Douglas K Smith

March 15, 2008

About Me

Doug Smith is a consultant, writer, thinker, historian, teacher, lawyer and inventor who has made distinguished contributions in wide-ranging ways:

Management thinking and practice

- Acknowledged as one of the world’s leading management thinkers and consultants

- Has contributed to innovation, strategy and change in scores of organizations across more than forty industries in all three sectors: private, government and non-profit

- Cited in High Impact Consulting for having the number one impact of all consultants mentioned. His philosophy and practices routinely generate better than 50:1 returns

- As a McKinsey & Company Partner and co-leader of the Firm’s worldwide organization practice, launched the “horizontal organization,” a part of the reengineering revolution that Fortune called “the model for the next fifty years”

- Most recently authored On Value and Values -- a sweeping vision to revitalize our values for our world

- Co-authored The Wisdom of Teams and The Discipline of Teams, books used by millions of people in organizations the world over

- Authored Make Success Measurable and Taking Charge of Change -- books praised for using performance to drive real change in a dynamic world

Education and social change

- Author of On Value and Values: Thinking Differently About We In An Age Of Me, a social commentary and moral philosophy that has been compared in breadth and depth to Aristotle’s Politics and DeTocqueville’s Democracy In America.

- Designed Achieving Excellence In Community Development, a performance-driven leadership program causing profound shifts in scores of affordable housing organizations across the United States while simultaneously setting a remarkably higher standard for results in adult education

- Executive Director of The Punch Sulzberger Leadership Program for leaders of news organizations seeking to navigate the profound changes affecting their industry.

- Co-authored Sources of The African Past, an innovative, college-level introduction to 19th century African history that puts student and teacher on a level playing field through it’s presentation of original sources

- Taught high school math, physics and chemistry in The Gambia, West Africa and introduced set theory and “new” math to schools nation-wide

- Board Member of The Rapid Results Institute, that applies results-and-performance driven methods to dramatically increase the size and sustainability of impacts for social and economic development efforts, primarily in Africa

- Member of Executive Committee that rearchitected governance at Yale University in early 1970s

Technology

- Co-invented (patents pending) non-linear arrayed video -- system and methods for creating and viewing fully browseable video – an entirely new form of education and entertainment

- Co-created McKinsey’s Rapid Response Network, one of the world’s earliest and longest lasting innovations in knowledge management

- Former Chairman of E-Lab, company that applied cultural anthropology to invent new methods of behavior-based market research

- Chairman of Foothold Technology, company bringing the benefits of application service technology to the non-profit sector

- Wrote Fumbling the Future: How Xerox Invented, Then Ignored Personal Computing -- widely celebrated as one of the classic books of the Information Age

Industries Served

- Accounting/Auditing
- Agricultural Machinery
- Adult Literacy
- Aviation
- Banking
- Biotechnology
- Cable Television
- Clothing
- Community Development
- Computers
- Consulting
- Corporate Training/Education
- Crafts and Hobbies
- Credit Cards
- Direct Mail
- Disaster Relief
- eCommerce
- Education, K-12 and University
- Energy
- Entertainment
- Fabric Finishing & Dying
- Food and Beverage
- Government
- Health Care
- Information Services
- Insurance
- Journalism
- Kitchen Technology
- Land Use Planning
- Law
- Outsourcing
- Packaging
- Pharmaceuticals
- Professional Sports
- Public Policy
- Publishing
- Retail
- Software
- Telecommunications
- Transportation
- Travel
- Utilities

Posted by Doug Smith at 11:12 PM | Permalink

Books

On Value and Values : Thinking Differently About We in an Age of Me Douglas K. Smith

The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization
J. R. Katzenbach, Douglas K. Smith

The Discipline of Teams: A Mindbook-Workbook for Delivering Small Group Performance J. R. Katzenbach, Douglas K. Smith.

