Welcome to the deep dive. Have you ever noticed
how some, well, brilliant ideas just seem to
take off, while others, maybe just as good, sort
of fade away? Yes, it's a common frustration,
isn't it? Absolutely. Whether it's, say, a groundbreaking
surgical technique, a fresh approach to patient
care, or even just a new way to organize your
operating theater list. getting innovative action
to really stick and spread, well, it's much trickier
than it looks, especially, I think, in today's
fast -moving, very interconnected healthcare
world. It's spot on. Today, we're embarking on
a fascinating deep dive into the hidden dynamics
of how innovative action actually gets done.
We're going to explore the, well, the surprising
interplay of networks, knowledge, and creative
projects, uncovering the mechanisms that truly
drive significant change, particularly perhaps
within complex environments like hospitals and
research institutions. Indeed. Our mission today,
if you like, is to peel back those layers, to
uncover the practical skills and the processes
that transform these nascent ideas into impactful
realities. It really is about understanding the
invisible work, the stuff that goes on behind
the scenes, that underpins significant change.
Right. Whether that's developing a new surgical
pathway, implementing a patient -centered approach,
or maybe fostering interdisciplinary collaboration
in, say, orthopedic research. That's exactly
what we aim to do. By the end of our conversation,
you should have, hopefully, a clearer lens to
understand and maybe even orchestrate change
in your own professional life. We'll be looking
at how you might develop a new approach within
your department, or perhaps mobilize a team for
a critical project. So yeah, let's unpack this.
Let's do it. OK, so thinking about the fundamentals.
Every large organization, right? From a massive
pharmaceutical company down to a national health
service, it all started small. Inevitably. So
the fundamental question we face is, how do these
small entities actually expand? How do they evolve
and achieve significant widespread impact? What
allows maybe a brilliant idea born from a single
surgeon's insight or a small research team's
discovery to ripple outwards and redefine practice
on a much larger scale? That's precisely it.
And historically, the ability to effectively
manage relationships and, crucially, the resources
these relationships provide, that's always been
central for strategic actors. Yeah. You know,
careful cultivation of connections was needed
to secure what was necessary for growth. You
mentioned the surgeon. Perhaps they built relationships
with philanthropists, hospital administrators
to fund a new unit, that sort of thing. Right,
the traditional patrons almost. Yes. But what's
fascinating really is how profoundly this dynamic
has changed in recent decades. And it really
has changed dramatically, hasn't it? The way
we engage with networks feels irrevocably altered,
accelerated, I suppose. by digital tools, mobile
phones, emails, social media platforms. How has
that shift specifically impacted how people manage
relationships and resources today? Does it just
make communication faster or does it change the
nature of coordination itself? That's a powerful
point. It's more than just speed. Thomas Friedman's
work on globalization, for instance, highlights
this accelerated freedom, this velocity in combining
people, ideas, and the means for production.
It's created an environment where innovation
can, well, it can spread at an unprecedented
pace. And the very structure of work has evolved
to reflect this. We're moving away from rigid
sort of industrial hierarchies towards something
much more fluid. And that brings us neatly to
what the sociologists Luke Boltanski and Ithekia
Pello call the new spirit of capitalism. They
talked about a shift towards a project -oriented
society. What does that actually mean for how
work gets done in, say, a modern hospital department?
Well, it suggests a profound move away from those
rigid top -down structures. We're now seeing
organizations that are highly flexible, predominantly
organized around projects, and operating in quite
intricate networks with far fewer hierarchical
levels. That traditional sort of vertical flow
of information is being replaced by transversal
flows, communication and collaboration happening
across, rather than just up and down, the organizational
chart. OK, so across departments, across teams.
Exactly. And for an individual, this means their
professional life becomes, in essence, a series
of projects. It requires them to continually
assemble quite disparate groups of people, often
for relatively short, focused periods. In a medical
context, you see this all the time. multidisciplinary
teams forming around complex patient cases, a
knee replacement needing input from surgeons,
anesthetists, physio, social workers, or research
consortium formings for specific clinical trials,
bringing together geneticists, statisticians,
clinical specialists. It's project -based. So
with work increasingly organized around these
flexible project structures, who's actually making
these networked organizations, these networked
departments, hum? Who are the essential players
in this fluid environment? Well, Boltanski and
Chiappello identify them as mediators. These
are individuals who possess a unique sort of
art. The ability to reconcile opposites, to bring
very different people together, and crucially
to put them into contact. Their skills are paramount.
coordinating, connecting, locating new sources
of information vital for innovation, inspiring
trust among those they coordinate, and demonstrating
remarkable flexibility and adaptability. The
social glue, almost. In essence, yes. They're
the social glue that enables this dynamic, project
-based work. Think of the senior registrar who
seamlessly connects the surgical team with the
nursing staff, ensuring smooth handovers. Or
the research coordinator who links basic scientists
with clinical trial specialists. They're mediating,
connecting, and enabling new solutions to emerge
from those connections. It sounds like so much
of this hinges on connections between people.
We often talk about networking as simply linking
two individuals, a one -to -one. But how important
is it to move beyond just two people for true
coordination and impact? especially when you're
trying to innovate. That's a critical distinction.
Karl Weick, a key thinker here, introduced the
concept of the double interact. That's a communicative
exchange between two individuals. One sends a
message, the second responds, the first adjusts.
Simple feedback loop. OK, like a surgeon discussing
a case with a colleague or explaining a procedure
to a patient. Exactly. It forms the core coordinative
unit in organizing. However, while it's foundational,
the double interact is fundamentally inert in
scale. It assumes a pre -existing pair and is
limited to dyadic possibilities. It doesn't easily
account for larger, more complex social phenomena
or dynamic expansion. You simply can't scale
a new medical protocol or launch a hospital -wide
initiative just through a series of two -person
conversations. It doesn't work. Right. So where
does true coordination begin to scale up then?
If two isn't enough, what's the magic number
for an idea to really take flight? The crucial
shift occurs when we move from two to three the
triad. In a triad, the third party, the broker,
no longer simply engages with one other person.
Instead, the broker represents the position or
viewpoint of one party to another individual
or group. And this, in my view, is the fundamental
template for the coordinated act in organizing.
Okay. Can you give an example? Sure. Think of
a clinical lead advocating for a new treatment
protocol within a hospital. They represent the
potential benefits, world one, to the hospital
management or ethics committee, world two, or
a pharmaceutical entrepreneur mobilizing support
for a new drug development representing the science
to investors, or an activist initiating collective
action for public health awareness representing
the community's needs to policymakers. All of
these involve three or more actors, and the broker
is absolutely central to linking those disparate
interests and bringing them into some kind of
alignment. That really clicks into place. And
the broker's role in this triad sounds incredibly
nuanced. It's not just about passing messages
back and forth, is it? Not at all. The representational
act, the very core of triadic coordination, is
inherently complex. Now... Some have noted, like
Ron Bird, that a strategic actor might intentionally
misrepresent or adjust knowledge between parties
for their own gain. The Tertius Gardens we might
get to later. Precisely. But a more common and
arguably more effective long -term approach involves
the broker continually shaping representations.
