Hi BL,

Nice post. I think you're right. Big corporations do have difficulties to adapt and embrace 2.0 vision.
Working for a big advertising group, here is a pulse I could grab from my perspective.

Task force fear :
- To loose jobs.
- Of the boss.
- Of innovating competitors.
- Of young guns.
- To risk anything out of the "guidelines".
- Paranoia internally & externally.

Corporate culture :
- Conviction one can't change the world.
- Guidelines & processes blocks
- Heavy pyramid structure
- Day-to-day overload
- Routine is safe

Management fear :
- To reconsider the (pyramid) structure itself (cfr. David Armano's Flat world vs Round world).
- To reconsider the processes.
- To open the communication gates internally & externally (pull vs push communication).
- Senior task force reaction.
- Loose grip on ROI (what a killer sometimes!)

Personally, I'd be more than happy if the first step could be "open the gates/minds to change".
I think the roots of all this is human. Change is difficult but indispensable when considering evolution.

YES! I highly suggest everyone read Joel Spoelestra's 'Marketing Outrageously'.

He talks about overcoming fear and how. Best book I've read in years.

BL,

The message I get from your post has less to do with fear than with culture. My biases having worked in the corporate world and seeing what you describe feed my interpretation of your words.

In brief, here is what I think you saw.

1. You saw cultures built hierarchically, wherein each executive gets noticed based more on the size of his/her fiefdom than on output.
2. You saw cultures that either ignore or don't believe that brand, marketing and margins are built from the inside out.
3. You saw cultures that do not reward (calculated) risk taking.
4. You saw cultures wherein employees have no stake in the outcome.

There's much more to this naturally; but I tried to tap into the big picture.

bl, i'm not on the corporation side and blame on them everytime i have the chance. anyway when one of them launch a product which does not work, and a mistake can happen even if you took in consideration all the foreseable issue, the amount of money involved is terrific.
we should keep it in mind.

> Actually I find that many smart and creative people inside big companies *do* want change. I think it is human to embrace creativity and change. But the competitive structure inside almost every big company beats that desire down and replaces it with the desire for a steady paycheck.

I think big companies are innovative. They just pay a consultant $100+ an hour to help them with ideas instead of tapping their own resources for a lot less $. That's got fear built into it too.

It's interesting to see how often large companies are really aggregates of small, underfunded, overworked teams of pretty good people who are asked to conform to mind-numbing bureacracy. But within this Byzantine culture, I've often found that very creative people are buried deep within. They might stay, they might go to the agency side, and they might jump ship to a more workable culture. Often, they're on the forefront of really good stuff, though, because they've got budgets and smarts.

Remember that the upper management of these huge companies got there usually because they have eons of time spent there, have gone through enough corporate politics and have emerged victorious. They don't take kindly to upstarts, regardless of how successful their programs are, unless they are "their upstarts". Big dogs don't like surprises.

This makes it tough for a lot of smart people. There are often a great number of consulting gigs to come out of this because the overworked managers can easily justify program dollars but not headcount. It's a different budget code.

Cooperation happens when it's forced to happen. There is no altruism or 'can't we all just get along' in the corporate world.

"How can a company whose own people don't even know what others in the company are doing ever excel in community development?"

That may be a more profound statement than you realize.

Many corporations try to foster creativity and innovation by addressing it on a cultural level. Following the fads.

The reality is that community creates culture. So, the more effective (and efficient) method would be to address the community issues which will eventually create the culture.

I think big companies can be the most creative powerhouses imaginable. They have the resources, the people and the experience to make change happen on a large scale. What they often lack, however, is the desire.

I was involved in some very exciting change programs with IBM a few years back, and the approach was top down. As Stephen Denny says, change happens when it is forced to happen. There was one program, called One Team, that demanded all employees work together as a single cohesive unit ... and while not all took advantage of that opportunity, under this umbrella I was able to call, email and meet with people all over the company all over the world. It opened my eyes and my mind.

Sure collaboration is hard. Innovation is hard. The challenge is risk. In a large corporation you risk the possibility of failure -- which means losing your job or your reputation (or both). This is the same for an entrepreneur. But the main difference is that entrepreneurs are used to dealing with risk, whereas employees are not.

Social media is yet another avenue for the curious to explore. Of course there are risks ... but are they larger than being left behind? With the barriers to entry sitting so low, I can hardly imagine this is the case.

"How can a company whose own people don't even know what others in the company are doing ever excel in community development?"

Here's another thought that may run counter to the above thread -- internal competition isn't a bad thing and often fosters more breakthrough than group think.

. Multiple teams working on the same things (whether on purpose or not) have advantages of speed.

. Multiple approaches may flesh out more alternatives than one organization-wide initiative. This is the "Darwinian" approach.

. You've got more empowerment and less politics involved with smaller, self-driven groups, as well as a sense of competition if they know others are working on similar projects (I don't think that was the point of the original post, but often this is the case).

Sony has used this strategy before with no loss of prestige for 'losing' teams.

Just a different thought "after review"...