Numbers Rant

This week was all about measurement and tracking for me. I can be somewhat of a numbers nazi at times, so quantitative data is an important component for me to understand the full picture. In a recent report put out the PWC, they put the science of measurement into perspective:

“We know that today some 80% of the

market capitalisation of companies is

represented by so-called intangible assets

which would not, according to financial

reporting standards, be included as

additives in a balance sheet”

Its exciting for me to know that our accounting methods are advancing and becoming more holistic so as to reflect the true impact of every dollar. The accounting software and advanced management systems out there can be overwhelming to absorb. Between EP&L (Environmental Profit and Loss statements), TIMM (Total Impact Measurement Management) and other tracking systems like the GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) its hard to decide which is right for any given company.

My starting point is with the company or individual in question. What do they value? What is the priority for them to measure? Some companies want to measure it all, others prioritize indicators that will yield the most information. It seems to be the first step in committing to alternative reporting - decide what matters to you. Once this has been made clear - the company can start shopping for tracking software or implementing their own tracking system.

In parallel with the actual data tracking comes the method for tracking. How will you capture the information? Who will conduct such audits? Its important that the actual performance numbers be reported accurately in order to maintain integral tracking numbers. By this point in the process companies have already dedicated a lot of time and money to implementing this new system. It undoubtedly takes a dedicated group of personnel to organize and execute these transitions. Once the transition is complete there is generally a lot of vital data to consider when strategizing and moving forward but it also feels like business as usual. How can we get to this place with every company? How can we help companies make the transition to holistic accounting? Is it an important goal or should we focus on something else?

My opinion is that numbers are powerful and when we account for them more precisely we have a more detailed picture of our influence. This brings us deeper in understanding our impact on the world which in my opinion is the ultimate goal of society.

Sustainable operations

My initial challenge this year for my Organizational Leadership class is to brave the world of sustainable operations. How does one successfully integrate sustainability into an organization's operations? What are the key entry points? What are the challenges of implementation? Generally, business sustainability entails the incorporation of social equity, economic efficiency and environmental performance, into a company's operational practices. The myriad of ways to which you can begin to achieve this is the subject of my post today.

Whats been done

When a company decides to ‘integrate sustainability’ into their operations there is usually a degree of overwhelming panic that follows - where do we start? I’ve been reading about what some companies have done to formalize the process and choose specific areas where they want to excel. Here are some ways companies are integrating sustainability into their operations:

• Certifications- by purchasing ‘sustainably certified products’ or operating out of a ‘green certified’ building or being certified as a ‘sustainable company’ can help a company prioritize their sustainability efforts. Using certifications allows companies to support a standard of products or buildings that meet a desired level of sustainability. Here are three examples of certification that incorporate sustainability in different ways.
• USDA Organic label - Lets say a grocery company’s sustainability goals include reducing the amount of pesticide laden food they carry and supporting patron’s health and eating habits. One policy that they could incorporate would be carrying more organically certified food. Using a certifying body would allow them to meet their operational goals without having to do a lot of the research and audit work involved in the certifying body.
• LEED certification - If a company prioritizes their working environment as a way to support sustainability, LEED certified buildings are an easy way for them to meet a standard without having to figure everything out related to green building environments.
• B-corp Certification - Because of the performance requirements of this certification, a certified B-corp can send a message to patrons and meet their own internal sustainability practices and goals. This certification is more of a holistic method to operational sustainability by setting internal standards around social, economic and environmental impact. This certification allows companies to communicate a clear commitment to sustainability to patrons and employees alike.
• Measurement and Reporting -  Another way companies can integrate sustainability practices is by selecting key performance indicators or areas that relate to their overarching sustainability goals. The Global Reporting Initiative is perhaps the best example of this on a large scale. They offer a standardized reporting method that tracks performance in several key business operational areas. This can help organizations understand where they are at currently and where they could grow in the future. It helps an organization leverage opportunities for growth in sustainability that perhaps they were unaware of before they began to report.
• Targeted strategies - Some companies have a clear focus when it comes to sustainability. They choose a specific issue, target area or goal and work to achieve it through operations. For example, several textile companies have committed to the 0ZDHC initiative or Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals by 2020. This single initiative changes how companies are operating in several departments including their supply chain, manufacturing process and purchasing decision matrix. With one initiative in mind they are able to go through department by department and make the necessary changes to their operational plan so as to achieve their final goal.

