Last week I saw a History channel special highlighting the impact Bruce Lee has had on our world.  The program provided a unique perspective I thought relevant to this blog and worthy of a post.

Prior to the program I had assumed Bruce Lee invented Tae Kwon Do.  He actually invented Jae Kwon Do or the notion of the mixed martial arts theory.  While others preached that their martial art was the best, Lee took on an opposing, realistic philosophy.  With his background as a street fighter in Hong Kong he readily acknowledged that there were no rules in real life fighting.  Because of this he believed the fighter had to prepare for all scenarios.  The parameters and constraints of each martial art did not reflect reality on the streets.  This led him to master many forms of martial art from Thai boxing, Karate, Tae Kwon Do to Judo and other ground based techniques.  For Lee it was not one OR the other… it was ALL.  He was holistic in his method of fighting and preparation.  He was one of the first people to integrate bodybuilding diet and training theories into martial arts preparation.

I believe there are several things to take away from Bruce Lee:

1. contrary to popular belief, there is never a “best practice”

2. a broader, more holistic approach to achieve desired results is required

3. generalists with knowledge across functions are able to see patterns

4. current organizational structures & functions do not reflect real life on the street [in the market place]

5. its ok to pull proven ways of thinking practiced in other markets and industries into yours

6. holding opposable views seemingly at odds with one another in your head can lead to the develop of new solutions

I suggest reading a post by Mike Carlton I found on Knoll.  He offers a compelling argument for an organizational structure that I believe has legs beyond the advertising realm.  It is applicable to most organizations excluding “operations” whose primary goal is to output the same result consistently [meaning they already have the "answer"]. 

Social media may be the ultimate enabler of the proposed structure.  I believe adhocracy holds promise for solving some of the most complex issues of our time.

Please find the full read here:

http://knol.google.com/k/mike-carlton/is-your-agency-an-adhocracy/18al2rzcu6dck/6#

Why Adhocracy?

At this point you may be asking, “Why would anyone want to trade what we have now for the disruption of an adhocracy?”

Quite simply, because adhocracy works.    

1.     It focuses, in a laser like way, the entire organization on finding solutions to client business problems.  After all, this is the deliverable that clients value the most.  That is the business for agencies to be in.  And the one that can be most rewarding to the agency in the long run.

2.     It is the organizational model used by many of the most exciting and successful new breed of firms entering the creative marketplace.  Organizations that are competing with agencies for a place in the client’s inner circle.  And threatening to ultimately displace agencies.

3.     It has very high appeal to the best and the brightest young talent that agencies desperately need.  Like it or not, Millennials will drive the future success of all agencies.  Getting them on-board early will be a plus.

4.     It is more efficient.  Work is almost entirely client task focused with very little time spent on intramural activities.  Thus it can make the agency more cost competitive.  And boost profits.