Digital Digressions

What makes collaboration successful?

Collaboration is becoming increasingly important for both innovation and business success. It is also a key enabler to protect companies in the eye of the storm. Collaboration relies on individuals being accountable to each other ethically. 4 key principles are at the heart of this: Appreciation, Trust, Commitment and Recognition. Read more>>

The future of education

This movie is a great peek into how education should really be - to grab the interest, attention and creativity of kids out there. It makes such a difference to learn by doing and learn by making - and personally, after graduating from the International Baccalaureate programme and going to university - I wanted nothing more than to get out there into the real world to work on something real, to see what I actually could do and what I was good at. So I left after only 3 weeks and went to work for a children's charity

Who we are arises from what we can do

Sounds like a no-brainer, doesn't it? What's interesting about the title to this post is how our notion of what we can do becomes more elusive as soon as we take out the physical manifestation of what we can do from the equation. To almost any human activity there is the physical and mental element to the activity - the physical being what we do that is visible (and quantifiable) to others and the mental element, which is obvious to ourselves, yet invisible to others.

The trouble with this division of what we can do is that our notion of who we are becomes inextricably linked to the physical side and we let what is visible to others govern what we think is valuable to ourselves - although much of that, is not as meaningful to us as is the invisible stuff, such as happiness, focus, Flow (balance of challenge and skills) and so on. In fact, we are easily sucked into defining who we are solely by our material wealth, physical output or indeed physical limits (what we can't do) and gradually thinking what we are is solely a sum of the parts we have.

Why I'm writing about this is that this realisation has dawned on me this year, based on an intuition I started pursuing a year or so back - the idea that my transition from one field of work and expertise into another would be significantly aided by a drastic increase of physical exercise. This sounds perhaps a little odd, but research has shown that our ability to learn is dramatically improved if we couple learning with vigorous physical exercise, which means more oxygen is transported to the brain and stress hormones are diminished.

These findings come from the fact that human beings, when subjected to stress, are considerably less able to learn and remember things, than when in normal conditions. Conversely, it has also been proven that learning and memory improves with exercise. I realised that the act of changing jobs would put me under considerable stress, which, if not counter-balanced with exercise, would impede my ability to make the transition swiftly and quickly learn and internalise the new things that were part of my new job.

Now in retrospect I can say that it has certainly worked and much better than I dared to imagine and it has further led me to a hypothesis about how we can actively build our confidence in enduring difficulty and hardships mentally, by stretching our concept of what we can do physically. It seems that by meeting the goals we have set for ourselves physically and exceeding them, gives us a profound sense of confidence in our own perseverance and by having those memories to hand, we can draw upon them to positively frame a situation where we would previously have given up - even if that challenge is in another area or even purely a mental one. 

Jim Loehr and Tony Schwartz postulate in their book 'The Power of Full Engagement' that we build emotional, mental and spiritual capacity in precisely the same way that we build physical capacity and that to build capacity, we must push beyond our normal limits, training in the same systematic way that elite athletes do. This is an interesting counter-point to all the talk about time-management and effectiveness - from this it appears that our human abilities are not about how we manage our time, but instead how we systematically build our capacity to meet challenges, managing our energy expenditure by systematically stretching ourselves and building in time to recover. Planning becomes less of an activity to try to meet all the demands placed on us, but more about staking out the peaks and troughs of our performance over time - building in time for feeding and recovering our minds, bodies, emotions and spirits as well as setting goals of when we expect to be performing at the peak of our abilities.

Thus the notion of 'who we are' is a dynamic, continuously evolving concept that we can deliberately change based on developing what we can do - a notion of continuous growth, development, learning, acquiring wisdom and sharpening of the saw. It's funny - once upon a time I was reading the 7 Habits and thought what a drag it was to have to plan one's time simply in terms of what was important and what was urgent (balancing short term and long term benefits, which is certainly a useful skill to have). It sounded very adult and grown-up (read: sensible) thing to do, yet what I was missing, was the play.

Children cram in a ton of learning under the innocent banner of play, and despite the fact we have to grow up - the role of play as a way to rejuvenate our minds, bodies, emotions and spirits is one that is timeless. Something I got intuitively when planning my cycling calendar for the year, the time to have fun and enjoy yourself, nourishing the mind, the body, the spirit and the emotions as a counterbalance to having the training regime and the goals - this balance between have to do and want to do is key. Here routines are essential, create some positive routines and free your mind from beating yourself up about the things you didn't do.

Now those proponents of the 7 habits will rush in and correct me to say that of course the bits that fall under 'what is important' are precisely what is meant by the things that rejuvenate our mind, but I cannot help (and perhaps this is where one can blame my Christian work-ethic) but think that it is so easy to conceive of the 'what is important' purely from an external, materialistic or even work-centered perspective - and indirectly seeing the play element as something frivolous one can only engage in if one didn't have to work/wasn't married with children/was a millionaire etc.

Instead 'who we are arises from what we can do' - becomes an active choice of spending and renewing our energy reserves in all areas of life, balacing present and future benefit and ultimately, creating a sustainable source of happiness, which is intrinsic rather than extrinsic.

Did you know?

Right now I'm in the midst of a huge annual effort in the company to gather up insights, trends and inspiration to kick-off our annual innovation process - taking a starting point in a broad understanding of the world (both long-term and short-term) and making sure that insights are at the heart of how we innovate as a company.

When I say 'innovation' I literally mean 'the act of generating more value for the consumer, customer and the business by fulfilling a need or job to be done better than anyone else'. And to do that well, you of course need to understand what the needs and jobs to be done are out there - where can you be better, do more and be more relevant than you were even just a few months ago.

Of course it is a challenge to make sure you have as much relevant insight as hand as possible - but the second challenge is quite the opposite - the sheer quantity of information that is now available and the rate it also changes presents quite a task to ensure you don't drown people in information, but sift through it all - establish patterns and digest and present the insights in ways that make it workable for a wide range of people from different disciplines.(Remember: none of us are as smart as all of us, so the more people you can involve in the innovation effort the better chance you have of innovating both on small, medium and large scale and often you'll need all of those to be truly groundbreaking). So you need to create an inspiring and empowering experience, sparking ideas as opposed to anxiety (too much information, I can't handle it) or the opposite: boredom (I've heard it all before: what's new?).