This is done carefully, to maximize understanding
perhaps, or to ensure receptivity from the other
party, or maybe to highlight the perceived value
of connecting. Ultimately, the aim is often to
engender trust in the representation itself,
trust in the broker, or trust in the other actors
involved as a necessary prelude to collaborative
effort. Right, building that foundation. Think
as an orthopedic department head. Trying to convince
the hospital board, they need a new robotic surgery
system. They need to understand the board's financial
concerns. They need to understand the surgeon's
clinical needs. And then they have to articulate
the robotic system's value in a way that resonates
with both, building trust that this investment
is worthwhile. It's a delicate balancing act.
So effective coordination, especially in these
dynamic, often quite political environments,
requires a certain social dexterity. What exactly
does that entail? How would you recognize it
in someone, say, a leading surgeon or a medical
innovator? Social dexterity. It encompasses a
range of attributes, really. It involves a command
of the specific social hygiene of a given context,
basically, understanding the unwritten rules,
the etiquette of that particular group or industry.
Like knowing when it's okay to phone a busy consultant
versus sending an email. Exactly that. Or knowing
how to subtly raise a sensitive issue in a team
meeting without causing offense. It also requires
the ability to forge trust across a broad spectrum
of people, familiar and less familiar. A talent
for accurately assessing the character and interests
of those you don't know intimately, that's crucial.
And a capacity to make effective appeals, to
enlist and connect people to shared causes or
projects. Can you think of historical examples?
Well, historically, you see this dexterity in
figures like Cosimo de' Medici, skillfully managing
relationships to cultivate power in 15th century
Florence, or Abraham Lincoln assembling support
to abolish slavery by bringing together really
diverse, often conflicting factions. Even in
the arts, Paul Sacks building New York's Museum
of Modern Art that required definitely connecting
support from various institutions and patrons.
And in modern health care. Think of the clinical
director who navigates complex hospital politics
to secure funding for a new research unit. or
the researcher who builds a consortium across
competing institutions for groundbreaking clinical
trial. That is social dexterity in action, enabling
collaboration across traditional silos, overcoming
inertia, getting things done. Okay, so we understand
the foundations. networks, coordination, the
importance of the triad, and this idea of social
dexterity. Let's now try and deconstruct brokerage
itself. You highlighted earlier that it's crucial
to distinguish between brokerage as a static
structure, just the map of connections, and brokerage
as a dynamic process. Why is that distinction
so important when we talk about getting new things
done? Precisely. Because when we talk about getting
new things done, achieving innovation, we absolutely
must consider both. The social network structure,
provides the architecture, if you like, the accounting
of activity. But the social process explains
how ties form an aggregate, or indeed why they
sometimes fail to form. The problem is, social
network research often tends to subordinate process
to structure. Why? Well, frankly, because structure
is much easier to measure. You can map connections.
Right. You can draw the network diagram. You
can draw the diagram. But that can lead to process
just being inferred from the structural data,
which is a limitation. We need to focus on the
dynamic, actionable aspects of brokerage, what
the broker actually does within that structure.
OK, so let's look at network structure first
then. The literature often talks about open versus
closed networks. Can you define those and what
are their implications for, say, fostering innovation
in medical research? Sure. Open networks are
characterized by what Ronald Burtt famously called
structural holes. These are essentially gaps
or separations between non -redundant contacts.
Someone who bridges such a hole connects otherwise
disconnected groups or individuals. Such a structure
offers that bridging actor an ideal opportunity
for accessing new information. Because the groups
they connect don't talk to each other, the information
isn't redundant. It also provides potential control
benefits by allowing the broker to leverage these
disconnected actors. Okay, so good for fresh
ideas, but what's the downside? The challenge
in open networks lies in mobilizing these disparate
actors. You often have very diverse interests,
different ways of working, maybe even conflicting
goals. This was often referred to as the action
problem. Imagine a brilliant orthopedic researcher.
They might know cutting edge bioengineers and
have connections to patient advocacy groups.
That's an open network structure, fantastic for
generating novel ideas at the intersection. But
getting the engineers and the patient groups
to agree on a collaborative project, that can
be tough. Right. And closed networks. Closed
or dense networks are the opposite. They're more
interconnected, more homogenous. People within
them tend to know each other, share similar backgrounds,
values, information. Think of a tight -knit surgical
team that's worked together for years. These
networks are much more conducive to mobilization
and coordination because there's greater alignment
of attributes and interests. Trust is often higher.
communication easier. But the drawback. The drawback
is they're less likely to import novel ideas
from the outside. Information tends to be redundant.
Everyone already knows what everyone else knows.
This presents what we might call the idea problem.
So it sounds like a bit of a dilemma for any
leader trying to innovate. Open networks are
great for new ideas, but hard to get things done.
Closed networks are great for getting things
done, but maybe less good for truly novel ideas.
In simplistic terms, yes, that's the classic
trade off. But the reality, of course, is far
more hybrid. Most real -world networks combine
open and closed characteristics. Overly simplistic
distinctions can lead to oversimplified inferences
about what works. For instance, my own research
in an automotive design environment focusing
on incremental innovation, mind you, found something
interesting. It found that a combination of dense
or closed networks, along with an action -based
measure of actors' orientation to connect others,
what we call Tushis iEngines brokerage, the uniting
function, that combination, was actually predictive
of innovation involvement. So it's not just the
structure, but the activity within it. Exactly.
It suggests that sophisticated analysis of network
patterns demands a grasp of the social dynamics
associated with those ties. It's about the process
of brokering within that structure. For example,
A senior surgeon might use their established
dense network within the hospital to mobilize
support for a new surgical approach that's the
closed network advantage. But they also need
to actively broker new connections to external
experts or technologies to bring genuinely novel
ideas into that network that's leveraging openness.
This is where it really comes alive for me. Moving
beyond just seeing connections as static lines
on a map and into how brokerage is a truly dynamic
action. It's not just about having connections,
is it? It's about what you do with them. And
you've identified three core ways people act
as brokers, these orientations. Let's get into
those. Absolutely. Because skillful leaders and
innovators, they don't just sit in a network
position. They strategically employ these three
core brokerage orientations. The first is conduit
brokerage. The information pipe. You can think
of it like that, yes. But it's more active than
just a pipe. This is where the broker curates
from the flow of ideas and opportunities, determining
what is relevant and how best to pass it on.
It involves reformatting knowledge for successful
transit and reception by the target audience.
It's far more complex than simple knowledge transfer.
It involves search, discovery, maybe embellishment,
reconfiguration. It also requires sense -making,
that crucial step of noticing, bracketing, and
labeling new ideas so others can grasp their
significance. So like a clinician attending a
cutting edge conference. Precisely. They bring
back a new insight, perhaps about prosthetic
design. They're not just relaying raw information.
They're interpreting it for their team, explaining
its relevance, maybe even adapting it for their
specific patient population or hospital context.
That's conduit brokerage in action. And the classic
non -medical example often cited is Steve Jobs
and the Xerox PRC mouse, isn't it? That wasn't
just seeing a mouse. It was about vision and
transformation. Exactly. A perfect illustration.
When Steve Jobs visited Xerox BR Xi and saw the
graphical user interface and the mouse, he didn't
just transfer the idea back to Apple. He recognized
its revolutionary potential. He ferried these
tokens, as the story goes, back to his own company.
But crucially, this was a significant reconfiguration.