Make Success Measurable: A Mindbook-Workbook for Managing Performance Douglas K. Smith

Fumbling the Future: How Xerox Invented, Then Ignored, the First Personal Computer Douglas K. Smith, R. C. Alexander

Taking Charge of Change: 10 Principles for Managing People and Performance Douglas K. Smith


Sources of the African Past David Robinson, Douglas K. Smith

Book Chapters

"Performance Management" (with Martin Finegan), Chapter 38 in Handbook of Industrial Engineering by Gavriel Salvendy

"Pick Relevant Metrics", Chapter 11 in Management Skills: A Jossey-Bass Reader

Foreword to Creating A Learning Culture by Conner and Clawson

"The Following Part of Leading", Chapter 20 in The Leader Of The Future by Hesselbein, Goldsmith and Beckhard

Posted by Doug Smith at 08:50 PM | Permalink

Articles

- Whatever happened to We? UUWorld, February 2005

- Thinking Differently About "We" Executive Update Online, September 2004

- We, Incorporated FastCompany, July 2004

McKinsey Quarterly

- The Horizontal Organization (with F. Ostroff) 1992 Number 1

- Why Teams Matter (with Jon Katzenbach) 1992 Number 3

- Team Leadership (with Jon Katzenbach) 1992 Number 4

- Teams at the Top (with Jon Katzenbach) 1994 Number 1

Harvard Business Review

- The Discipline of Teams (with Jon Katzenbach) March-April 1993 and re-published as HBR Classic in Summer 2005

Leader to Leader Journal

- Better Than Plan: Managing Beyond The Budget, No. 15, Winter 2000

- The Discipline Of Virtual Teams (with Jon Katzenbach), No. 22, Fall 2001

- What Do We Really Stand For? No. 35, Winter 2005

LiNEZine: Learning In The New Economy

- Performance & Learning: The New P&L, Summer 2000

- 24by7 Teaming, Summer 2001

Posted by Doug Smith at 08:48 PM | Permalink

Contact me

Posted by Doug Smith at 08:44 PM | Permalink

June 19, 2007

Better Deeds

Over the past several years, America's best run non-profit housing organizations have dramatically outperformed the subprime lenders in serving financially-strapped folks seeking to buy or refinance a home. Many of these stellar performers, though, struggle from year to year to ensure they have the financial wherewithal to continue their efforts -- and few, if any, have been rewarded with the capital to expand. There's no real reason -- other than the always potent cocktail of ignorance and greed -- that capital markets cannot work with nonprofit housing organizations. The fact that otherwise sophisticated folks do a double take at this suggestion merely confirms the extraordinary level of self-interest and distorted language that now pervade our culture. Remember this: mortgages are forms of debt. Not equity. Non-profit lenders can produce debt instruments just like for profit lenders. What happens to those debt instruments down the road -- that is, how they get converted into equity like forms -- is not limited or constrained by the tax status of the initial lender. As I explain further in Slate, however, the quality of the mortgage evidently is affected by the tax status of the lender. America's nonprofits produce much better deeds than the the subprime lenders. Much better. Delinquency rates for the nonprofits run between 1 in 20 to 1 in 50. For the subprimes? 1 in 5 and rising.

Posted by Doug Smith at 02:07 PM | Permalink

March 19, 2007

Memo To Journalists: Move From Reporting Ideology to Reporting On Problem Solving

There are many explanations for the flight over the past decade or so of journalists toward reporting about ideology. Among them, of course, is the chicken-and-egg spiral whereby political discourse shifts to 'either/or', 'on/off', 'my way or the highway' presentation and appeal that, in turn, influences journalists to report about the horse race of 'which ideology is winning' that, then, encourages and reinforces the thread bare 'either/or-ism' of the political discourse. In addition, though, are many, many other factors too numerous to list in this post. But, just to illustrate; there's also the incredible, geometric expansion of subject matter, the traumatic shifts in the economic and other realities of journalism and news businesses in this new information/web age of ours, and the rapid drift toward celebrity as a means of competition both for journalists' own careers and for the businesses that employ them. In response to all of these are some clear patterns of how journalists now practice their craft. One, for example, is what I call 'press release' journalism: simply printing the press releases of others and calling it reporting. (My far too subtle intended irony here has to do with the interpretation where journalists 'press the release button --that is, release themselves from their best values and aspirations to actually inform us -- which would take some work -- instead of merely being parrots.)