One thing that I came across recently, is this 'Did you know' range of videos - which are very inspiring in how they contextualise the pace of change taking place right now. Below is the original video, which also talk about things we need to do as humanity to make sure we can keep abreast with the developments. I am told that the CEO of Coke recently used to get his team of senior leaders thinking about the pace of change. Below that is the other video, a 2008 update of some of the facts mentioned. So insights can be inspiring - in fact, when you really know what's going on - you realise we are all living on borrowed time and the more we understand that, the more likely we are to stay in business in the future too.

Cake or Death?

This is the standard question at the beginning of meetings in the cake-eating capital of Europe, Denmark - where cake eating has been elevated to an intrinsic part of any get-together.. I'm joking of course, but this wonderful rendition of Eddie Izzard's sketch about the fact that extremism and the Church of England really don't go together very well at all and if it did - it would be a question of cake or death!

Leadership lessons from John Wooden

Something I wanted to share with you that landed in my inbox earlier and in its simplicity captures more about leadership than many books written on the subject. Leadership is not something you are born with, it is something you do to people, either well or abysmally. We all have sour memories of how it felt when someone did it badly and we may be privileged enough to know someone who really inspires us in this regard. After all, its much easier to point to who is a good or bad leader, than it is pinpointing what it is they do or don't do that makes us say that.

However, John Wooden may be able to help us. He is generally regarded as the nation's greatest basketball coach. His UCLA teams during the 1960s and 1970s won 10 NCAA men's basketball national championships and set records for consecutive victories. But since retiring in 1975, the 97-year-old coach has gained fame as a philosopher and motivator.

[From LA Times]

Wooden sat down with The Times and offered up 10 tips -- one for each of the NCAA basketball championships his players won at UCLA -- for how business owners can become better leaders.

1. Listen.

One thing that is often overlooked in leadership is the ability to listen. Listening is so important to those under your supervision.

2. Care.

Another very important part of leadership is to make those under your supervision feel that you care for them -- not just for the job they are doing for you, but you really care for them personally. You just can't tell them you do that, you have to show it.

While some roles aren't as big or in the forefront as others, they are still very important. I used to use this analogy: It is like having a powerful car. Now the engine, like an Alcindor [now called Kareem Abdul-Jabbar], who played for me, that's powerful. Here's another fellow who is just a wheel. And there is another fellow who is just a nut that holds the wheel on. You have to have them all. You must make every person feel that they are needed.

3. Recognize.

When I was teaching in high school in basketball, for example, [I taught that] my players must never score without thanking someone. Don't run over and shake their hand but look at them and give them a little sign or something of appreciation. Everybody likes to have a pat on the back.

4. Prepare.

[Managers should be aware of] preparation for whatever their job is, little or big, preparation is so important. Failure to prepare is preparing to fail. You must not put things off.

5. Be industrious.

Nothing can be accomplished without work. You've got to work hard. If you are looking for the short cut, if you are looking for the easy way, if you are looking for the trick to get things done, you might get them done. But you are not adding strength, you are not building.

6. Have enthusiasm.

If you don't enjoy what you are doing you are not going to be able to give it the industriousness that you should have. You must have that to inspire others to do their best.

7. Be patient.

Good things take time. And that's the way it should be. We don't want it that way but that's the way it is. I think that is a very important thing that a leader must get across to those under his supervision.

8. Have confidence.

You must believe in yourself. If you don't have confidence in yourself you can't expect those under your supervision to act with much confidence.

9. Don't fear failure.

Have initiative but don't be afraid of failure. We are all going to fail at times because we are all imperfect. When I had assistants, I always wanted them never to be afraid to make a suggestion. We don't know a thing we don't learn from somebody else in one way or another. If you do agree [with their suggestion] and use it and it works, be sure that they are the one that gets the credit, not you. Now if it doesn't work, you take the blame because you made that decision to use it.

10. Win respect.

You have to have the respect of those under your supervision. You can't obtain that respect unless you are honest with them and they can depend upon you. Don't try to sell them a bill of goods or you will lose all respect.

Some very good rules to live your life by. Enough said.

Think Eco-Systems not just Issues

Take global warming or government regulation as examples - these are all very complex topics, collections of variables where solving the problem cannot be achieved through solving one issue alone, but in fact the solution rests in addressing the eco-system tying together all the inter-linked variables. In fact, seeing things on purely the issue level may in fact be contributing to the problem.

In the book Freakonomics the authors quote numerous examples of cases where seemingly complex phenomena have very simple origins, but often in an entirely different field and the eco-system magnifies the impact through all the inter-related variables and creates an impact on local, sometimes national and international levels. One of the striking examples is their analysis of crime figures in large cities in the US. The numbers were growing at epic proportions year-on year until sometime in the mid-eighties the trend suddenly stopped and began a steady decline. Experts tried to attribute this reversal to anything from an increase in spending on the police, a growth in numbers of staff, prisons, different governments, new laws etc. but the biggest impact came from the legalisation of abortion.

How could this have anything to do with crime figures you may wonder? Here the eco-system comes in: the women most likely to have an abortion back in the 60s where women in low-income households with several children already and who before the legalisation either had to risk their lives to have an abortion by often unqualified people in unsafe conditions and risk prosecution or not have one at all. Many didn't and subsequently struggled to look after their children, who often ended up in crime from a lack of opportunity in life. As abortion became legal in many states, the numbers of these 'unwanted' children dropped and the sheer numbers of disadvantaged youth decreased, thus decreasing the populace likely to commit crime. It's not to say that the other measures had no impact at all, but collectively they helped solve the problem as the eco-system of ideal conditions leading to crime gradually became more untenable.

Biofuels are another example of where eco-system thinking really needs to be applied on a much larger scale than today - touted as the solution to the West's reliance on fossil fuels, the growth of crops destined for biofuels is now accelerating across the world, leading to an increased rate of rain forest destruction (these are our most efficient weapon in clearing CO2 from the atmosphere) as land is being cleared to grow palm oil - a crucial ingredient in biofuels. Much agricultural land previously home to food production is being converted to grow crops for biofuel, putting food production in danger. The biggest irony of all is that the process of producing biofuels has a greater negative impact on global warming than fossil fuel use - proving that there is no simple 'solution' to global warming, in fact simple solutions may in fact be aggravating it further, instead we need to think in eco-systems, not just locally, but nationally and internationally.