He famously instructed his engineers to transform
the clunky, expensive $300 Xerox mouse, which
apparently broke within two weeks into something
manufacturable, for less than 15 bucks. And durable
enough for, as he put it, for Micah and my blue
jeans. That's definitely transformation. It absolutely
is. Transformation for a completely new context
in market. Paul Carlyle's 3T model helps us understand
these nuances. Transfer is the simplest. Crossing
a syntactic boundary where differences are known.
Like describing a function you observed. Translation
is needed when crossing semantic boundaries different
interpretations due to context. Like jobs explaining
how the mouse made sense for the lisa and macintosh,
its strategic fit. And transformation involves
that significant rearrangement or new synthesis
of knowledge, often necessary when incompatible
interests or contexts prevent shared meaning
being easily established. So applying that to
medicine. A surgeon might transfer information
about a new implant they saw demonstrated, but
they then have to translate it for their theater
team. What does it mean for instruments, for
workflow? And if it requires a whole new approach,
they might need to transform the entire surgical
protocol to integrate it effectively, which involves
negotiation and change management. OK, that's
conduit. The second orientation you mentioned
is Tertius -Gaudens brokerage. This sounds a
bit more strategic, perhaps even Machiavellian,
the divide and conquer strategy. Indeed, it can
be perceived that way. Tertius Godden's literally
the third who enjoys involves the broker maintaining
or even exploiting unfamiliarity, competition,
or conflict between other parties. This can be
done actively or sometimes through purposeful
inaction. George Simmel, the classical sociologist,
described this as the third who benefits from
the disunion of the two others. Ron Bird elaborated,
noting this often means playing conflicting demands
or interests against one another. How might that
look in practice? Well, it can take various forms.
Playing actual or hypothetical alters against
one another. A classic example is claiming other
suppliers offer lower prices to gain a negotiating
advantage. It could also involve subtly keeping
alters apart, perhaps by declining invitations
to critical joint meetings, citing competitiveness
or timing issues when the real goal is to prevent
them aligning. The most active form is devide
et impera, divide and conquer intentionally producing
or exacerbating conflict to gain a dominant position.
And the goal here? The goal is typically to reinforce
boundaries, or at least leave them in force,
often by blocking or distorting information flow
between the other parties, with the broker positioned
as the disproportionate beneficiary. It often
aims for immediate concrete profit or advantage.
You could imagine, perhaps, a hospital administrator
playing two competing orthopedic suppliers against
each other to secure a better deal on implants.
Or maybe subtly creating a slight tension between
two departments to gain leverage for their own
budget proposal. It happens. Right. And the third
orientation, Tertius Ingen's brokerage, seems
to be the polar opposite the uniter. This is
about bringing people together. That's right.
Tertius Ingen's the third who joins. Here, the
broker actively introduces or facilitates a connection
between two other parties, specifically pursuing
coordination and collaboration. This can manifest
as a brief engines, perhaps a single introduction
where ongoing coordination isn't needed, or it
can be a sustained engines where the broker maintains
a continuous coordinated role over time. Can
you give an example of that? Let's take our senior
orthopedic surgeon again wanting to initiate
a new clinical study. They might first pitch
the idea separately to a promising junior researcher,
and then to a potential funding body representative.
Crucially, they tailor the story of the project
to each party's specific interests. Let's call
them PG for Gloria the researcher, PJ for Joanne
the funder. Once trust is built individually,
the surgeon then introduces the project to them
together, perhaps with a third blended version
of the proposal, PGJ, which reflects what was
learned from the individual interactions. This
involves both translation making the project
make sense to both and potentially transformation
of the initial idea to create something new that
appeals jointly and enables collaboration. So
is the motivation for Tertius I -Engines always
altruistic? It sounds very collaborative, very
win -win. Well, it certainly can be associated
with altruism. Think of transformational leaders,
facilitating their staff's advancement by making
key introductions or efforts in international
public health cooperation, bringing different
agencies together. But it's also a powerful strategic
means to get new things done. The broker might
consciously forgo an immediate rent or benefit
for their coordinated services. Why? because
they anticipate unspecified future gains, things
like long -term trust, reciprocity, or simply
the successful completion of a high -impact project
they care about. An investment in the network.
Exactly. In a medical setting, this might be
a senior consultant connecting a junior doctor
with a leading researcher in another institution.
There's no immediate personal gain, perhaps,
but it fosters innovation within the field, builds
the institution's reputation, and strengthens
future collaborative potential. It's an investment,
anticipating future dividends for the broader
system or network. What's particularly fascinating
here, I think, is that these orientations aren't
mutually exclusive. You're suggesting people
often blend them strategically. Can you give
an example of that interplay, showing how these
different roles might be combined to achieve
a complex outcome? Absolutely. Skillful blending
is not only common, but often highly effective.
It can happen simultaneously, in parallel, or
sequentially over the course of a project. Consider
a music producer, for instance. They might act
as a church's iEngines by getting a promising
new band, a showcase at a larger club, and, importantly,
inviting representatives from multiple record
labels. That's the joining function. Then simply
by having those multiple label heads present
in the same room, aware of each other's interest,
the producer naturally creates competition. They
are now implicitly acting as Turch's Gaudens.
This competitive market dynamic facilitated by
the broker often leads to a better broker deal
for the band. So the uniting sets the stage for
the beneficial division in a way. Precisely.
A convening act, Yamjins, sets the stage for
a competitive situation. Gaudens. which ultimately
leads to a positive outcome through brokered
negotiation. We see this pattern in many real
-world applications. Think about mergers and
acquisitions brokers are involved before, during,
and after, facilitating connections, managing
competing interests. Supply chains often involve
firms brokering between multiple suppliers and
buyers. Even complex international diplomacy
relies on these blended strategies. And in healthcare.
You could easily imagine a hospital executive
acting as Atertius Unions to bring together a
medical device company and a university research
institute to collaborate on developing a new
diagnostic tool. Then, perhaps later in the negotiations,
they might subtly use Atertius Godden's approach
by hinting an interest from other potential commercial
partners, just to accelerate the deal -making
process. The ultimate goal is getting that cutting
-edge technology to their patients. The key is
the dynamic strategic orchestration of these
different orientations to achieve a desired outcome.
It's clear that brokerage is about connecting
people, orchestrating relationships. But what
about the ideas themselves? How do you make those
ideas not just travel across the network, but
actually stick and lead to action? Especially
in complex fields like medicine, where precision,
clarity, evidence, they're all paramount. This
brings us, I think, to the indispensable role
of knowledge articulation. Indeed. Brokerage
gets the connections made, but it isn't enough
on its own. Knowledge needs to be moved, yes,
but also translated and crucially put to practical
use. The very term articulate is quite instructive
here. It has two relevant meanings, to join or
unite, which links nicely back to Tertius Engels's
brokerage. But also, and this is our focus now,
to express distinctly, making things clear, understandable,
compelling. Knowledge isn't just something static
in the know, your education, your experience,
nor is it just flowing through a passive pipe.
It's profoundly relational. It's influenced by
what you bring to an exchange, your perspective,
your expertise, but also how that relates to
your interlocutors, to their understanding, their
context. So communicating a complex surgical
technique to a new resident. Exactly. It's not
just about listing the steps. It's about tailoring
that explanation to their current level of understanding,
their practical experience, maybe anticipating
their questions or anxieties. It's making the
knowledge accessible to them. So it's about making
knowledge actionable. You've mentioned before
a continuum from tacit to explicit knowledge.
