We are dealing with unprecedented change invoked by the COVID-19 pandemic. What we need more than ever is a sense of hope. So, we’ve taken The Outthinker Process – a strategic process that helps business leaders step outside of conventional thinking to redesign their business models and strategies – and reformed it specifically for what we’re going through right now.
In March, as the reality of COVID-19 started taking hold, when my team received our fifth request in one day to postpone a keynote speech and my calendar was suddenly, unexpectedly, free for months, we sat down to discuss what to do. We figured that (a) other business thought-leaders are similarly, suddenly free and (b) many are wondering what would happen to the business they own or work.
In earlier blogs, we shared our hypothesis that societies and individuals are more resilient to cope with the COVID-19 crisis when they reconcile opposing values like rules vs. exceptions, top-down vs. bottom-up and being in control vs. being emotional. In this blog we concentrate on being in control vs. going with the flow orientation and how the joining of both can lead to better results.
In earlier blogs, we shared our hypothesis that societies and individuals are more resilient to cope with the COVID-19 crisis when they reconcile opposing values like rules vs. exceptions, top-down vs. bottom-up, and being in control vs. being emotional. In this blog, we concentrate on being short-term vs. long-term orientated and how the joining of both can lead to better results.
In the first four blogs in this series (here, here, here and here), we shared our hypothesis that societies and individuals are more resilient to cope with the COVID-19 crisis when they reconcile opposing values like rules vs. exceptions, short-term vs. long-term and being in control vs. being emotional. In this blog, we concentrate on the Achievement vs. Ascription orientation and how the joining of both can lead to better results.
In the first three blogs in this series (here, here and here), we shared our hypothesis that societies and individuals are more resilient to cope with the COVID-19 crisis when they reconcile opposing values like rules vs. exceptions, short-term vs. long-term, and being in control vs. being emotional. In this blog, we concentrate on the specific vs. diffuse orientations, and how the joining of both can lead to better results.
In earlier blogs, we shared our hypothesis that societies and individuals are more resilient to cope with the COVID-19 crisis when they reconcile opposing values like rules vs. exceptions, short-term vs. long-term, and being in control vs. going with the flow. In this blog, we concentrate on the neutral vs. affective orientations, and how the joining of both can lead to better results.
In our previous blog, we shared our hypothesis that societies and individuals are more resilient to cope with the COVID-19 crisis when they reconcile opposing values like rules vs. exceptions, short-term vs. long-term and being in control vs. going with the flow. In this blog, we concentrate on the individual vs. community orientations and how the joining of both can lead to better results.
In a series of blogs, we would like to inform you about the main challenges and dilemmas that our societies are facing due to the spread of the COVID-19 virus. It is our strong conviction that the dilemmas caused by COVID-19 are shared amongst all human beings but that the reconciliation approaches are culturally defined. Also, we believe that reconciliations rather than choosing between two desired states lead to more sustainable results in fighting this evil virus.
When you ask why large companies have a problem building an innovation proficiency, you get back all the usual suspects: “We have silos.” “It’s nobody’s job.” “We’re afraid of failure.” “It’s unpredictable.” And what do all of these things have in common?