The Challenges moving forward

Obviously there are many ways to get from point A to point B. After reviewing some of our current methods I couldn’t help but wonder - Are we capturing the whole picture?  All of these sustainable initiatives may work to support the specific organizations operational goals but how are they contributing to the societies which they serve? How do we best balance between the opportunity for collective action and maximizing our effectiveness by focusing on specific organizational goals?

Success and Growth

 Success is a personal expression used to describe how someone is doing at life. Some see material wealth as a sign of success, others see familial relationships as their measure of success. Its challenging to get too specific about the measurements of success because it can take so many forms. One business may be successful in some areas and completely unsuccessful in other areas. Lets take a look at some key factors for measuring success:

The first factor: Self-Satisfaction. Is this person living their purpose? Are they being authentic? Are they passionate? Do they enjoy doing their work or business activities? The most successful people are deeply self-satisfied. They have their needs met, they are inspired; they love what they do every day. This is a sign of success in my mind. A great example of this is Ray Anderson from Interface Carpet – he is an extremely self-satisfied man and is very successful in the eyes of many.

The second factor: Contribution to Greater Society. Does this product, service or business help meet the needs of society as a whole before, during and after its ‘life’? Is there value inherently present in this product or service? Are people living ‘better’, happier, more engaged lives because of this business being present in their lives? I think the impact on society, as a whole is an important factor when measuring success. If you can meet the needs of different populations and have a deep impact on improving the lives of others then one should be considered successful.

The third factor (last but not least): Sustainable Nature of the business, service or product in question. Can this product or business continue to exist and thrive under the current operation? Are finances, procurement, personnel and demand consistent? Any successful business has consistency and the ability to sustain its operations in the marketplace.

Accounting for “healthy growth” within each factor of success is an important consideration. If one is to be successful by contributing something useful to themselves and society as a whole then they need to reach people. Growth is a reflection of demand – more people wanting what you are providing means that you have a wider influence and impact on people’s lives.  What does it mean if a business, product or service is experiencing healthy or sustainable growth?

The best answer I can come up with pulls from Janine Benyus’s work in Biomimicry. She states, “We live in a competent universe. Learn from the genius of the planet & universe and ask how would nature solve this?” In relation to growth, I have observed that most babies need a lot of energy inputs and they grow relatively fast, usually leveling out after a period of time into adulthood. Upon stabilizing their growth, most organisms tend to then ready themselves for reproduction. The relationship between animals and their offspring has a wide range of variations much like that of parent companies and their subsidiaries. At a certain point, growth begins to transition into a decomposition process whereby our material make up transforms itself into a new composition. This new composition allows for the process of organism growth to start again ‘anew’. So if businesses were to look to nature for tips on sustainable growth, one could say this is a rough guide. If the factors of success are present and growth has measurable stability in its process then I feel like you could say that that company is successful overall.

Valuation

Basic Tools for Valuation

There seem to be a few prominent financial forms of valuation used in different circumstances. Below is a short list of some of these valuation methods for assessing either the value of money in the future, the payoff of an investment or valuing the stock of a company.

1. Perpetuity - A stream of equal cash flows that occur at regular intervals and last forever. Present Value = Cash flow / rate
2. Annuity - A stream of N equal cash flows paid at regular intervals. Payment has a set end time after a fixed number of payments.   
3. Discounted Free Cash Flow model - a method of valuing the total value of the firm to all investors both equity and debt holders. The biggest difference in using this model to value a firm is that you discount the free cash flow that will be paid to both debt and equity holders.

