the company sold; the letterhead on corporate stationery; the ubiquitous brand mark; even the employees themselves. Everything and everyone should contribute to the corporate character. Nothing should take away from it. It was an extraordinarily ambitious vision that achieved extraordinary results—rivalled in the modern era perhaps only by Apple.

Noyes’ legacy? The quality of the work speaks for itself. But beyond that, Noyes taught us the profound value of injecting human purpose into the heart of an organization. His most powerful and lasting gift of leadership to IBM was to clarify the company’s understanding of its purpose—as a champion of modernism, as a forward thinker, and as an advocate of progress through technology. More than 40 years after his death in 1977, IBMers continue to draw inspiration from Noyes’ vision, and find motivation every day to pursue it.

Hey Corporate America, Please Pass The Mashed Potatoes!!!

Pattern #11

The Shared Table

The shared table is the core metaphor for how work is done. The table convenes the team.

Read more...

Every corporation in the Fortune 500 has been undertaking some form of “digital transformation” for the past decade. It could be that 10% of them may even have some clear idea of what that means. (Sadly, we’re probably being generous.) Perhaps they are still trying to get ecommerce right (!); maybe they are trying to mobile-enable their workforce…again; undoubtedly, they continue to grapple with their digital marketing funnel and the complexities of an ever-elusive social media strategy. Truthfully, it isn’t easy—marrying legacy business processes to contemporary consumer behavior can be a real riddle, and one that requires some serious corporate soul-searching. When it comes to employee productivity, however, there is an easy breakthrough that shockingly few companies have adopted: true virtual document collaboration. Colloquially, this is known as Google Docs. 

Unlike other workplace productivity suites (ahem, Microsoft), Google Docs is designed from the ground up as a place of true collaboration, a virtual space where co-workers can jointly author presentations, build documents side-by-side, examine and adjust spreadsheet variables in multiple cells simultaneously. “Version control” becomes a concept that is no longer relevant. “Backing up” is no longer necessary. Email attachments are moot. All in all, it’s a prime example of a pattern of work that we call “the shared table.” Only now, instead of “please pass the mashed potatoes,” it’s “can you make some edits on slides 10–20, while I work on the intro?” It is so powerful, so transformative and so easy. So what is holding these companies back? It’s no exaggeration to say they are stuck in the productivity dark ages. (And please don’t point to poor approximations like Microsoft 365 or shared document repositories like Box as viable alternatives. They simply aren’t.)

Most corporate gatekeepers (many of them Microsoft certified) will point to security concerns as the main hurdle, but based on what evidence? The current preponderance of ransomware attacks that are shutting down entire cities are born of security flaws in Microsoft software. Nevertheless, loosening Microsoft’s contractual grip on large enterprises has been no small challenge for Google; a challenge that is as much about brand perception as product security. And speaking of digital transformation, Microsoft seems incapable of getting out of its own way to launch a document collaboration solution that actually works. 

In the end, however, it is a matter of adopting new behavior: being willing to sit at the shared table, to expose the messiness of the creative process, to accept a new level of input from your colleagues, to author as a team and not just as an individual. These are the real cultural requirements of digital transformation—and remain far too rare in the jungle of legacy corporate behaviors.

Now, excuse me while I share this doc with my co-author to see if he can make it better.


Steve Kerr

Pattern #2

Servant Leadership

Those who lead through fear apply pressure for results. Servant leaders remove obstacles to growth.

Read more...

On February 12th, 2018, the Golden State Warriors were playing the Phoenix Suns. And though they had won the NBA championship the year before, they were a team that suffered from frequent lapses of careless play. At their best, they achieved a state of flow that was beautiful to watch…but then they’d seem to lose it—and overreach to find it again. Too many passes. Too much unselfishness. Poor decisions. Ugly, ugly play.

The head coach, Steve Kerr, called a timeout. In general, he was a master of saying just the right thing. They listened because he had also been a player; because he had also won championships; because he displayed an uncommon level of empathy with each individual on the team. He was the coach, ostensibly in charge, the decision maker. How was he going to set them right this time?

The team huddled. They looked to the coach. But Steve Kerr simply handed them the clipboard and stepped away. It wasn’t a moment of exasperation. It wasn’t passive aggressive. He was empowering the team to fix it themselves…taking himself out of the equation. 

Because taking himself out of the equation was essential to the solution. 

Servant leadership sounds simple enough. But to practice it, you need to set your ego aside. You need to make yourself expendable. You need to not assert your ideas, your experience, your skills. Because it’s about the team. It’s about the team knowing that the solution, the path to sustained improvement and real achievement lies solely with them. 

In that broken moment, Steve Kerr, took the power he held and put it in the hands of the team. And in 2018, that team won another championship.

IBM Design Lab

Pattern #10

Dynamic Space

Workspace design reflects culture. It also shapes it. The design of most workspaces is fixed. Static space reinforces a fixed mindset. Dynamic space adapts to support new ways of working.

Read more...