Nancy Gibbs of Time, talks in her column about the Vatican reflecting on its mortal sins for the modern age (24th March 2008) of the fact that back in the past sloth, lust, greed, envy and anger accounted for virtually all the crimes of mankind, whereas today the issues that once were the clear culprits behind our follies and misfortunes are far more complex than the 7 deadly sins alone. Causes and consequences come together to form eco-systems, where one problem feeds another and addressing consequences is meaningless without understanding and addressing the causes. Contextualising what was once simple in our now increasingly interlinked world - Quoting Mohandas Gandhi's version of the 7 deadly sins:

• Wealth without work
• Pleasure without conscience
• Science without humanity
• Knowledge without character
• Politics without principle
• Commerce without morality
• Worship without sacrifice

The responsibility rests with the individual, but that includes the duty to take care of others as well as yourself.

Avoiding the 3 pitfalls of Innovation based on Insight

Don't get me wrong - I'm a fierce proponent of innovation based on insight. How else would you be able to frame your innovation and understand whether what you are proposing is even relevant, unless you understand the competitive landscape in which you operate? The purpose of this post is not to question whether you need insights or delve into how innovation works or how to fuel it, but instead, assuming you have a smooth running innovation machine - and you work from solid consumer insight - how come things can still go wrong?

Interestingly, cognitive science can help us here, specifically the work of Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, who three decades ago explored the benefits and risks of heuristics, or shortcuts in thinking. Heuristics help to explain the time we get it wrong even when having been presented with all the reasonable information and insight, which presumably should have led us to make the right conclusions rather than the wrong ones. There are three errors, which are common when this happens:

Anchoring error - This is when you seize on the first bit of information and basically make your mind up before you have heard the whole argument, even when some subsequent findings may be contradicting what you seized on initially.

Availability error - This is when some surprising findings emerge that remind you of a dramatic past case and you mistakenly apply mental models or conclusions from that case to new findings and rationalise them in the same way, again leading you to potentially make the wrong conclusion.

Attribution error - Despite getting a ton of insight, it can sometimes be very tempting to group these findings into stereotypes and grossly generalise, to see information as ways of confirming what you already know, rather than seeing the little inklings that your stereotypes aren't correct. Here again the information may be correct, but your use of it incorrect.

These mistakes are all very human and can easily happen, but research in other fields are showing just how dangerous these mistakes can be. In the engineering field these errors can lead to countless hours spent hunting for a technical problem in the wrong place, in the medical fields the very same mistakes can lead to gross misdiagnosis and potential patient deaths and of course in design, to redundant products and solutions. To err is human, but to err without learning from your mistakes is plain stupid.

Debunking Popular Myths about Creativity

Like innovation, there are plenty of misconceptions about creativity out there, which makes it all the more confusing when people are extolling the importance of creative skill in the 21st century. To continue my quest to unravel these complex topics this instalment is all about explaining what creativity is NOT.

• You have to be an artist to be creative There are many creative engineers, scientists, financiers etc. creativity is not a privilege reserved to poets and artists alone. Nor is it a characteristic of loners, misunderstood geniuses or crazy people. It is about invention and innovation, often by teams!
• Creativity is a talent that some have and others don’t Viewing creativity as a talent is one of the best excuses for doing nothing. True, some people have a natural curiosity; an active imagination; a relentless energy; and a desire to think differently. But these qualities can be learnt!
• Creative people are mostly rebels (won’t play the game, play mostly by their rules) As we begin to understand the ‘game’ of creativity, we know how minds form patterns [in which they then get caught] and what it takes for people to move across patterns to generate new ideas (serious play). You don’t need to be a rebel to enjoy the sense of freshness that arises from unlocking stifling thought-patterns.

• Creative people are ‘liberated’, free-spirited and child-like. The ‘liberation’ myth is based on the notion that freeing people up from their inhibitions, and encouraging them to be playful and child-like will unleash their creative fibre. Comparing adult creativity with the playfulness of children is difficult. Children are endowed with a creativity bourne out of innocence because their minds have not yet formed as many stifling patterns. The minds of adults, on the other hand, are filled with many useful patterns to be cracked and bridged for the purpose of innovation.
• Tools and techniques are confining This myth rests on the notion that systematic tool-use is contrary to the nature of creativity, which must be ‘free’. According to this view, materials should be malleable (like clay) and user-friendly (like clay). Contrary to belief, however, materials with an integrity (a ‘logic’ of their own) are often more useful in boosting a maker’s creativity - provided, of course, the maker is a fluent user of that tool!
• Creativity occurs as a single burst of genius Despite the plethora of myths pertaining to this, extensive research into both artists’ most famous works and numerous inventions attributed to a single stroke of genius have shown that instead, ideas emerge through a process of fabrication that evolves over time and through hard work

Instead creativity:

• requires both divergent and convergent thinking
• is not a matter of left brain vs. right brain alone
• involves both problem-solving and problem-setting
• balances tradition and innovation, continuity and change
• combines/blends individual and collective contributions
• involves making the familiar strange and the strange familiar

For those interested in finding out more, have look at  Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation by Keith Sawyer, which gathers all the most recent findings in the field of creativity research and also outlines how different disciplines view creativity.

Understanding Innovation

Innovation is one of those words that are very hip these days. Granted, even I have it in my title. Interestingly, it is also one of the most misunderstood words in business today, so perhaps it's worth spending a little time understanding exactly where it comes from.

If you look for the definition of creativity on Wikipedia, you'll find over 60 different versions - most will agree on the basic premises below and beyond that, the views are radically different depending on your scientific or cultural background. Summarising:

• At the simplest level, creativity is about bringing into being something that was not there before
• Creativity is a mental process involving the generation of ideas and concepts, or new associations between existing ideas or concepts
• Creativity occurs when a person thinks a thought that is outside the space of thoughts that is even conceivable to that person Margaret A. Boden

Now creativity is not innovation, although the two are frequently confused for one another. Innovation is actually made up of two halves:

• Imagination: No new ideas can be generated without a person’s abilities to ‘ think outside the box’ or envision alternative ways in her mind
• Creativity: No insights, however brilliant, will ever be realised unless they are projected out, i.e given material form

A person’s creative expression is the visible face of imagination at work.