Could you elaborate on that and where articulation
really fits in for, say, a medical professional
trying to share an innovation? Certainly. At
one end, we have tacit knowledge. This is our
unconscious, automatic, often taken for granted
understanding, things we just know how to do.
Like riding a bike or maybe performing a complex
orthopedic maneuver during surgery. Precisely.
It's difficult to surface fully. difficult to
communicate directly in words. At the other end
is explicit knowledge, which is highly codified,
easily expressed. Think of a published medical
protocol, a textbook diagram, a drug dosage chart.
What's crucial for innovation, though, is often
the middle ground. This is where knowledge is
emerging from its tacit state, but isn't yet
fully codified or formalized. I call this emergent
explicit knowledge. Can you give an example?
It's that moment when you've just figured out
a clever workaround for a recurring surgical
challenge during a procedure. Or you see a new
way to optimize patient flow on the wart. You
haven't written it down yet, it's not in any
manual. But you need to explain it to a colleague
right now, or convince your team it's the new
best practice. This is precisely where new knowledge
and potential action emerge. It's driven by the
practical need to share, to move understanding
across different communities, like from surgeons
to nurses, to persuade others, or eventually
to codify a practice for wider, more consistent
use. Articulation is the engine here. This reminds
me of Carlisle's 3T model again, transfer, translation,
transformation. How do those nuances of knowledge
movement apply specifically to articulation in,
say, a clinical setting where you're trying to
introduce something new? They are absolutely
central. Transfer is the simplest form of articulation.
It occurs across what Carlyle calls a syntactic
boundary, where differences are known and a common
lexicon usually suffices. Like noting a specific
characteristic on an X -ray image. Exactly. Or
describing a straightforward functionality observed.
Translation, however, becomes necessary when
you cross semantic boundaries where different
interpretations exist due to varied contexts
or professional backgrounds. For example, explaining
how a new medical technology applies to a specific
patient group or how it fits into the existing
workflow in this particular hospital. This requires
active reformatting of knowledge and a real pursuit
of shared understanding. You can't just state
the facts. You have to explain the meaning in
their context. And transformation. Transformation
involves a significant rearrangement or even
a new synthesis of knowledge. This is often required
when fundamentally incompatible interests or
deeply ingrained assumptions prevent shared meaning
being reached through simple translation. It's
often an inherently political process, needing
common interests to be established or negotiated
to move forward. So applying that 3T model again.
A radiologist might transfer the findings of
an MRI scan. There's a tear in the meniscus.
The orthopedic surgeon then has to translate
those findings into the context of surgical planning.
Okay, given this type of tear and the patient's
activity level, here's how it impacts our approach.
Finally, if the findings are truly unprecedented,
perhaps revealing a condition not previously
understood, it might require a transformation
of the entire diagnostic or treatment pathway,
which involves convincing multiple specialties,
changing protocols, a much bigger shift. So when
we're articulating knowledge, especially in these
more complex translation or transformation scenarios,
what are the key processes we're aiming for in
a practical sense? What outcomes make articulation
successful? Primarily, I'd say there are three
key outcomes we're striving for through articulation.
First, mutual intelligibility. Simply establishing
a shared understanding. This is the absolute
precondition for any kind of influence or enlistment.
Do they actually get what I'm saying? Second,
persuasion. Going beyond understanding to actually
convincing others to adopt an idea or a proposed
course of action. This often builds on mutual
intelligibility, but you can sometimes persuade
even without perfect shared understanding, perhaps
through trust or authority. And third, perhaps
most critically for innovation, is enlistment.
This means mobilizing active support and commitment
from others, getting them on board to the point
where they engage in joint, coordinated action.
Getting them to actually do something together.
Exactly. This last one, enlistment, is arguably
the single most important articulation outcome
for actually getting new things done. And these
processes, especially in fast -moving innovation
contexts like medicine, often involve what we
might call provisional knowledge dialogue, PKD.
Quick exchanges, iterative understanding rather
than deep knowledge dialogue, DKD, simply due
to the speed and uncertainty involved. You often
don't have time for exhaustive discussion. That
makes a lot of sense, the need for speed and
agility. Let's try and bring this to life with
some practical examples. You've used the new
car automotive cases, which offer a really rich
lens into these organizational dynamics. You
identified five key communicative dimensions
of how knowledge articulation happens in practice.
Yes. These are active, often quite fleeting,
representational activities that are crucial
for generating collaborative action. They really
mirror how new ideas get traction or fail to
in any complex field. Okay, first. Moving between
backstage and front stage. How does this play
out in everyday organizational life? What does
that mean? This involves the constant often subconscious
choices we make about what information to share
publicly, front stage, versus what to keep private
or share only with trusted confidants. backstage.
It's about deciding how and when to surface privately
held ideas, doubts, or opinions versus what to
withhold. You could think of it as the social
correlate of moving knowledge from tacit, often
private, unarticulated, to explicit, publicly
stated. Okay, and the new core example. There
was a situation involving Dan from program management
and Brad from the body division. Brad, because
he trusted Dan, revealed his backstage skepticism
about a new central database, the paper car,
during an informal hallway chat. This was a critical
view he likely wouldn't have voiced in a formal
meeting. Dan, understanding this private concern,
then responded strategically in the front stage
by reframing Newcar's mission not just as a car
company, but as an information company, thereby
justifying the database's value in a way that
addressed Brad's underlying worry without exposing
his skepticism. Both selectively move private
understanding into the public domain to reach
a shared path forward. So it's about strategic
disclosure, often built on trust. Precisely.
In a hospital, this might be a nurse sharing
backstage concerns about usability issues with
the new electronic patient record system with
a trusted IT lead. That allows the IT lead to
then address those potential issues constructively
in a front -stage planning meeting, perhaps by
reframing the training plan or highlighting specific
benefits that counter the concerns. Okay. Second
dimension. Moving between complex and simple.
This seems particularly relevant in medicine
where concepts can be incredibly intricate, technical.
Absolutely vital. Articulation frequently involves
reducing complexity, stripping away what might
be seen as irrelevancies for a particular audience
or situation to convey only what's most essential.
As the philosopher Michael Polanyi famously said,
we know much more than we can tell. Effective
articulation is often about selecting the right
subset of what we know. How do people do that
effectively? often through using articulation
devices. Tools like analogies, metaphors, stories,
even informal sketches or physical objects. Things
that clarify and simplify. For instance, at Newcar,
an engineer named Rick was trying to convey specific
design goals for a car armrest. Instead of complex
engineering specs, he used vivid metaphors. Avoiding
a certain texture was Barbie Doll's stipple.
Achieving a desired close fit was tight like
a scuba outfit. Instantly understandable. Exactly.
They simplified complex aesthetic objectives,
making them immediately understandable and actionable
for other engineers. In orthopedics, a consultant
might explain a complex joint replacement to
a patient using a simple analogy comparing the
joint to hinges and levers. Or to a junior surgeon,
they might explain a new fixation method by comparing
it to a familiar, simpler technique providing
an accessible entry point. Third, moving among
past, present, and future. How does weaving in
history or experience play into getting new things
done? This is about strategically bringing knowledge
gleaned from past experience to bear on present
situations, usually with the aim of eliciting
support for future joint action. Knowledge, especially
tacit knowledge gained through experience, often
resides in our memories associated with its original
context. At Newcar, there was a great example
where a senior VP named Frank told a story. He
recounted how, as a young engineer nearly two
decades earlier, he and his team solved a really
difficult technical problem called Terminal Powerhop.
