dispatches from the new world of work

Two Articles

This week I read two articles, one right after the other. The first, pointed out by John Unwin writing to us at tompeters.com (thanks, John), described a difficult situation faced by the new CEO of Sony, Howard Stringer. You can read it here: "At Sony, Rivalries Were Encouraged; Then Came iPod," WSJ, June 29, 2005.

Then, UNC Chapel Hill contacted me about reprinting a piece by Tom first published in 1983: "A Skunkworks Tale." As I read through it, I realized this: In his article, Tom laid out a strategy to prevent Sony's current problem, and he wrote it 22 years ago!

Mr. Stringer, are you reading this?

Cathy Mosca posted this on 07/08/05.

Comments

I read Tom's article with eyes that wanted to disagree, if only for the sake of provoking a little debate. Regretably, there wasn't anything in it that I could find to disagree with (except possibly the graphic reference to slaughtering chickens!).

I agree with the skunkworks idea, but for the sake of a little discussion would like to ask how you would advise a large company to handle a small, entrepreneurial unit operating inside their organization. There may be a couple of problems with it.

The obvious one is that when you set up a entrepreneurial venture inside a big company, the people managing it tend to start thinking like entrepreneurs i.e., as if they're running their own business which tends to make everyone else in the organization unhappy. How do you justify any special arrangements you may have to make (separate offices, perks, different pay scales etc.) for the skunkworks team without fostering jealousy among everyone else in the organization?

If the answer to that is that you do not make 'special arrangements' for the skunkworkers, then how do you feel about paying people who come up with a breakthrough product or service the same as those who do the routine work involved in keeping the company ticking over?

Posted by Noel Guinane at July 9, 2005 2:11 PM

First let me say thanks for posting this link to the skunkworks paper. A gem!!

Re Noel's question - from my experiences in corporate skunkworks projects:

Yes - these were treated "special" relative to the corporation - they had selected staff,
they were run differently, managed differently, located off-site, etc. This is essential to
gain the skunkworks edge, in my opinion. And yes - absolutely - this created friction
relative to the corporation.

One of the things that helped to smooth the friction was a kind of "sabatical" program
which enabled corporate employees to work within the skunkworks project for a period
of time. To learn AND to contribute. This provided a personal bridge that enabled
a continous exchange of materials, resources, knowledge, skills. It didn't absolve the
friction totally, but did help to reduce it.

Corporate reviews of skunkworks activities were also open to all interested parties.
At times these were quite difficult for the skunkworks teams - feeling that "they"
didn't get it, don't understand it, or just plain don't want to change their ways. In many
cases, the feelings were justified. But it lifted the veils of secrecy and in many cases
recruited active supporters for the project.

At the end of a "successful" skunkworks project (yes, there are those that fail..sometimes
quite spectacularly), a complete transfer of process/methods/tools/knowledge is also
necessary. It's useful for management to understand that the payoff from a skunkworks
project can be twofold: product AND the ability to make another product..

This IS difficult since the skill levels, management styles, etc. will not match well.
One thing that I have seen work (several times) is to find a group that is eager, transfer the
essentials, but also work WITH them to re-work it to suit THEIR styles and skills.