1. Enterprise Value = market value of equity + Debt - Cash
2. Market Value = Enterprise Value - Debt + Cash
3. Price Earnings Ratio = Share price / Earnings per share - “The intuition behind its use is that when you buy a stock, you are in a sense buying the rights to the firm’s future earnings.”

What does history tell us about the process of financial valuation of a firm?

John Burr Williams, the “founder of fundamental analysis” is quoted saying “the truth is that the mathematical method is a new tool of great power whose use promises to lead to notable advances in Investment analysis. Always it has been the rule in the history of science that the invention of new tools is the key to new discoveries, and we may expect the same rule to hold true in this branch of Economics as well.” (p. 278). William’s book Theory of investment value was written in 1938 and marked the beginning of the use of formal analytical mathematical methods in finance.

I found it unsettling when Williams refers to using mathematical methods in finance as an ‘invention’ of a new tool. While this is may be true, I question if it is ethical to be doing? Most mathematicians will tell you that math is not an ‘invention’ it is merely a discovery of an existing and provable set of interconnected universal laws. Laws pertaining to the functions of our universe like gravity or matter. When using mathematics to figure out something as mysterious and unproven as the value of something I feel there is subtle level of subjective manipulation occurring. Unlike the mathematics that prove the existence of gravity, we still struggle to account for the full value of things on this planet.  There are so many assumptions that must be made in order for one number to represent or mean anything in relation to a firm’s value that it makes valuation less of a mathematical process and more of a judgment call. 

This brings me to the heart of valuation, the art of making assumptions. I turn to a major Investment Nerd, Douglas Kehring, who explains the process behind valuing a company and readying it for the market (p. 292 Interview) He notes that, once they want to try and acquire a company, they “Negotiate the price point with the seller - that’s where the art comes into play. Our DCF (Discount Cash Flow) Analysis is the most important part in justifying the value.” Typically they use 5 year DCFs and he explains that the hardest part of the analysis is in determining the inputs, “assumptions are key” he says. They also take into account the income statement and breakeven valuations so they can get a hold on a firms current standing.

As we move forward into a more sustainable, profitable and accountable world, I feel like the process involved in making assumptions is our biggest point of leverage. If we can begin to make assumptions that account for the value of our planetary capital, social and human capital as well as our manufactured and financial capital then we could really start to get closer to true valuations. Of course there are plenty of forecasters and investment firms that know how to play the game of valuation and make the proper assumptions but is there work truly reflective of the value of the firms they examine? We have a lot of room to evolve our process for valuation and I look forward to a day when we can account for a firm’s value beyond financial performance.

The Five Capitals

The Five Capitals Model was developed to understand the different types of capital a firm would use to deliver its products and services. The goal is to enhance these capital stocks rather than degrade or deplete them. In order to understand how each form of capital potentially interacts with another, I have laid out the basic description of each type. There are times when one form of capital clearly has influence on another or times when one reflects the capability of another. I hope to share some insight on the implications of each type of capital on the firm and on our greater economy. 

1. Natural Capital - These are the raw materials and resources like energy, matter and processes that are needed by all businesses in order to produce their products and services. This includes:

• Sinks - Absorbing, neutralizing or recycling waste like forests and oceans
• Resources - renewable & non-renewable like timber and fossil fuels
• Processes - Enables life to continue in balance like climate regulation or carbon cycle 

Natural Capital is not easily replicable, rather it works for companies in a more ‘automatic’ way. If a company had to pay to replicate natural capital services or ecosystem services in financial capital it would most likely take millions or billions of dollars. Only recently have companies started paying money for services related to natural capital and It’s usually done indirectly. For example, paying an environmental fee in California when renting exhaust emitting equipment. This fee then goes into paying government environmental taxes which enters a specific area of government funded environmentally supportive programs. Natural capital provides a relatively irreplaceable set of services and because of this, I place Natural Capital as the number one most valuable form of capital. It provides a basis to which all other forms of capital can be built, explored and maximized.