IBM_design_lab.jpg

Breakthrough transformation is rare in business. Abundant systemic problems usually stand in the way: business units at war with one another; IT organizations that wield governance as whip and chain; creative agencies that create redundant and conflicting strategies in a drive to out-do one another. IBM Design Lab, which opened in April 2012 in midtown Manhattan, achieved several breakthroughs at once. The lab brought IBM’s marketing and IT departments together into a shared undertaking, building trust and understanding. Small, empowered teams were fashioned from outside agencies and IBM talent and coached on agile methods as a common language of work. Dynamic, creative and charged with energy, some of the most powerful learnings came from the physical space itself.

Like the teams who worked there, the lab had to bootstrap itself into existence. Just weeks before its opening came news that the furniture would not arrive in time. The team built their own from plywood sheets and table legs from a nearby Home Depot. It set the tone for what followed. The lab was in a constant state of flux. There was little that was fixed to the floor. The teams rearranged the foam boards and space dividers as the work changed. It was their space— a powerful prop for the culture of resourcefulness, creativity and learning we wanted to nurture.

At a moment when IBM and its clients were struggling to assert leadership, the lab seemed to light a path forward. IBM’s CEO was a frequent visitor. Hundreds of clients came for tours. IBM’s consulting division bottled and sold the lab, and built its own, lab-like approach to client engagements. A network of IBM Studios—physical facilities inspired by what the lab had pioneered—opened up around the world. IBM’s entire marketing organization of 5,000 people declared their commitment to agile methods. Across marketing, product and engineering teams, the company increasingly requires physical co-location.

The lab itself only lasted two years. We opened a second, bigger and far more expensive facility in the East Village. It was serviceable enough. But it failed to capture the bootstrapped magic of the original. The lab’s pioneers moved on, many of them profoundly changed by the extraordinary and intense experience they had shared. And the ideas on which the lab was built—small and empowered teams, agile methods, and the deep integration of creativity and technology—continue to grow more powerful and urgent.


Cruelty-Free Foie Gras and Free-Range Productivity

Pattern #3

Autonomy

An autonomous team is one that is wholly and independently capable of performing its work.

Read more...

The production of foie gras is a controversial topic. Traditionally, duck or geese are force fed (“gavage”) for two weeks in order to enlarge their liver, which is then harvested and used for paté, mousse, confit or other culinary artifacts. It may be delicious, but the brief lives of those fowl are undeniably constrained and sad, if not horrifying. Still, if you want the unique quality (and market value) of foie gras, it’s the only way.

Or is it? In 2011, NPR’s This American Life ran a story about Dan Barber—renowned creator of Blue Hill Farm, a farm-to-table mecca in upstate New York— seeking out Eduardo Sousa, a Spanish farmer who produces gavage-free foie gras. The secret? Freedom. Geese who are truly free—not fenced in, free to come and go as they please, free to eat what they choose—gorge themselves

“They have to believe they are free.

If they don’t believe they are free…

if food is brought to them…

if there is fencing…

they don’t feel wild.”

– Eduardo Sousa

Easy enough? Perhaps. But what makes it so difficult for most producers to fathom is that there can’t be a hint of control asserted. Not to protect them from predators (Sousa loses 20–30% of his geese a year), not to prevent them from leaving, not to turn their livers yellow (which indicates high fat content and has traditionally commanded greater prices on the market).

How is this a lesson in patterns of work? Consider the plight of the employees and the teams, from whom the corporation, in the person of the manager, is trying to extract the most value. The traditional assumption is that the teams need to be poked and prodded—managed through deadlines and, sometimes, incentives—in order to deliver on ideas over which they feel little or no ownership. As a result, the vast majority of new initiatives (be they products, campaigns, or even new processes) are depressingly uncreative…and often fail. The teams charged with undertaking them are largely uninspired. The individual producers are unmotivated. The work lacks spark and is deeply flawed.

Alternately, teams that are empowered—groups of equals doing their own research, generating their own insights, sizing their own tasks, describing their own commitments—are remarkably productive, passionate about what they are doing, and motivated to deliver greater and greater value. They are autonomous; they are free; constrained only by the simplest of social contracts with the corporation (“I work and I am paid”), creative briefs that frame the problems they are trying to solve, and guidance in the form of constructive feedback. In these configurations, the individual producers are fueled by a natural desire to be creative, an authentic commitment to their team, and a delight in their shared achievements and increasing productivity. Simply put—they are happy, and they produce the most valuable work. 

Easy enough? Perhaps. But the temptation to manage, to direct, to command, runs deep in the modern corporation and traps abound. Redirecting a team, for example, is an exercise fraught with potential mis-steps. A failed project may be a short-term disappointment but a team robbed of their spirit of autonomy is a much greater long-term loss. The work to build such teams is no small matter and requires the commitment of a servant leader whose greatest challenges lie in removing the blockers—within him or herself, within individuals on the team, within the operational structure of the corporation—to letting the team do it themselves.