This informal narrative, told retrospectively,
wasn't just a war story. It illustrated and burnished
Newcar's cherished cowboy culture, its history
of risk -taking, of figuring things out on the
fly. The implied message to the present -day
engineers was, embrace that spirit. tackle today's
challenges, achieve future innovative outcomes,
using the past to inspire the future. Precisely.
Similarly, a seasoned surgeon might share an
anecdote from an early challenging case in their
career, not just to reminisce, but perhaps to
illustrate resilience, problem solving under
pressure, and encourage a junior team facing
a new, difficult procedure. It grounds future
ambition in past successes and shared cultural
values. Fourth, balancing familiarizing and defamiliarizing.
These sound like opposing forces. How do they
work together? They are indeed opposing forces,
and using them strategically, often in sequence,
is key to shifting perspectives. Familiarizing
aims to make new ideas comfortable, relatable.
It deepens understanding and encourages buy -in
by connecting the new to the known. Rick's scuba
outfit analogy did this. It used a familiar image
to explain a new design goal. Defamiliarizing,
conversely, aims to disrupt taken for granted
meanings, to challenge assumptions, and ultimately
change attitudes. It naturally lends itself to
driving transformation. And the new car example
for this. Henry, the NVH noise vibration harshest
expert we mentioned earlier. He initially tried
to familiarize engineers with proposed NVH design
changes using data and technical explanations,
linking them to existing principles. But this
yielded minimal support. They were resistant.
So he shifted tactics. He adopted a more contentious
stance, forcibly asserting the absolute necessity
of a specific design, the double boot. This acted
to defamiliarize their resistance, shocking them
out of their complacency, and forcing a re -evaluation
of their assumptions about NVH's importance.
So you might start by making it comfortable,
but if that doesn't work, you shake things up.
Sometimes that's exactly what's needed. In healthcare,
you might familiarize staff with a new patient
safety checklist by showing how seamlessly it
integrates with their existing workflow. But
if compliance remains low, You might then defamiliarize
their complacency by presenting stark data on
a critical incident that the old system failed
to prevent, creating urgency and prompting a
real shift in mindset and behavior. And finally,
the fifth dimension, establishing credibility
by laying down markers. This sounds like using
your expertise strategically to lead or influence.
Precisely. This involves deliberately using specific
details, telling anecdotes that showcase deep
experience, or employing specific jargon to validate
your assertions and establish your expertise.
It's particularly potent in cross -functional
or inter -departmental discussions where different
professional languages and knowledge bases exist.
Dan, the program manager at Newcar, was very
effective at this. He's successfully pushed for
crucial design changes, partly by leveraging
his own engineering background and using precise
engineering jargon, what he explicitly called
engineer talk, to counter resistance, even from
senior executives. He'd assert things like, damn
it, guys, I'm a product engineer. Been there,
done that, managed product, managed people. And
tell me what you want me to do because I know
this will work. This created undeniable credibility
based on demonstrated expertise and influenced
the outcome. Asserting your credentials, but
through specific knowledge. Exactly. For an orthopedic
surgeon, it might involve citing specific anatomical
details, referencing outcomes from a particular
surgical theories they performed, or using precise
biomechanical terminology in a discussion with
hospital management about the clinical necessity
of a new piece of equipment. It's using their
deep professional knowledge not just to explain,
but as a marker of authority and credibility
to support their case. Okay, these five dimensions
provide a great framework. Let's now put these
concepts into action by exploring how Newcar,
our automotive manufacturer, actually mobilized
innovation, looking both at innovation within
existing routines and the launch of entirely
new creative projects. First, tell us a bit more
about Newcar's unique cowboy culture. What defined
it? Well, Newcar had this really distinctive
cowboy culture that genuinely permeated his approach
to innovation. The physical environment played
a part, and the Mayflower Road office building,
MROB, wasn't some sleek, modern corporate HQ.
It had a history of housing under capitalized
companies, which bred a necessity to do more
with less. This fostered a really scrappy, inventive,
risk -taking culture. And it yielded significant
results, things like entirely new vehicle categories
and the early, quite pioneering adoption of 3D
digital design tools. And the train metaphor.
Ah, yes. The iconic image they often used internally
was the steam train laying down tracks just ahead
of itself as it sped along. It perfectly symbolized
their ethos of figuring things out as they unfolded.
improvising, adapting. Of course, this culture
often created tension with the larger, more bureaucratic
parent company, Alcar, which generally preferred
established processes and predictability. It
sounds like a familiar dynamic, the innovative
unit versus the larger organization. Very much
so. You could easily see parallels with an innovative
clinical department within a larger, more traditional
hospital structure, constantly pushing boundaries
while needing to navigate those bureaucratic
constraints and expectations. So within that
culture, How did innovation happen within their
established routines, especially when things
went, well, off track? Let's look at the manual
shifter redesign initiative you studied. Right.
The context here was complex automotive design
work relying heavily on cross -functional teams,
not unlike, say, how an orthopedic team might
collaborate on designing custom implants or planning
complex reconstructive surgery. A critical problem
emerged with the design of the manual shifter
console for a specific vehicle, the G5. It stalled
due to issues with a highly complicated digital
simulation, the move macro simulation, and the
initial attempt to resolve this through knowledge
articulation actually failed spectacularly. Two
engineers, Clay and Seth, put together this incredibly
long, overly detailed presentation showing all
152 possible shifter moves. Oh dear, too much
information. Way too much. It completely violated
the complex to simple rule of effective articulation.
It led to executive impatience, total confusion.
The emergency crunch team formed to fix it felt
In their words, like, wrestling with a huge ball
of yarn. They couldn't interpret the simulation
findings, and there was a real lack of clear
leadership. It's a classic example of information
overload completely hindering progress, something
we often see when raw data is dumped without
proper synthesis or focus. That sounds like a
moment absolutely ripe for a skilled broker or
articulator to step in and sort things out. What
happened next in that rather chaotic environment?
It was indeed. And Henry, the NVH expert we talked
about earlier, saw this disrupted routine as
his opportunity. NVH noise, vibration, harshness
was often dismissed by other engineers, sometimes
crudely referred to as a crock of shit. Henry
aimed to reposition it as a genuinely worthy
design objective. He didn't just complain about
the problem, though. He developed an informal
NVH presentation, drawing on his two decades
of experience. He then met individually with
key stakeholders across different teams to establish
mutual intelligibility, making sure they understood
the basics and why it mattered. He marshaled
data commissioning specific lab studies on boot
designs, importing best practices from other
manufacturers, effectively acting as a conduit
broker to bring in external validation and legitimate
his proposed solution, a double boot design.
So building the case methodically? Methodically,
yes. He initially used familiarization tactics,
explaining the benefits in terms engineers could
relate to their own work. But when he still met
resistance, rooted in old assumptions, he shifted
gears. He moved to defamiliarization, forcefully
asserting the double boots absolute necessity,
challenging their ingrained ways of thinking.
And he succeeded. He mobilized enough support,
persuaded the team, and they adopted the double
boot. It's a fantastic example of how continuous
knowledge articulation combined with periodic
bursts of brokerage can achieve significant innovation
even within a routine, especially when that routine
is disrupted and creates a window for change.
