Welcome to Generation Flux

Recently came across this article from Fast Company detailing a new generation defined by how they respond to change.  Now, I might be oblivious at times (who isn't?), but one thing anyone can tell you, even if they are living under a rock, is how quickly things are changing and that if anything, the pace is only ramping up.

Article Highlights:

The pace of change in our economy and our culture is accelerating--fueled by global adoption of social, mobile, and other new technologies--and our visibility about the future is declining. 

Look at the global cell-phone business. Just five years ago, three companies controlled 64% of the smartphone market: Nokia, Research in Motion, and Motorola. Today, two different companies are at the top of the industry: Samsung and Apple. This sudden complete swap in the pecking order of a global multibillion-dollar industry is unprecedented.

Any business that ignores these transformations does so at its own peril. Despite recession, currency crises, and tremors of financial instability, the pace of disruption is roaring ahead. The frictionless spread of information and the expansion of personal, corporate, and global networks have plenty of room to run. And here's the conundrum: When business people search for the right forecast--the road map and model that will define the next era--no credible long-term picture emerges. There is one certainty, however. The next decade or two will be defined more by fluidity than by any new, settled paradigm; if there is a pattern to all this, it is that there is no pattern. The most valuable insight is that we are, in a critical sense, in a time of chaos.

What defines GenFlux is a mind-set that embraces instability, that tolerates--and even enjoys--recalibrating careers, business models, and assumptions. Not everyone will join Generation Flux, but to be successful, businesses and individuals will have to work at it. This is no simple task. The vast bulk of our institutions--educational, corporate, political--are not built for flux. Few traditional career tactics train us for an era where the most important skill is the ability to acquire new skills.

Beth Comstock, the chief marketing officer of GE…Within GE, she says, "our traditional teams are too slow. We're not innovating fast enough. We need to systematize change." Comstock connected me with Susan Peters, who oversees GE's executive-development effort. "The pace of change is pretty amazing," Peters says. "There's a need to be less hierarchical and to rely more on teams."


The challenge they face is the same one staring down wide swaths of corporate America, not to mention government, schools, and other institutions that have defined how we've lived: These organizations have structures and processes built for an industrial age, where efficiency is paramount but adaptability is terribly difficult. We are finely tuned at taking a successful idea or product and replicating it on a large scale. But inside these legacy institutions, changing direction is rough. We have been trained to expect an orderly life. 

Dev Patnaik, cofounder and CEO of strategy firm Jump Associates, "Most big organizations are good at solving clear but complicated problems. They're absolutely horrible at solving ambiguous problems--when you don't know what you don't know. Faced with ambiguity, their gears grind to a halt.” 

One reason Facebook has thrived is that it is continually changing. Users and pundits routinely carp about new features or designs. But this is the way Facebook has been from its inception--including the critical decision in 2006 to open its doors to those not in college. Mark Zuckerberg knows that if he doesn't keep Facebook moving, others will come after him. Steve Jobs applied a similar approach at Apple: He disrupted his own business in dozens of ways, from refusing to make new products compatible with old operating systems to dumping the iPod's successful track wheel to embrace touch screens--ahead of everyone else. 

My Takeaways:

Dilbert

• I love this Dilbert comic for two reasons.  First, I love the concept of having time during the workday to be innovative or to have time to learn new skills to stay ahead or at least on top of the changing landscape. I personally think having time to think outside the box is refreshing and energizing...especially if there's a chance your idea could go somewhere. 
• We need to be continually learning, learning from other companies successes and failures, learning from other analysts or industry leaders. With the world changing as quickly as it is, learning from each other is imperative. 
• We can't depend on our past successes to predict our future growth. Opportunities are presented to those who are actively looking for them, who are taking calculated risks to keep moving themselves and their companies forward.
• We are going to be faced with more ambiguous problems. The best way to move forward is to make them less ambiguous by applying what we've learned in the past.  Sure, maybe the landscape is changing but that doesn't mean any past reference point is obsolete. I was just recently asked to help with estimating some redemption information for something we have really never done before. My starting point? Any past data we had to provide some sort of framework, so it wasn't just throwing darts. The estimate was still built upon assumptions, but at least it was based on facts that could help make that estimate as educated as possible.

Bottom line, we can't be stagnant...or else we'll be left in the dust.