Imagination and creativity are each faces of a coin called innovation

With this in mind, innovation becomes a process of fueling the imagination and using creativity to bring into existence the ideas at imagination gives rise to. The two go hand in hand and innovation becomes very hard if a) your imagination is stifled or b) you lack the creativity to bring to life the ideas that you've had.

Therefore fostering innovation is about a process to ensure that there is enough food and stimuli for individual and collective imaginations to engage and about creating avenues for creative expressions to materialise and be improved iteratively either by individuals or collectively. Some past blog posts to inspire you:

Avoiding Creative Apartheid 

Why Innovation cannot remain in the realm of the few

The 7 Must-Do's of Innovators

How to Encourage Innovation in Business

The Conditions for Thriving Innovation

That is not to say that these traits all need to exist in a single individual, instead they can collectively emerge in a community, in an organisation, a film crew, and so on. Successful organisations, communities or creative groups accommodate both the acquisition of stimuli to inspire the imagination of members as well as individuals with an ability to creatively realise those ideas. Collectively or individually, an essential part of innovation is the social dimension that fuels imagination and creativity as well as the process of iterative improvement. None of us are as smart as all of us.

Avoiding Creative Apartheid

Right, here we are - new year, new challenges and not surprisingly: probably still a lot of the old challenges about too, hopefully with the wisdom (and increased girth) of some time off during Christmas, we will be able to approach those issues afresh.

So my first post of the year is dedicated to a topic capable of arising fury within me, over and over again - despite my (by now) many years within the field of design and most recently innovation. This topic, so aptly named Creative Apartheid by Gary Hamel, captures the problem very well:

Too many executives seem to believe that while few people in the company may be really clever and creative, most folks aren't. Gary Hamel

Just before Christmas in fact, did something happen that reminded me yet again of how widely spread this notion is and how it can easily become a self-fulfilling prophecy - i.e this way of thinking means that those esteemed to be 'creative' become intellectually lazy and stop making an effort to ensure that those not currently deemed to belong to the 'creative class' can make a useful contribution, thus proving that creative output invariably only comes from those already belonging to this group of esteemed individuals. Sound confusing? Let me explain by using an example of something that happened to me recently:

2 external consultants had been hired to revamp the value proposition of a service. Famed for their role in a number of award-winning commercials and one being a well-known author, this pair had the credentials of 'creative genius' written all over them, certainly within the advertising field. Personally I have nothing against the duo and find their work and ideas highly refreshing, but what happened next is what constitutes the problem.

To boost the creative work a series of brainstorms had been called, with a mixture of both individuals from the team involved in providing the service as well as a few select externals, including myself, whose insight and background was relevant to the task at hand. Coming in to the workshops I was taken aback by firstly, how linguistically focused many of the excercises were in the sense that not only did they focus on creating ideas, but also crafting these ideas into the most beautiful prose ever - all at the same time. Secondly, the sessions dived straight in, with no warm-up whatsoever to bring the team together and with a very ambitious agenda of work to achieve by the end of the day.

As you would expect, the sessions floundered and much less was accomplished in the time available than what the organisers hoped for. The two consultants, like everyone else, were completely drained by the days activities and proceeded to question why some of the individuals had been present at the meeting, when they clearnly weren't going to contribute anything. It appeared that lines had got crossed between the leaders of the group and the consultants as to what was the outcome of the session and who should be involved. Some of the comments from the consultants annoyed me hugely and I began to think in detail about what had happened and why I had adjusted to their working methods and some of the others hadn't.

1. Relaxing before innovating - check out some 'non-method' methods of how to get people to drop some of the familiar office-induced tensions and anxieties that are the enemy of any creative brainstorm Running Creative Brainstorms
2. Beware of imposing your own ideal way of working on others - advertising as an industry seems to be extremely word-heavy, rewarding to people with linguistic intelligence and capability, but those who lean more towards visual or spatial intelligence, or indeed are capable technological innovation sometimes struggle expressing their ideas purely in words. Be aware of your own comfort zone in terms of not just working style, but also jargon and lingo pertaining to your own professional field and how that can turn off people who aren't doing the same work as you. What are the things that all of you have in common? Concentrate on that to bring together a diverse team and build on everybody's strengths rather than exposing their weaknesses.
3. Don't divide people into the creative and non-creative, not even implicitly - a Freudian slip earlier in the day from one of the leaders made the rest of the day excruciating to say the least. When discussing how the groups should be split, rather than just talking names, the person emphasised the importance of having at least one 'creative' per group, this way of talking of course again deriving from the advertising industry's way of talking collectively about creatives when in fact meaning art directors and copy writers, yet to non-advertising folk this sounds like dividing people into creative and non-creative people. Again, when this is the perception, it is needless to ask why anyone would bother contributing.
4. Concentrate on one task at a time - Again, break things down into manageable-sized chunks - if you are a team with a track record of previously working together your chunks can be bigger, but your innovation may only be incremental as being familiar with each other means your thinking may already have got stuck in some grooves. To avoid this manifestation of group-think, you could adopt a role-play approach, where each of you champions the cause of a specific group relevant to the problem you are trying to solve, for instance consumers, marketers, designers, programmers etc. If you are a diverse team, the chunks need to be smaller, yet your innovation can potentially be bigger, because fresh pairs of eyes on old problems can help see things from new angles.
5. Plan accordingly - if it is a huge task you are embarking on, and you have a diverse team to help you with it, one brainstorm or workshop may not be enough, but you instead need to plan a sequence of them, progressively narrowing down the scope. Again, the earlier you start your planning the more options you have at your disposal.
6. The facilitator often does the most work, but invisibly so make sure you have one and that they understand what is expected of them and why the others are there - The best facilitators just make things happen and that's how it seems, but the reality is very much that of the swan in the lake, above the water graciously gliding past, making it seem effortless while feet paddle feverishly under water to keep the bird moving. That is the facilitator for you and with a diverse team the facilitator often has to be the one capturing comments, building on people's comments, coaxing input from the more quieter team members, keeping time, the lot. A task not to be underestimated and often the success of any brainstorm is down to how good the facilitation was.
7. If language is an issue, focus on expressing ideas, not composing the most lyrical prose - Capturing ideas and phrasing them for most conceptual impact are two different things and require two very different modes of thinking: ideas need your mind to be in open-mode, thinking freely, broadly and making lateral links as well as conceptual jumps. Finding the best adjectives to describe a product you already know what it is, requires your mind to be in closed mode - analysing, evaluating. Often people stuggle to leap from one mode to the next in the same session, so it's a good idea to split them apart, forcing everyone to be in the same mode all at the same time.
8. Allow contribution and input, even when the official session has ended - particularly if this is your own team you are drawing upon, it's no good if you normally tell them to zip it when they have a suggestion or idea for you and then you ask them when it suits you. Walk the talk and allow people to be part of the beginning as well as the end. Sometimes you can't make amendments anymore despite people coming up with an excellent idea, but grace them with an honest explanation of the situation and if possible, think up a way of using their idea somewhere where it still can make a difference. If you do that, you find people are more willing to help you too.
9. Having the idea is the easy bit, implementing it is often hard - that means making sure the ideas live on beyond the brainstorm and they will, if you have observed the rules above. People you have involved will have a vested interest in making sure the ideas survive and are acted upon, because they were part of creating them, but invariably it will take a lot of hard work, not just from you, but from everyone - so what better than having a team around willing to help!