And there was another example of successful routine
-based innovation from that same crunch team,
wasn't there? Alex and Joe's master cross -section
approach. How did these two designers intervene
when the larger team was floundering? Yes, Alex
and Joe. They were designers, and they stepped
significantly outside their typical, often more
passive roles when the crunch team really got
bogged down. There was confusion over supplier
responsibilities, fundamental misunderstandings
about the design itself. They responded by aggressively
pursuing mutual intelligibility. They went straight
to the suppliers, questioning them directly,
literally asking, are there two different proposals
here? What are we actually working from? They
even intercepted people after meetings to force
clarification and establish consistent design
criteria. Taking charge. Very much so. It was
a short -lived, but highly effective, tertius
-iongian strategy, quickly uniting disparate
perspectives that weren't connecting. Then, crucially,
they introduced a novel technical approach, a
2D cross -sectional approach, which they called
the master cross -section. This provided a simplified
shared visual frame for problem -solving. Now,
this was dramatic departure from the team's usual
complex 3D modeling routine, and it initially
met considerable resistance, particularly from
the engineers. So how did they overcome that?
They really had to twist arms to maintain cooperation,
as they put it. They even strategically threatened
to act as Tertius Gaudens, using the potential
for conflict to their advantage. They hinted
they might foment alter -alter conflict by suggesting
they'd have the powertrain division explain the
necessary design changes directly to the styling
team and even more worryingly for the engineers,
to hire management. Ah, the threat of escalation.
Exactly. A very unwelcome prospect for the engineers
and managers involved, which influenced them
to cooperate with the new 2D approach. Alex and
Joe's success stemmed from their intimate understanding
of the interests and pressures on multiple parties,
their command of the digital design languages
involved, and deploying this novel network and
brokered strategy. And importantly, they operated
largely through provisional knowledge dialogue,
quick iterative conversations, because the situation
was constantly changing. It's a great lesson
in how knowing the political landscape and your
audience's specific pain points can be leveraged
to drive a solution forward. So that covers innovation
within a routine, often sparked by a crisis or
disruption. But how did entirely new creative
projects get mobilized at Newcar, those initiatives
outside the established framework? Let's turn
to the Prototype Parts Purchasing, or PPP, redesign
initiatives. First, what was the existing PPP
routine like? The PPP routine was a core, essential
process for Nucar, much like managing surgical
equipment procurement or ordering bespoke implants
in a hospital. It involved a standard sequence,
engineering requests for prototype parts, getting
quotes from suppliers, issuing purchase orders,
and finally, the part delivery to the vehicle
build units. This process spanned four distinct
communities of practice. The design engineers
making the requests, the external suppliers providing
the parts, the internal purchasing department
managing the finances, and the build units actually
assembling the prototypes. Craig, the manager
overseeing PPP, maintained notoriously tight
controls. He felt he had to in order to corral
engineers who had a reputation for making last
-minute, often unauthorized design changes that
threw the whole process off. Sounds like a source
of tension. Huge tension. The process was predictable
enough, ironically, for Craig to anticipate problems
and even budget for the inevitable cost overruns
caused by these changes. But this constant waywardness,
as he saw it, from the engineers led to significant
friction and inefficiency. Everyone knew this
system wasn't ideal. And how did the Alcarpe
PPP redesign project, the first creative project,
emerge from this background of predictable tension?
This was a clear example of a creative project
driven by a high -level vision, originating from
senior management's awareness of the systemic
PPP issues, the budget overruns, the delays,
the frustration. They projected a trajectory
towards a solution. The core group tasked with
this engaged in what we call trajectory management.
This involved several key activities. First,
Fixing, which meant collectively articulating
the group's often tacit knowledge about the routine's
specific flaws. They did this through intensive
whiteboard sessions, detailed process mapping,
making the invisible problems and bottlenecks
explicit and shared. Then came pitching, persuading
key stakeholders of the need for change and the
proposed solution. They developed a powerful,
relatable metaphor arguing for a new centralized
PPP unit that would operate like Craig, meaning
with consistent controls, but system -wide. Using
the existing figurehead as a model. Exactly.
And finally, scheming, which sounds negative,
but here means strategically enlisting support.
They carefully identified potentially receptive
influential individuals from multiple functions
and invited them to a crucial off -site retreat.
They even practiced anticipatory contingency
management. They suddenly engineered, you might
say, the appearance of a spontaneous consensus
emerging at the retreat. They recruited a purchasing
manager, Alan, who independently introduced the
idea of the centralized purchasing unit, the
very idea the core group had already meticulously
developed beforehand. Very carefully orchestrated.
Extremely. a carefully sequenced set of brokerage
and articulation actions designed to launch a
major new initiative and overcome expected resistance.
And the G5 PPP creative project that was another
distinct creative project focused on PPP. How
was its mobilization different? Yes, this one
was different. It was driven more bottom up,
specifically by Dan's urgency and sheer frustration
after that difficult executive meeting where
his program was criticized for delays. His pitch
was incredibly sharp, born of that pressure.
getting the right parts and the right cars at
the right time. Simple, direct, action oriented,
because it had a much shorter, more urgent time
frame. The trajectory projection, the vision
and the scheme, the plan to get there, were much
more closely intertwined from the very beginning.
Knowledge articulation here was explicitly used
not just to make tacit problems explicit, but
to make the case for change persuasive. Unlike
in the analysis of the original routine, the
pitching activity constantly circled back to
and reinforced those specific taglines like the
right parts and the right cars at the right time
to build the creative case and maintain momentum.
And contingency management. How did Dan handle
obstacles? Dan was constantly dealing with contingencies,
particularly resource constraints. There was
a company -wide hiring freeze, so he had to continually
negotiate to borrow staff from other areas. He
described this challenge very vividly, saying,
and I'm quoting him here, I have identified a
hand. It's called Kurt. the person he wanted
to lead the team, but I don't have a glove to
slip him in an official job slot, so I'm running
around trying to find a glove. He successfully
navigated these kinds of obstacles by orchestrating
both anticipatory responses, planning ahead for
likely problems, and incredibly deft reactive
responses when unexpected issues cropped up.
It really illustrated profound contingency management
in action. These cases really demonstrate just
how complex and multifaceted social skill truly
is when it comes to orchestrating innovation
and change. You've identified three deeply intertwined
competencies that seem to define this mastery,
bringing all these threads together. Yes, I think
they capture the essence of it. First, there's
brokerage competency. This isn't just about occupying
a structural position, but the strategic deployment
of those different orientations, conduit, tertius
gaudens, tertius aeongens dynamically over time.
It also includes the broader ability to identify,
recruit, and orchestrate participation from the
right people as a project unfolds. Second, knowledge
articulation competency. This is that crucial
ability to read your audience and tailor your
communications effectively to the specific context.
It's fundamentally about perspective taking,
or if you prefer, empathy, understanding where
the other person is coming from. And third, Projective
competence. This is the more strategic, forward
-looking ability to consider which actors need
to be assembled, when they need to be brought
in, and how best to engage them to advance a
project towards its goal. And these aren't separate
skills, are they? Not at all. They are deeply
intertwined. Effective brokerage, for example,
almost always implicates knowledge articulation
you need to articulate effectively to build rapport,
establish common interests, and persuade people
to connect or collaborate. You need projective
competence to even know who to broker between.