2. Social capital - Considered to be any “value added to the activities and economic outputs of an organization by human relationships, partnerships and co-operation.” This plays out both internally and externally:

• Internally - “takes the form of shared values, trust, communication and shared cultural norms. Which enable people to work cohesively.
• Externally - “social structures help create a climate of consent or a license to operate in which trade and the wider function s of society are possible.” 

Its unclear to me where loyalty fits in - whether its Human capital or Social capital. Perhaps its a result of both a high level of human capital and social capital. Loyalty would best be exemplified in metrics like employee retention which in turn would reflect the level of human and social capital of a company. I feel like loyalty is usually a result of people being satisfied, acknowledged and included for one’s contribution to the greater whole.

Having high levels of social capital, both internally and externally, can be an extremely powerful asset. If you have a high level of internal trust within your organization it means less turnover and higher productivity. Turn over takes time and thus, financial capital and it also irritates the cohesiveness of a high functioning team. When a group of internal stakeholders can form a high functioning team that produces superior outputs, the company can excel in their social capital. Externally, social capital is just as important because as they say in Hollywood, “its not what you know, its who you know”. Our relationships are the bulk of most business transactions, if two parties are not able to agree and share the same values then they usually cannot work together.  It is because of these reasons that I believe that social capital is the second most valuable source of capital for any business.

3. Financial capital - Defined as “Assets of an organization that exist in a form of capital that can be owned or traded.” Some examples would be; ‘shares, bonds, banknotes and coin.’ It is essentially a reflection of all the other four types of capital and for this reason I classified it as the third most valuable form of capital. Financial capital is the standard ‘universal’ way which we measure value. Money is a symbol, it represents labor and output, which are seen as incredibly valuable forms of capital to have an a firms disposal.

4. Human Capital - This basically “Incorporates the health, knowledge, skills, intellectual outputs, motivation and capacity for relationships of the individual.” For me, human capital means having people involved in your organization that are assets in and of themselves. Either their capacity, commitment or consistency allows you to form a trusting relationship in which you can rely on them for intelligent output. These include good managers, skilled laborers and administrators alike. Having a high human capital value as a company, essentially means you have ‘good people’ working for you.

5. Manufactured Capital - This includes “material goods and infrastructure owned, leased or controlled by an organization that contribute to production or service provision but do not become a part of its output.”  I see it as the traditional sense of ‘physical assets’ such as buildings, infrastructure, transportation networks, waste disposal, communications, technology, tools, machines, IT and engineering.

Manufactured Capital is all about a business's physical capability to produce something. Do they have the machinery to produce? It can be powerful because it can bring reality to an idea and produce an output that can provide a financial return for the company. One could see it as relatively useless without a workforce but if the skilled labor were contracted or rented out then it becomes a lower risk investment. There is also the sale of the manufactured capital which is like having physical collateral if you needed to transform capital into more traditional types like financial capital.

Whether its physical, symbolic, energetic, intellectual, social or natural, the value of this world is tied to capital exchanges. We have created ways to express the value of capital and learned to exchange that value for capital equivalents. For me, sustainable capital weighs values and constraints across all five forms and makes decisions based on an underlying purpose to serve the needs of planet and people simultaneously.

Will touching sound and feeling sight get us there?

The Disruptive Organization

I have been a little irritated with the ‘virtual meeting’ lately. Video chats, collaborate sessions, conference calls, google hangout… I really feel like something is missing. Of course, these technologies make the virtual meeting more dynamic by adding visual components, video animation or a chat box for an additional layer of commentary or exploration. But it never really feels like ‘real life’, does it? We are living in an exciting age of robotics, Artificial Intelligence and virtual-sensory worlds, so why do our virtual interactions still seem to fall short of a ‘real life’ experience? This week, I’m taking a look at companies that are disrupting the virtual-sensory experience market and shaping the future of digital interaction.