So creative brainstorms can work - and pooling people's ideas, regardless of background and don't you believe anyone that tells you the opposite. In fact, if the brainstorm didn't come out as planned, rather than blame others, it's worth taking a long, hard look at yourself to see if you indeed committed some of the mistakes catalogued above. Fix the problem and try again. As Gary Hamel puts it:

When you look at companies like Toyota, you see their ability to mobilize the intelligence of the so-called ordinary workers. Going forward, no company will be able to afford to waste a single iota of human imagination and intellectual power.

Surely We must be smarter than this? Lessons in Leadership from Monkeys

This great post got me really depressed this morning. It's all about a science experiment with monkeys, where they get soaked with cold water as soon as any monkey tries to climb a ladder in the cage that has a bunch of bananas placed on top. Before you know it, the monkeys are beating up anyone who tries and moreover, the new ones introduced to the cage quickly get beaten up too if trying to climb the ladder and join in the beating, even after the soaking with cold water has stopped.

It's a depressing tale of habit over initiative, settling with culture rather than asking the question why. I found it particularly depressing as I'm an idealist at heart and believe in people's ability to rise above stupidity (at least eventually!) and be smarter than that. I pray I'm not wrong, but this experiment sounds awfully like some bad workplaces I've come across in the past..

So the conclusion being that if you want culture change, you will have to do more than just tell people that's what you want.. if the Pavlovian conditioning is too strong you need something equally strong (if not stronger!) to balance it out, moreover something more than extrinsic motivation and then back it up with people leading the change themselves by being role models or like Gandhi famously said: Be the Change You Want to See in the World.

Earning the Affinity of Your Consumers

Some years ago I came across an excellent paper by Juan Pablo Valencia and Taryn Westberg at the London Business School, where extensive investigations were conducted into how experiences people have with brands influence their perception of it and how best to generate value from Brands through experiences.

Their paper (Experience and the Brand) discusses this in elaborate detail, which makes for some interesting reading in itself and one of their conclusions is to use a consumer affinity pyramid where you place your consumers based on the level of their affinity for your company. The people who love your brand are at the top and those who hate you are the very bottom. Interestingly people at different levels of the pyramid have specific consumption patterns, thus generating different revenue for the company. Moreover, as they move to higher segments the bring more value in the following ways:

• Higher consumption rate and repeat usage
• More willingness to pay price premiums
• Longer relationship with the brand (decreased churn)
• Word of mouth/brand ambassadorship
• Community Effects

There are alternative models to the one just described. For example, brand impact can be evaluated by calculating the advertising and PR expenditure that would be needed to get the same results in terms of changes in customer behaviour. The concept is simpler, but can only be used for comparative purposes. Alternatively, if customers can be tracked through CRM or other means, then the actual impact on sales can be measured. Sales impact can then be used to determine effectiveness with an ROI model.

So then we get to the interesting part. If this is indeed the case - the big question then becomes: how do you influence people's movement upwards in the pyramid? What creates higher levels of affinity in consumers? Is it a fancy marketing campaign? Is it friendly staff? Is it the ability to customise your own products? Well, as far as I can tell - it is not that simple. Despite the transformative power of experiences (as extolled in the paper), consumer affinity is made up of a range of factors, if one is to consider affinity from a long-term perspective, where it can truly have an impact on the company and its sustainability. Ultimately there is no gimmick solution to this problem, but in fact it is one that demands a profound re-evaluation of the company as a whole, what it is, what it stands for and how it treats its supporters: the consumers.

Broadly speaking we know that higher levels of affinity means people have a deeper emotional bond with a company. Experiences that are meaningful have a capacity to create an emotional bond by virtue of our participation in them, which moves us from objective observers into being active participants. If the experience we participate in is a positive one, or even transformative, our affinity will be higher than it would be if say, we just heard about it from someone else. That means we care more.

We care about the product and the company, we worry when things are not going well, we get more disappointed than average consumers if we are let down and we are also more willing to personally contribute to the company with content, ideas or even help our fellow consumers with advice and ideas. So with this in mind, the responsibility of companies is huge in making sure to respect and value every single last contact with its consumers and not consciously and repeatedly fail its most staunch supporters. That is a radically different approach than merely keeping a bunch of shareholders and investors happy. It's about ensuring every one is happy and consumers first and foremost. So can that even be possible I hear you asking?