Think of a chief of surgery trying to introduce
a significant new orthopedic technique into the
hospital. They need brokerage skills to connect
with the right surgeons, nurses, administrators,
maybe even external experts. They need articulation
skills to clearly explain the technique, its
benefits, the evidence behind it, addressing
concerns. And they need projective competence
to plan the entire rollout training, equipment,
scheduling, managing the change process. It all
works together. Let's delve a bit deeper into
one aspect of articulation you highlighted, perspective
articulation, that ability to understand and
express others' worlds. How did you see this
manifest in practice in your research? It seems
incredibly powerful. It was genuinely one of
the most effective articulation behaviors I observed.
This capacity to truly understand and then accurately
express the perspective of others, whether it's
articulating your own knowledge in a way they
understand or articulating their perspective
back to them or to a third party. There was a
great example with Carl, that non -engineer at
Newcar, who had decades of experience working
closely with engineers. He was explaining to
Aaron, an engineer from a newly merged, more
bureaucratic company, how the original Newcar
design engineers typically worked. Carl articulated
their tacit experience, their mindset, saying
something like, Look, I want to show it my design
to you until it's done. Because half of engineering
should be trying new dumb things. But that's
not socially acceptable in a formal review. Capturing
the culture. Exactly. He successfully conveyed
a complex, nuanced cultural understanding, validating
the engineer's perhaps unexpressed feelings and
potentially enlisting Aaron's support, or at
least understanding, for a new design initiative
by bridging that cultural gap. In a medical context,
this might be a senior nurse explaining to a
newly qualified doctor the unwritten rules of
patient flow or communication norms on a busy
ward, articulating the nurse's operational perspective
to help the doctor navigate the system more effectively
and build collaborative relationships. That's
fascinating. And then there's this related concept
you mentioned, ventril equation or riffing, essentially
speaking through another's voice or perspective.
What does that sound like in practice? Yes. This
is a particularly powerful variant of perspective
articulation. It's where one person effectively
speaks as or through another voice or voices,
often relying on shared understandings of social
speech types or social languages, like professional
jargons or typical ways of framing arguments
within a certain group. Karl, again, was a master
of this. During intense process innovation efforts,
he would often use riffing to advocate points
or frame conversations. He'd hypothetically speak
as an engineer, saying things like, OK, if I'm
a product you're looking at this, I'm thinking
about XYZ coordinates. Carl wasn't an engineer,
but doing this showcased his deep understanding,
his mastery of their privileged knowledge and
way of thinking. It created credibility, made
complex technical ideas accessible to the non
-engineers in the room, and allowed the conversation
to move forward without getting bogged down in
misunderstandings or defensiveness. It's quite
a performative skill. bridging knowledge divide
dynamically. So like a medical director ventriloquating
the perspective of a busy ward manager when talking
to hospital executives about staffing needs.
Precisely. Framing the issue using the language
and priorities that resonate with both the operational
front line and the strategic decision makers.
It's a sophisticated articulation technique.
And Dan, the G5 program manager you studied closely
seems to embody this apex of social skill. What
specifically made his approach so virtuous and
effective? You paint a picture of real mastery.
Dan's virtuosity was truly remarkable. operating
on multiple levels. Firstly, his ability to navigate
divides was exceptional. As one of Alcar's relatively
few black senior executives at the time, he consistently
and skillfully brokered across both racial and
organizational divides. He deftly handled incredibly
sensitive situations, like one where a white
finance manager was publicly, quite harshly,
rebuked by a very senior VP. But Dan managed
to smooth things over afterwards by explaining
the nuanced perspectives of each party, fostering
understanding where there could easily have been
lasting resentment and damaged relationships.
Secondly, his multifaceted communication style
was key. He masterfully used humor, often quite
direct, earthy humor, using phrases like, beavering
away, or calling engineers cheating, lying sons
of bitches, affectionately, or even playfully
threatening to pull a gun to assert authority
lightly. But this was always coupled with incredibly
insightful perspective articulation. He could
grasp the complexities of a situation instantly
and articulate the different viewpoints sympathetically,
while always offering pragmatic solutions. This
built an incredibly broad base of trust and rapport
across very diverse groups. And how did he manage
those really complex, high -stake situations
when tensions were running high between teams,
like the PPP example? Ah yes, the example of
rising tensions between his new PPP team, led
by Kurt, and the established manufacturing personnel,
represented by Tim. This was a critical potential
roadblock for his project. Dan didn't just send
emails or hold meetings in his office. He literally
stepped onto manufacturing's turf, went down
to the plant floor, got a first -hand look at
the issues from their perspective. He used his
acute social insight to capture the operational
details, but also the underlying frustrations.
He could then translate the issues effectively,
speaking engineering language in one meeting
and manufacturing language in the next. He orchestrated
the network, bringing the right people together
at the right time to talk directly, but facilitated
by his understanding. Ultimately, he resolved
the conflict, keeping the project on track by
demonstrating that profound understanding of
each party's pressures, interests, and ways of
working. So it's a blend of empathy and strategic
action. Exactly. Dan's mastery involved a complex
blend of cognitive perspective -taking, understanding
their rational arguments and emotional perspective
-taking, grasping their feelings and motivations.
This allowed him to constantly adapt his approach
and language precisely to his audience, which
is absolutely crucial for achieving high -impact
innovation in any field, certainly including
the complex, high -pressure environment of healthcare.
It really highlights that the most effective
leaders aren't just technically brilliant, but
also deeply empathetic and socially adept orchestrators.
It's very clear how these principles – brokerage,
knowledge, articulation, project management,
social skill – apply within a large corporation
like Newcar. But you argue that this DKE model,
as you call it, has universal application, extending
far beyond the corporate boardroom. Where else
do we see these dynamics powerfully at play?
Absolutely. The underlying mechanisms are remarkably
consistent. One compelling historical example,
far removed from corporate life, is Serge Diaghilev
and his Ballet Roses in the early 20th century.
A cultural earthquake. Diaghilev acted as a master
conduit broker. He was perpetually seeking out
new and important artistic elements. Revolutionary
music from Stravinsky, avant -garde design from
Picasso, groundbreaking choreography from Nijinsky,
sourcing them from exhibitions, concerts, studios
across Europe, and adapting them, reconfiguring
them. for his ballet productions. He was also
a superb Tertius Eugens. He had an incredible
knack for uniting often fragmented, argumentative
avant -garde artists, bringing them together
in novel collaborations. And crucially, linking
this potentially shocking artistic world with
the conservative moneyed elites, the patrons
who actually funded the performances, bridging
worlds. And did he use Tertius Gaudens too? Oh,
certainly. He simultaneously employed Tertius
Gaudens tactics, explaining differences or creating
competition to his advantage. For instance, he
might commission music from rival composers for
consecutive seasons, generating creative tension
and leverage that constantly pushed artistic
boundaries. His knowledge articulation was phenomenal,
synthesizing these vast, disparate artistic contents,
skillfully blending radical classicism with startling
experimentation. He created, as one critic put
it, radical novelty translated into a language
rich in classical references, making the new
palatable yet still revolutionary. A true impresario
of innovation. Precisely. It showcases how local
micro -level brokerage and articulation actions
can aggregate to have broader systemic impact.