Before we jump into the companies and their technologies, lets explore what makes an organization as a whole disruptive. Rummler and Brache boil organizational success and effectiveness down to three key areas: aligned goals, organizational design and management of performance. For organizations to be successful, all three must be aligned and have an effective relationship to one another with clear communication. What are some common goals that disruptive companies have? For virtual tech companies, it feels like many of them have a goal to bring a rich experience to consumers that is sought after but not yet available. Another goal is in reaching consumers. Many disruptors will ask who are the “non-consumers”? What people are currently being excluded from the market and how can our product or service reach them in simpler, easier or unique ways? In his article exploring corporate innovation, Scott Anthony comments on how Southwest has disrupted the airline industry by successfully reaching and captivating non-consumers. In the sensory tech world, we are all non-consumers and its the companies job to know what we need next.

So who are the most disruptive companies in the virtual-sensory tech world right now? Ive compiled as short list of companies that are making Virtual or Sensory Reality, an actual reality. Let me know what you think.

1. Low hanging fruit… Google Glass. The ‘first’ consumer-wearable, mobile, personalized, virtual experience, available to the general public. An arguably disruptive device from one of the worlds most famously disruptive companies, Google. How is this different from our current computer screen experience? Well, other than wearing it physically, you are able to integrate the digital world into your field of vision and feel like its a part of your visual experience. While there is nothing like it on the market today, I have to ask, is it truly a unique digital experience or just another take on virtual design? There is tremendous potential to expand the product to include other interactive features that engage the sense of smell, sound and feeling.  But, I feel like its not quite there yet and still does much of what our other digital devices currently do. Disruption scale says: Incremental Disruption.
2. BoomRoom - Much like projection mapping for visuals, this is an audio projector that can assign sounds & songs to objects in the room so you can literally ‘touch’ sound. Sounds can be programmed into objects and activated through physical movements. “A music track, for instance, could be assigned to an object in the room such as a vase. To play the track you simply pick up the vessel and "pour out" a track in mid air.” Because the sound is projected locally, you could be the only one that actually hears the sound or song. They have also created virtual mixing spaces where instruments exist in mid-air so you can do your own sound mixing kinetically. The article explores the potential for the visually impaired, targeted marketing strategies and I’m dreaming up an elaborate futuristic music performance in my head. I’d say making it possible to touch sound, a previously unseen sense, is a very disruptive capability. Disruption scale says: Super-Duper Disruption.  
3. Oculus Rift - Consumer ready Virtual reality headset. The company itself has a very focused strategy and target market in the gaming industry. They have made a huge splash by making an affordable, well made, high quality virtual headset for the gaming industry. But if you do some research, the company has made some big leaps into other markets as well. Most recently, a spanish company called, Be Another Lab developed a neuroscientific device to be used with Oculus Rift in order to create the experience of swapping bodies with someone.  Their goal is to “explore the concepts of empathy through technology, science and art.”  And then there is Kiiroo - They are a social media platform that is working to bring intimate physical touch to the digital world. They are hoping to partner with Oculus Rift to provide an integrated virtual reality experience along with their unique product offerings. Kiiroo is also hoping to partner with Second Life in order to take the whole platform into an elevated fantastical universe. So, outside of the gaming market, I’d say this little birdy can fly. There are serious implications that a device like this can have for our virtual-sensory experience. I believe the company has made significant investments into the technology, making it accessible beyond the gaming market without cannibalizing or sacrificing quality. Disruption Scale says: Uber- Disruptive.

One notable distinction here before we bring this post to an end- most of these companies are just starting out. They are essentially creating their own marketplace, much like Nexflix or Apple did in the past. As we move forward, it will be interesting to see how they evolve their organizational goals and try to maintain an alignment internally with their design and management. An effective market disruptor doesn’t just have an idea or product that is unique, its in how they move into markets as an organized entity that will aid their imminent success or failure. I think it will also be interesting to see who they make obsolete in creating their own markets, maybe eventually we won’t need our iphones anymore. All the concepts around strategy that we’ve been exploring this week come into play as the market and the company develops over time- do they have transient advantages built into their internal strategy? Are they integrating a scientific process into their operations and development? I would argue that due to the innovative nature of their products, these companies have a high level of creativity when it comes to getting things done. They have an advantage over other disruptors in that they are creating something entirely new and that type of disruption demands innovation at all levels of the organization. Thus is the excitement and intrigue of the tech startup.