Why not? The rate of change in technology, software, CRM and the growing number of online contacts a company receives, it should no longer be impossible to consolidate all these connections into user profiles that can be used, not for endless marketing campaigns and bombarding users with offers, but as a means of going back to basics: of listening and anticipating and respecting, being deserving of that emotional bond people have with you. And for that, you as a company have to behave more like a trusted reliable friend that some faceless bully in the playground that sometimes has a great offer to tempt you with and next minute leaves you in some quagmire of call-centre hell and bad service. The question is as a company: are you worthy of your consumers' affinity?

Why So Few Women at the Top: The Weight of Many Small Things

An excellent article recently appeared in the Harvard Business Review analysing why so few women have made it to top management in Fortune 500 companies. Their take is an interesting one, highlighting the fact that commonly perceived reasons for lack of female career progression, such as 'the glass ceiling' are in fact outdated metaphors for what is today a much more complicated picture.

They highlight the fact that times have changed and

the glass ceiling metaphor is now more wrong than right. For one thing, it describes an absolute barrier at a specific high level in organizations. The fact that there have been female chief executives, university presidents, state governors, and presidents of nations gives the lie to that charge.

At the same time, the metaphor implies that women and men have equal access to entry- and midlevel positions. They do not. The image of a transparent obstruction also suggests that women are being misled about their opportunities, because the impediment is not easy for them to see from a distance. But some impediments are not subtle.

Worst of all, by depicting a single, unvarying obstacle, the glass ceiling fails to incorporate the complexity and variety of challenges that women can face in their leadership journeys. In truth, women are not turned away only as they reach the penultimate stage of a distinguished career. They disappear in various numbers at many points leading up to that stage.

The article goes on to explain the very complex and nuanced world, to be seen more like a labyrinth rather than a single unsurmountable obstacle that provide the reasons why so few women indeed make it to the top. A series of actions are also suggested as ways for companies to address this problem, making a strong point of the fact that there is more to empowering women than putting quotas in place.

Summarising:

1. Increase people’s awareness of the psychological drivers of prejudice toward female leaders, and work to dispel those perceptions.

2. Change the long-hours norm.

3. Reduce the subjectivity of performance evaluation.

4. Use open-recruitment tools, such as advertising and employment agencies, rather than relying on informal social networks and referrals to fill positions.

5. Ensure a critical mass of women in executive positions—not just one or two women—to head off the problems that come with tokenism.

6. Avoid having a sole female member of any team.

7. Help shore up social capital.

8. Prepare women for line management with appropriately demanding assignments.

9. Establish family-friendly human resources practises.

10. Allow employees who have significant parental responsibility more time to prove themselves worthy of promotion.

11. Welcome women back.

12. Encourage male participation in family-friendly benefits.

Full version of article

Why Some of Us Give Up and Others Try Harder

How you react to adversity is really telling - some of us throw in the towel and simply give up, and others, facing almost insurmountable obstacles, don't think twice about continuing. What makes us strong on and how do people find the strength within themselves to carry on in the hardest of times?

As an avid cyclist, reading Lance Armstrong's 'It's Not About the Bike' is of course an amazing illustration of how he turned his life around, being diagnosed with cancer, battled four cycles of agonising chemotherapy enough to make the best of us curl up in agony and came back to win a total of 7 Tour de France victories. As he puts it in his consecutive book 'Every Second Counts'

"The experience of suffering is like the experience of exploring, of finding something unexpected and revelatory. When you  find the outermost thresholds of pain, of fear, or uncertainty, what you experience afterwards is an expansive feeling, a widening of your capabilities.

Pain is good because it teaches your body and your soul to improve. It's almost as though your unconscious says "I'm going to remember this, remember how it hurt and I'll increase my capacities so that next time, it doesn't hurt as much". The body literally builds on your experiences and a physique and temperament that have gone through a Tour de France one year will be better the next year, because it has the memory to build upon. Maybe the same is true for living too.

If you lead a largely unexamined life, you will eventually hit a wall. Some barriers can be invisible until you smack into them. The key then is to investigate the wall inside yourself, so you can go beyond it. The only way to do that is to ask yourself painful questions - just as you try to stretch yourself physically."

Professor Carol Dweck at Stanford examines exactly this. Through more than three decades of systematic research, she has been figuring out answers to why some people achieve their potential while equally talented others don’t—why some become Muhammad Ali and others Mike Tyson. The key, she found, isn’t ability; it’s whether you look at ability as something inherent that needs to be demonstrated or as something that can be developed.

[from Stanford Magazine] "Students for whom performance is paramount want to look smart even if it means not learning a thing in the process. For them, each task is a challenge to their self-image, and each setback becomes a personal threat. So they pursue only activities at which they’re sure to shine—and avoid the sorts of experiences necessary to grow and flourish in any endeavor. Students with learning goals, on the other hand, take necessary risks and don’t worry about failure because each mistake becomes a chance to learn. Dweck’s insight launched a new field of educational psychology—achievement goal theory.

Dweck’s next question: what makes students focus on different goals in the first place? During a sabbatical at Harvard, she was discussing this with doctoral student Mary Bandura (daughter of legendary Stanford psychologist Albert Bandura), and the answer hit them: if some students want to show off their ability, while others want to increase their ability, “ability” means different things to the two groups. “If you want to demonstrate something over and over, it feels like something static that lives inside of you—whereas if you want to increase your ability, it feels dynamic and malleable,” Dweck explains. People with performance goals, she reasoned, think intelligence is fixed from birth. People with learning goals have a growth mind-set about intelligence, believing it can be developed. (Among themselves, psychologists call the growth mind-set an “incremental theory,” and use the term “entity theory” for the fixed mind-set.) The model was nearly complete (see diagram).

To me this approach is really interesting, because not only can it influence the way we approach life, career and learning, but through the quote from Lance Armstrong - it can also be applied to physical performance. And to great result, as proven. So what does this all mean? Milton Chen talks about how children can be taught to "feed their own brains" through understanding that their brains and intelligence can be grown and how this mind-set actually improves their academic performance.

As Chen explains: "I asked Dweck about the implications of her research -- what teachers and parents should do, for instance. In an email interview, she recommended the following strategies:

 

• Teach students to think of their brain as a muscle that strengthens with use, and have them visualize the brain forming new connections every time they learn.
• When they teach study skills, convey to students that using these methods will help their brains learn better.
• Discourage use of labels ("smart," "dumb," and so on) that convey intelligence as a fixed entity.
• Praise students' effort, strategies, and progress, not their intelligence. Praising intelligence leads to students to fear challenges and makes them feel stupid and discouraged when they have difficulty.
• Give students challenging work. Teach them that challenging activities are fun and that mistakes help them learn."