It's been years now since we've all learned to expect and experience the 'he said, she said' form of what passes for jounalistic balance in this new world of press release journalism. No matter how outrageous any ideological position, the minimal obligation of journalists seems to be met by merely including any comment from anyone who opposes that position. Among the many ways this hollows out journalism, much like termites eat away at a house, is that it eliminates any threshold of accuracy. So long as someone can be quoted, it matters not that the quoted statement is devoid of any fact. We've seen this time and again with regard to Valerie Plame's job status as a covert agent. We see it time and again with regard to creationism, the WMD lies that led to the Iraq disaster, the either/or journalism about No Child Left Behind and more.

Put differently, in a world and culture that spins out of control toward politicizing everything into a black-and-white loyalty test regarding ideology and identity, there becomes no room left for actual problem solving -- for actually trying to do anything about anything. Karl Rove triumphs. All journalists are branded as right v left or, more likely, supporters of Bush and the Republicans versus supporters of the 'left', the 'Democrats, of 'Satan' and of our 'enemies'.

Note again, please, how easy this makes the job of a journalist. The articles basically write themselves. And, the obligation to actually think for one self and to learn about the issues disappears.

None of which is to say that this description matches the best aspirations, the real concerns, the private lives or the truly professional best efforts of most journalists. From my experience, most journalists I know would prefer a better, more constructive way of moving forward into the 21st century. And, I'm guessing, most journalists I don't know would too.

We're dealing with issues of profound change. And, among them, are the challenges of shifting course within the context of jobs and organizations. That's very hard. At a minimum it entails taking risks to do things differently -- risks that affect job security, friendships within the organization, and sense of self. In most organizations, the 'either/or' aspects of our culture can rapidly become 'either/or' loyalty tests or career risks -- perhaps because they really are; or, more likely, perhaps because there is a perception that the "CEO" will come down hard on any risk takers. (Such perceptions, by the way, are as often mistaken as they are correct.)

Changing 'the way we do things around here' within any organization is very difficult. It is one explanation for why new entrants often take market share away from existing players -- at least until the existing players get the message and begin to recast themselves accordingly.

This is now happening in journalism. New players -- blogs, crowdsourcing journalism, citizen journalism, user generated content and more -- are moving quickly and independently toward taking advantage of a core new reality: the essential 'many-to-many' nature of our webbified world.

News organizations that, over the decades stretching from the 1970s to early 2000s, adjusted and grew based on a 'one-to-many' world, today have decades of skills, instincts, processes and economics that don't fit a 'many-to-many' world. This was shocking news to most of these organizations -- and, for the most part, even a year or so ago, most were in denial. Now, across this country, news businesses are rapidly moving from denial to doing something about it.

As they do, I've got a recommendation. Put a stop to 'press release' journalism. Put a stop to reporting about the horse race between a well defined ideology (Rovian Republicanism) and the assumed ideology in opposition (which, by the way, as every single one of us knows is and has also been defined by Rove).

Put a stop to this. And, instead, start to explore and learn journalism oriented to reporting about 'problem solving' -- that is, journalism that seeks to report on and inform people about options worth considering for how to move forward against the many challenges we face as a people.

In this 'problem solving' journalism, there will be no 'totally right answers'. Rather, there will be approaches that 'work sometimes'. And the job of journalists will be to help us figure out when various solutions work and when they don't. (And, yes, also what those promoting any solution have to gain personally -- that is, sources of self-interest that might or might not reach beyond objectivity.)

To take just one example, consider charter schools. Charter schools really do work sometimes. And, at other times they do not work. And, yet still in other situations, charter schools can exacerbate and make worse various ills. In a world where journalists report on education, they'll help us distinguish among the three cases -- unlike today where far too many articles one reads basically present a 'balance' between those who claim, "Charter schools are right!' and "Charter schools are wrong!"