What’s your take? Were my disruption scale ratings justified? Know of a disruptive sensory product out there? Please share! 

What makes you a disruptive person?

Introducing... The Scale of Disruption

In my previous post I explored the transformational power of disruptive behavior. In continuing the conversation, we need to look at the greater concept of innovation and how disruption is rooted in this idea. Maxwell Wessel explores the various types of innovation in his most recent HBR article: he talks about Continuous, Reverse, Sustaining, Disruptive and Platform innovation and how each type can affect a business on different levels.  A business can innovate as a cohesive market force, leaders can disrupt societal norms like we explored in the concept of liminality or consumers can drive technological advancements through a sustained demand for innovative products. Im less concerned with the ways in which 'innovators' simply capture the value that others create and make a viable business. Im more concerned with the disruptors that create fundamentally different products, processes, services or operations which uproot our mental models and influence a generation of new ideas. Its this kind of disruptive innovation that I will be most focused on during my second quarter blog. In order to classify things appropriately, Ill be using the following innovation scale:

1. Uber-Disruptive - "a major innovation is one that is so successful that soon after its introduction few people can even remember what life was like before the innovation was introduced" -Rick Miller, President Olin College of Engineering. 
2. Super-duper Disruption - An innovation that impacts a market significantly and creates a "new or fundamentally different product or service that disrupts existing markets and displaces formerly dominate technologies." (Wagner, p.10)
3. Incremental Disruption - "significantly improving existing products, processes or services"  (Wagner, p.9)
4. Copy-Cat Disruption - Businesses that successfully commoditize the innovative ideas, processes, products or services of others. 
5. Pig-lips Disruption - really not a form of innovation at all, more like putting lipstick on a pig. 

Where does disruptive behavior play out?

Now that we have a renewed sense of our topic, I want to focus on where and how disruptive behavior plays out in a business setting. My hope is that it will help us to better understand the difference between business-as-usual scenarios from truly disruptive-business formats. In their book, The White Space, Rummler & Brache lay out three interdependent areas in a systems model of an organization; the job/performer level, the process level and the organizational level. Their book examines opportunities for performance improvement and adaptation within each specific area and across all three. I'm going to use their structure as a foundation for exploring disruptive behaviors and effective innovation strategies within each arena.  

1. The Person- or Job/performance - the human dimension, people are "the vehicles through which processes function." (Rummler, p.21)
2. The Process - 'How work gets done', cross-functional work processes
3. The Organization - Strategy, organizational structure

The Person: What makes you disruptive? 

Do you consider yourself creative? Would you consider yourself 'exceptional' at any of the following? I know we've done a lot of asset mapping lately, but I encourage you to respond below and claim what your good at. 

1. Critical thinking and problem solving
2. Collaboration across networks and leading by influence
3. Agility and adaptability
4. Initiative and entrepreneurship
5. Integrative & interdisciplinary thinking
6. Empathy
7. Curiosity and imagination
8. Perseverance
9. Willingness to experiment, take calculated risks and tolerate failure
10. Optimism and enthusiasm

These are some of the essential qualities of innovators that Tony Wagner explores in this book, Creating Innovators.  An individual is a powerful source for disruptive behaviors, talents and ideas.  I love this list of characteristics because its precisely the ammunition you need when tromping through a liminal space. A person with an effective combination of the above qualities is able to think and feel effectively in challenging or new situations leading them to truly original ideas. When put into a 'liminal' place where normal limits of thought, self-understanding and behavior are relaxed, an innovator is sure to flourish instead of feeling panic. In a professional context, an individual with these qualities could potentially innovative strategies, products and processes for a thriving and disruptive business.  

Rate the 'Disruptor'!!!