Funnily enough - my own voracious appetite for reading anything and everything is very much in line with the same thinking. I believe we can learn anything we set our minds to and it is those moments that feel a little like vertigo, when new horizons of discovery open up in front of your mind's eye, that keeps me going and motivated. A full life isn't one without a continous expansion of our mind, abilities and  wisdom.

Understanding what makes your consumers and employees tick

Here's an excellent interview of Chip Conley, author of Peak - How companies get their mojo from Maslow by Mark Hurst of the GoodExperience blog, a treasure trove of articles on experiences and the thinking behind the design of them. Check him out at the GoodExperience Blog.

Chip Conley is CEO of Joie de Vivre Hospitality, the world's second- largest boutique hotel company. After a severe downturn in his business after 9/11, Conley read Abraham Maslow's works as inspiration for his turnaround plan. It worked: Joie de Vivre is again thriving, and Conley has written a book about what he learned - not only from Maslow, but from companies like Nike, Apple, and Harley-Davidson, which follow Maslow's thinking. Chip's book is

Chip will also speak at Gel 2008 in April in New York:

Q - What's the main idea of "Peak"?

The main idea is that we're all humans in the workplace - whether employees, customers, or investors - and those companies that succeed and become peak performers touch us as people in the workplace, by focusing on higher needs, as opposed to base needs.

Q - How is Abraham Maslow significant?

Maslow wrote about the hierarchy of needs in the mid-20th century. There's no psychologist or psychiatrist quoted more in business schools or corporations than Maslow. Drucker, Covey, Bennis, and Collins all write about him in their books - they mention him in two or three pages, mostly talking about the hierarchy of needs.

What's interesting is that the psychology profession - including Freud, Skinner, and others - commonly looked at the worst practices in behavior in defining the human condition. Maslow says, let's look at *best* practices - people who are fulfilled or self-actualized, who can "be all you can be" and have clicked in to doing what they're supposed to be doing.

Q - Describe the pyramid containing the hierarchy of needs.

There are five levels in Maslow's pyramid. At the base are physiological needs. Then come safety, social belonging, and esteem, and at the top, self-actualization, which is where people are more likely to have peak experiences - what ought to be, is, and life feels great. Reading Maslow woke me up to the idea that if there are self-actualized people in the world, then maybe there could be self- actualized *companies*, since companies are just collections of people.

So in "Peak" I break down Maslow's pyramid and apply it to key relationships - employees, customers, and investors. I took Maslow's five levels and turned them into three levels: the first two levels, physical and safety needs, are just survival. Levels 3 and 4, social and esteem, are just success needs, how the world sees you. At the top of the pyramid, self-actualization, is a transformative state, where you've moved beyond your own ego. So I created the "transformation pyramid": survival on the bottom, then success, and transformation at the top. I then applied those three levels to the motivations of employees, customers, and investors.

Q - OK, what do you say about employees?

For employees, what's the survival need? Money, compensation. Sure, some CEOs are almost exclusively motivated by money. But for most people, it's just a base need. Every survey I've seen shows that money is not the primary motivator for employees. As nonprofits will tell you, the base foundational need is important, but the differential from one company to the next is not huge. Money as a differentiator isn't important.

The success need is being recognized. Marcus Buckingham's book "First Break All the Rules" showed that the number one reason people leave their job is their relationship with their direct supervisor. People join companies, but they leave their bosses.

The top of pyramid is something different, intangible - in the pyramid we're moving from the tangible, to the physiological, to the very intangible. For an employee, it's meaning. This is somewhat blasphemous for companies; it's hard to measure what's intangible. Yet MasterCard says what's true, that what's most important is "priceless," and that's intangible.

How do you put your attention on the top of the pyramid? The three levels represent money, recognition, and meaning: let's translate each to a word that describes a person's relationship with their
work: a "job", a "career", or a "calling." Employers that move their employees up the pyramid get more happy and fulfilled and productive employees, who are much likelier to stay longer, and a positive spirit in that workplace. The fact is, I have 3,000 employees, and 1,200 of them clean toilets for a living. So it's a challenge for me to create that with my employees.

Q - What's the customer pyramid?

For a customer, the survival need equates to having one's expectations met. If you don't meet their expectations, you haven't met their survival needs; you've created buyer's remorse. It comes down to the difference between expectation and reality. Most companies get very focused on the base; that's what customer satisfaction surveys are about. "Was your check-in process efficient?" Well, sure it was, but I hated this and that other thing, which the survey won't ask me about. We most notice the intangible. Pure customer satisfaction is at the base of the pyramid.

The success need is having desires met, which companies deliver either via technology or training. Good examples of using technology are Amazon and Netflix, which use mass-customized technology. The more I use them, the better they know me and my desires. Similarly, Four Seasons hotels are more high-touch. Through great training, the people there know my desires. That creates customer loyalty - and this second level is where it builds, not at the bottom of the pyramid.

Now for the top of the pyramid. Henry Ford said, "If I listened to my customers, they'd tell me to get a faster horse." By meeting the unrecognized needs of a customer, which the customer may not be able to articulate themselves, you create a customer evangelist. So there's customer loyalty in the middle, and *evangelism* at the top. A self-actualized customer is so thrilled you've met a need they didn't know they had, that they become believer. Companies that do this include Apple, Whole Foods, Southwest Airlines, and JetBlue. You get on a JetBlue flight and find your own TV at your seat. More importantly, you have some control at a time you'd otherwise feel out of control. Companies that do this well create not just loyalty but a marketing machine.

Q - What are some best practices of companies that use the customer pyramid to great effect?

There are four qualities that define companies that are creating these customer evangelists. First, they help their customers meet their highest goals - allowing a customer to achieve their ideal goals from using the product. Apple enables its customers to go out and exercise their minds. Nike encourages customers to "just do it." Google gives you exactly what you're looking for. These companies are helping customers meet their highest goals.