Posted by Doug Smith at 01:41 PM | Permalink

March 17, 2007

What Does The Republican Party Brand Really Stand For?

What can we tell from how we experience the actual behavior of the Republican Party about the values Republicans really stand for? We are aware of a series of beliefs that the Republican Party wishes to include in the brand it markets and sells to Americans (and the world). And, let's be clear, political parties -- like companies -- need to have clear brands in our new world of markets, networks, organizations, friends and families. The issue we're putting on the table is about how actual behavior matches those branded beliefs.

In this regard, let's review how the best organizations think about and use brand. There are three phases:

Brand Promise: Using a set of clear beliefs, the best organizations promise behavior that matches those beliefs

Brand Delivery: How the best organizations go forward with products, services, information, distribution, customer service, technology, and more to deliver against the promises made.

Brand Experience: How the customers, investors and others experience what gets delivered -- that is, whether the promise, the delivery and the actual experience match up and reinforce one another.

Recently, for example, Howard Schultz, the brand mastermind who runs Starbucks, sent a memo to his senior executives asking aloud about whether Starbucks efforts to streamline stores (and increase revenues and profits) had damaged certain key aspects of the brand promise: 'romance' and 'theater'.

By stocking prepackaged coffee and using automated machines, Schultz worried that the brand delivery shifted from the promise of 'romance' and 'theater' to the experience of -- my words -- your basic retail grocery store-like assembly line.

"Romance" and 'theater' may be difficult to deliver on in ways that create the intended customer experiences. But, if Starbucks chooses those beliefs and promises to be core to their brand promise, then, as Schultz alerts the executives, it's incumbent on Starbucks employees up and down the company and all across the world to take steps that do the best job possible of delivering against those promises.

The Republican Party has a set of core beliefs with which it has branded what it promises America. These include small government, efficient government, fiscal responsibility, family values, defending America, prosperity through individual opportunity, low taxes and so on.

But, all Americans of all political stripes -- and especially Americans who belong to the Republican Party - need to ask whether the brand delivery and brand experience match up with these brand promises.

What happens to companies can also happen to political parties -- indeed, any organization in this new world of ours. At some point, if the brand delivery and brand experience radically contradict the brand promise, then the customers (in this case, voters), the investors (in this case, contributors) and even the employees (in this case those who work and volunteer for the Republican Party) will actually look at the delivery and the experience to define the brand of the Party and not to the promises themselves.

If, for example, Starbucks fulfills Howard Schultz's worst fears and focuses so much on efficiency and profits that it's coffee -- and the experience of being in one of it's stores -- has zero to do with romance and zero to do with theater, then Starbucks will be branded by customers, investors and, again, even employees as 'just another coffee company'.

This is the reality of managing brands in a world of markets, networks, organizations, friends and families.

And this reality applies to the Repubican Party.

Many news organizations, pollsters, political professionals and other insiders can (and will) continue to monitor the Republican Party's brand solely at the level of promise. In this sense, they can report on and talk about promises, promises, promises -- as if those were -- as in the now ancient days of marketing the only thing that mattered.

But, while they are essentially just talking to themselves about tautologies ("The Republican Party stands for family values because The Republican Party stands for family values!"), an ever increasing number of voters, contributors, volunteers and employees who live in the rest of this new 'real world of markets, networks, organizations, friends and famliies' will persistently -- that is daily and weekly -- bump up against the actual delivery and experience that -- if they radically contradict the promises-- reach a tipping point that then brands the Repubican Party in ways that will be extraordinarily difficult to reverse because -- well, because promises of reversing them will sound like 'promises, promises'.

All of which is to say: Take a moment and reflect on the brand promises of the Republican Party and then ask, what do you observe about how the Party delivers on those promises as well as how you and people you know experience what the Republican Party really stands for.

Do this and, if you can put aside partisanship of any kind (pro or con) -- if you are capable of that -- then try to objectively observe: What's the current real brand of the Republican Party?

Posted by Doug Smith at 12:39 PM | Permalink

Archives