An example of a sought after innovative professional is Dan Schulman, the group president of enterprise growth at American Express. A former CEO of virgin mobile and Priceline, he has a strong background in the tech industry and was brought to American Express in order to "imagine what a new future of financial services might look like." (linked article). The article describes the process by which he transitioned american express from an "exclusive" to an "inclusive" brand by teaming with Walmart to develop a financial product called Bluebird. His team essentially functions as a 'start up' within the American express company, which means they have a lot of organizational interplay. Their software platform seems to be disrupting the normal 'credit card' capabilities by allowing people to deposit or save their money in completely different ways and spend rewards points through different formats. They have over 1 million bluebird accounts and 85% of those account customers are new to AMEX. 

Disruption scale says: Incremental Disruption.  American Express has made some clear investments in new software, market segmentation, strategic partnering and developed a distinctive product with Bluebird. Undoubtably this process has taken some innovative energy on behalf of Dan, his team and the executive team at Amex. They have clearly had to collaborate to develop this product, both internally between departments and externally with stakeholders. However, it seems to be more of an improvement of an existing technology, relationships and marketing strategies rather than a true advancement. The Bluebird project aside, its clear that Dan is an innovative person and that through his creative vision, he has lead the charge for a product that is unique in its marketplace. He seems to be good at 'leveraging' positions to create new projects. However, like Bluebird, I don't think Dan is working above the level of Incremental Disruption. His work is helpful, effective and profitable but not fundamentally different. 

Disagree? Is there something fundamental that Im missing with Dan? Aside from his work with AMEX, Is there evidence that Dan has the qualities of a Super-duper disruptor? Ill let you be the judge.

Da Da Disruption!

Disruption: “A disturbance or problems that interrupt an event, activity, or process.” Whether it be a single act, a business strategy or an epoch; disruptions are all round us. I think of Rosa Parks sitting on that bus, a single act of disruption that influenced a movement. It wasn't that her action was particularly extreme (like killing someone) but that it seemed to capture the emotions of so many others. The emotional validation that was offered in this simple act seems to be a key factor to its disruptive potency.

• So what happens leading up to a disruptive behavior?
• What qualifies as a disruptive? What makes it effective?
• What potential for change lies in the aftermath of a disruptive act?
• How are businesses living, breathing and acting within disruptive places?
• Are there actors doing this specifically in relation to sustainability?

For the next quarter, I plan to look at the current state of disruption in our modern business world today. I want to investigate companies and individuals leading the charge both in the past, present and future. I would like to examine their unique interactions with consumers and citizens and how exactly they are changing business for good or bad. I'm curious to see how companies act disruptively themselves but I also want to observe how they interact to the mounting human emotion behind disruptive acts like that of Rosa Parks.

What peaked my interest in all this disruption? Well, for quite some time I’ve been obsessed with this anthropologist, Victor Turner, and his social change theories concerning Rituals and Rites of Passage. His work has now been applied beyond anthropology into various fields concerning social structure and change. He is most famous for the ‘social drama’, a sequence of social events that he believed to play out universally in all human cultures. There are four stages: Breach, Crisis, Redressive Action and Reintegration. The disruptive part (aka the fun part) comes after the crisis event, when no one knows what’s what anymore and they enter a ‘liminal’ space. 

Liminality is a curious place to ‘be’ because its essentially a transitional or transformative place. Everyday assumptions, institutions, boundaries, hierarchies and social norms have the ability to dissolve and open up a new space for social creation. However, like the airport or a waiting room, one cannot stay there forever. We eventually reintegrate with evolved agreements or end up further reinforcing old social structures.

All this got me thinking about intentional liminality and ways to actually create an open space for evolving ideas. It seems that liminal states are a part of the process for effective disruption. In order to transform a behavior, eventually we have to relax our previous thoughts and habits.  There are some businesses like Apple, that have continually changed the rules of the game, creating a space for new behaviors to thrive. Their disruptive strategies have proven effective as we can see with the widespread adoption of their products and services.  

I look forward to exploring the disruptive world with you all in Quarter two. Please feel free to post ANY materials and share your thoughts & feelings below. Thanks!