Presentation -- Thrust Group B - June 3, 2003, 2:30 p.m.

Symposium: "A New Base for Corporate Relations: From Strategic Deceit to Trustworthy Action", Nokia House, Espoo Finland, Tuesday, June 3, 2003.

This digest was created in real-time during the meeting, based on the speaker's presentation(s) and comments from the audience. These should not be viewed as official transcripts of the meeting, but only as an interpretation by a single individual. Lapses, grammatical errors, and typing mistakes may not have been corrected. Questions about content should be directed to the originator. These notes have been contributed by David Ing (daviding@systemicbusiness.org) at the IBM Advanced Business Institute ( http://www.ibm.com/abi ).

[Group B]

• Gramén Ilkka
• Fromholtz-Mäki Kristiina
• Tukiainen Taina
• Karjalainen Päivi

Basics:  what are these relationships?

• The first group didn't define a relationship
• In databases, huge number of relationships, multidimensional concept
• Complex, network, formal-informal, contractual-noncontractual, managers-workers, young-old
• Relationship is not precisely defined, it depends on the context

What is the purpose?

• If someone says the purpose is to create a relationship; not likely.
• Sustainable competitive advantage and profits are reasonable, then relationship may be one of the tools.

Where do we need relationships?

• The main goal of business is to create profits
• • Too much talk and not enough action.
  • At best, rules follow the win-win logic
• Doz & Hamel:  Alliance Advantage
• • Don't compete alone, and have allies
  • But it's hard to know who is a rival and a friend
  • Initial agreement has less to do with success, than adaptiveness to change
  • Life cycle of alliance is getting shorter - not friends forever.
  • • Could be friends for next 2 hours
• Is it possible to create real relationships in this type of environment?
• • Both sides try to take advantage of the relationship
  • • When these skills can be learned from a partner should do so.
  • Win-win as long as interaction as necessary and profitable.
  • • Make a distinction between interaction and relationship

Companies need to continually renew themselves.

• It's important to have lots of weak link, rather than a lot of strong relationships
• Granovetter (1973) The Strength of Weak Ties
• • Within strong links, few new ideas.
  • New ideas come from weak links
  • Bridges can only be bridges if they're weak links
  • If we didn't have bridges, then wouldn't have links
• In practice, searching for a new job
• • Should try to find weak links

Relationship as a mantra - does it create value?

• If stable organization, stable environment, had stories to tell about the relationship.
  • When organizations change all of the time, no support for teaming.
• Lots of frustration in organizations.
  • If make them team-based
• Katzenbach (1993), Hamel & Prahalad (1994), Robbins & Finley (1997) "Why teams don't work"
• There are a lot of problems involved with relationship, and the environment
• Conclusion:  fundamental task is the understand

If you can dream you can do it.

[Rebuttal]

Challenge with the term "relationship"

• Relationship alignment as solving relationship touchpoints
• Struggle with making people understand
• "Relations" in U.S. tends to mean sexual relations

If you have trust, you must have control

• Trust with validation?

Have the team decided three top factors of trust

• Problem enforcing it?