The IONGEN's broker, like Diagelev, often trades
immediate control or profit for wider network
growth and influence, acting as an impresario
who enables the whole ecosystem. And what about
entrepreneurial action? How does the assembly
view of entrepreneurship connect to this model?
Starting a new venture or maybe a medical tech
startup? Entrepreneurial efforts fundamentally
involve continually joining people and resources
together in new combinations. That's almost the
definition. This assembly view suggests that
an entrepreneurial startup doesn't just spring
fully formed from a single brilliant idea. It
usually begins with a trajectory projection,
a vision for the goal, however hazy or evolving
it might be initially. But then it unfolds to
what you could call cascades of tertius engines
connecting work. Each connection enables the
next. This assembly action can evolve serially,
one connection leading logically to the next,
sometimes in parallel, multiple connections being
forged simultaneously, and usually expansively,
adding more people, more resources, more capabilities
over time. Brokerage, particularly the iEngines
form, is effectively the primary engine by which
venture growth is accomplished. How does that
compare to other theories like effectuation?
It offers a slightly different emphasis. Effectuation
theory highlights starting with the means you
have available and letting goals emerge. The
assembly view, while acknowledging adaptability,
argues that the trajectory projection, that initial
guiding vision or stake in the ground, is still
a critical orienting element, even if it gets
refined along the way. For a medical startup
developing a new orthopedic device, it's that
constant process of assembling the right engineers,
clinicians, investors, regulatory experts, each
iEngines connection, building the venture piece
by piece towards that initial guiding projection.
And collective actions, social movements, they
also underpin by these same fundamental dynamics
of brokerage and articulation. It feels like
a different world from corporate innovation or
entrepreneurship. Fundamentally, yes, the underlying
mechanisms are remarkably similar. As I sometimes
say, innovation is not as far removed from the
street as might be imagined. Getting new things
done, whether it's launching a product or sparking
a movement, relies on connecting people, shaping
understanding, and mobilizing action. Think about
historical examples like the 1936 General Motors
sit -down strike in Flint, Michigan Blue -collar
workers through incredibly sophisticated internal
brokerage and articulation Mobilized collective
action that fundamentally disrupted and ultimately
restructured an entire social and economic system
That involved countless acts of connecting workers
sharing information conduit uniting factions
young juns and strategically managing conflict
gardens with management and authorities And in
our increasingly digital world, how have these
mechanisms adapted? Has technology made human
brokers less relevant? Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn
connect people automatically. That's a key question.
Digital tools have undoubtedly dramatically increased
information availability and the speed of coordination.
Algorithms can sometimes shift some of the connection
work from human brokers to digital platforms
matching users with shared interests, facilitating
introductions. However, this certainly doesn't
eliminate the advantages of skilled, hands -on
human brokering, or the complex task of orchestrating
projects across multiple venues, both online
and offline. If anything, future strategic actors
need to be adept at navigating both worlds, possessing
the traditional in -person analog skills of relationship
building and nuance, and the digital skills to
leverage online platforms effectively. Can you
give an example of that blend? Wael Ghonim's
pivotal role in the Egyptian -Arab Spring is
a powerful illustration of this analog -digital
straddling. He was a Google executive, comfortable
in the digital world. He created high -impact
Facebook pages, like Kalina Khalid said, in an
extremely politically charged environment. But
crucially, his knowledge articulation was exceptional.
He used colloquial Egyptian dialect in his posts,
consciously avoiding formal Arabic or dense activist
jargon, allowing him to connect deeply and authentically
with young Egyptians online. His activism displayed
a potent composite of brokerage skill. Conduit,
moving critical information and narratives rapidly
online. Tertius Unions. mobilizing collective
action both digitally through calls to protest
and then coordinating in person on the ground,
and crucially, Tertia's gaudens, strategically
keeping the authorities separate and in the dark
about their plans for as long as possible, a
vital protective function. This collective action
truly was a creative project, developed rapidly
in the absence of established routines, with
constantly evolving goals and activist identities,
all driven by a powerful blend of digital reach
and human brokerage skill. Finally, you suggest
this whole BKAP model brokerage knowledge articulation
projects even has implications for broader societal
issues like social inequality and education.
How so? That seems quite a leap from automotive
design or the Arab Spring. Well, the model's
emphasis on social skill as a key enabler of
effective action can indeed be extended. If social
skill helps people navigate complex systems and
mobilize resources to achieve goals, then fostering
it could potentially help address barriers related
to income inequality. Higher education for all
its challenges remains a primary institution
for facilitating upward mobility. The model seems
particularly relevant when thinking about students,
perhaps, at what are sometimes called comprehensive
universities, often regional public institutions.
Many students there demonstrate remarkable resilience
and motivation. often achieving dramatic upward
mobility despite significant financial or social
disadvantages. Developing social skill, the ability
to network effectively, articulate ideas persuasively,
manage projects, navigate different social contexts
to their education, offers these students a crucial
pathway to success. It equips individuals not
just with subject matter knowledge, but with
the practical ability to orchestrate that knowledge
and their networks for impactful change in their
own lives and careers. It's about empowering
them. to become effective brokers and articulators,
regardless of their starting point. So let's
try and bring this all together. What does this
deep dive mean for you, our listeners, whether
you're a surgeon leading a team, a researcher
trying to get funding, an administrator managing
change, or anyone working in orthopedics or health
care generally? We seem to live in an era increasingly
defined by this project -based work where Organizing
maybe even life itself revolves more and more
around dynamic networks, less rigid hierarchy
and a real premium being placed on this ability
to function effectively as a broker, as an articulator.
Precisely. While having the right network structure
and possessing individual knowledge or expertise
have always been fundamental They aren't sufficient
on their own anymore the social skill involved
in actively orchestrating those networks and
articulating knowledge effectively for different
audiences and Critically the capacity to formulate
launch and navigate novel projects. These are
increasing perhaps paramount Importance in our
rapidly evolving world. It's really about more
than just what you know individually It's about
the art the skill of putting that knowledge into
action through and with others. It reminds me
of that quote about the knowledge of how to combine.
I think it was Alexis de Tocqueville who observed
way back in the 19th century in democratic countries
the science of association is the fundamental
science. Progress and all the other sciences
depends on progress in this one. That's a profoundly
relevant thought isn't it. And it transcends
specific political systems or organizational
contexts. Understanding this science of association
as he put it the dynamics of brokerage. articulation,
and collaboration helps us grasp not just how
routine things get done, but how genuinely new
things get done, how larger processes like collective
action, entrepreneurial innovation, and indeed
scientific and medical breakthroughs truly unfold.
In healthcare specifically, it means getting
better at understanding how we combine deep clinical
expertise, rapid technological advancements,
diverse human resources, patient perspectives,
how we bring all those elements together effectively
through skilled association to achieve real breakthroughs
in patient care, research, and public health.
That's how we transform the landscape. Absolutely.
Well, we hope this deep dive has given you some
powerful new insights, maybe a new language,
to consider for your own professional journey,
whether that's leading your team more effectively,
launching that new quality improvement initiative,
or simply navigating the complex collaborations
that are part of everyday life in medicine. If
you found this deep dive valuable, please do
take just a moment to rate the show or perhaps
share it with a colleague who you think might
also find it insightful. We're always keen to
hear what stands out to you. Until next time,
keep exploring, keep connecting and keep getting
new things done.