Second is giving your customers the ability to truly express themselves. By buying a Harley-Davidson, a middle-aged accountant from the Midwest can feel like a rebel. In the case of boutique hotels, you might say, "You are where you sleep." If a hotel has a personality that represents an aspiration for you, then hopefully when you check out it will have rubbed off on you a little bit. Similarly, there's a halo effect of being an Apple user; and Starbucks has tried to become a curator for a lifestyle for its customers. These are customers who feel like they can express themselves through the purchase of a product or service.

Third is making customers feel like they're part of a bigger cause. Hummer buyers may feel that connection, but most people would say that it's lacking a socially responsible element. Patagonia - the company, not the region in Argentina - runs its "1% for the planet" campaign, and its loyal customers are "Patagoniacs." They love being associated with Patagonia because it's part of a bigger cause. For people who buy from Apple, it's not just "I'm an iconoclastic rebel," but "I'm part of a bigger cause," the anti-Microsoft attitude. At Whole Foods Market, you may go there because you love the product, but lots of people buy there because they love the sustainability cause. People like buying a Toyota Prius because it makes them feel good about both buying a car *and* doing something for the planet, even though that's a rather oxymoronic thought.

The fourth quality is offering customers something of real value they hadn't even imagined. That's what JetBlue did with the TV screen. That's what FedEx did when they created overnight delivery. It was a remarkable thought, 25 years ago, that you could send something overnight. But that innovation became a commodity over time. A lot of people entered FedEx's market, and Fred Smith, the founder, said, "I thought I was in the transporting goods, and then I realized that I was in the business of creating peace of mind." So he created a logistics program to allow customers to track packages. Now the innovation, what people wanted, an almost unrecognized desired, was: if I'm sending it overnight, the person on either end wants to know where it is. FedEx went from being an also-ran to going to the top of the pyramid again and taking market share away from its competitors. FedEx's innovation in terms of tracking was addressing that peace of mind that customers were looking for.

Q - How can any company start to put these principles into practice?

The easiest way is to consider how Maslow's hierarchy can be applied to your customer. For example, for a hotel customer, the physical level is a clean and comfortable bed. Safety might be offering an electric card-key instead of a regular key, and making sure there's good lighting in the parking lot. And so on. Just remember that there is a hierarchy of needs of employees, customers, and investors, and you can help people around you understand that.
See also:

- More Good Experience interviews: where this interview originally came from! 

Designers as Facilitators of Collective Creativity

Back in the day when I went to design school, the greatest aspiration uniting all my fellow students was to become the next Philippe Starck. The idea of the lone genius, the one people always called upon to create beauty and join form with function, the duck that consistently always laid golden eggs for his clients - this was, and in some circles still is, the ideal for designers.

Creativity and why designers are not artists
What's the difference you may ask. A good question to ask as both rely heavily on their creative skill to create solutions. According to Arthur Koestler, the most-cited authority on creativity, every creative act involves bisociation, a process that brings together and combines previously unrelated ideas. He contrasts bisociation with association, saying that association refers to previously established connections among ideas but that isociation involves making entirely new connections among ideas. Koestler’s definition addresses all forms of creativity, whether in art, science or humor.

So designers, artists, scientists, you name it all rely on creativity for coming up with solutions, but the difference between designers and artists is ego. Designers (at least good ones anyway) divorce their egos from a project early on to immerse themselves in research, ethnographic studies, insights of various sorts to come up with solutions that best serve the needs identified by users. Artists on the other hand delve in much greater luxury, not necessarily materially speaking, but in terms of accountability. Their works of art are born out personal briefs, passions and ideas - not a common need or problem and are specifically bought, because of their personal interpretation of the reality we all live in. It is their synthesis of subjects in to visual, interactive or 3 dimensional form that evokes an emotional and intellectual reaction in an audience. You can argue here that the above is similarly the reason why we buy certain products, because the name of the designer has become synonymous with compelling design that we appreciate. That is entirely correct, in some areas the roles are particularly blurred as is the case with fashion design for instance, where the designers behave more like artists (some more than others), but who are still commonly referred to as designers.

The Advent of Collective Creativity
Fast-forward to 2007 and our CEO at LEGO, Jorgen Vig Knudstorp, speaking about collective creativity and its power to create stunning products and solutions; 'Why have 100 designers, when you can have a 100.000?', he poignantly asks. And I think: absolutely! Why not indeed - whereas I can in my mind's eye hear all those designers gasp quietly in the background, this is the sound of their dreams vanishing before them.

What does he mean? Knudstorp is referring to the power of collective creativity. Collective creativity occurs when bisociation is shared by two or more people. We are beginning to see that collective creativity can be very powerful and can lead to more culturally relevant results than individual creativity does. This is what happens with really good collaboration based on teamwork.

Liz Sanders from SonicRim articulates this very well her article on the subject. All people who touch and are touched by the “product” that is being designed should play a role in collective creativity. (By “product” I mean products, interfaces, spaces, etc.) These people fall into two main groups: “makers” and “users.” “Makers” include all the members of development teams from disciplines such as marketing, engineering and design. “Users” include people who shop for, buy and end up using the product.

Collective creativity is already being practiced in industry today by “makers.” In fact, most design firms sell their interdisciplinary product development experience. The biggest opportunity for improving the quality of products that we design today is to practice collective creativity with "users." Others agree. Design critic Rick Poynor has argued that "since design is something fundamental to being human, it can’t be left solely in the hands of designated practitioners."

Architect  Christopher Alexander writes “People need and have a right to determine and shape their own environment. . . . They are the only ones who know in a profound way what they need . . . .Good architecture can only come from wholehearted involvement of the users in the shaping of their buildings and streets.”   

Why is collective creativity important?
To quote Liz Sanders here: Collective creativity, when practiced with "users" in the design development process, can result in useful and relevant innovation. This is important because useful and relevant innovation can be commercially successful at the same time as it is culturally beneficial. The shift from individual to collective levels in thinking and doing is occurring today in many domains. We see this shift taking place especially today in the world of business. Design education needs to keep up with the shift to meet the challenges created by new levels of thought and action.

The changing role of the designer
The days of the super-star designer are numbered. The skills needed to facilitate collective creativity are very different from what the lone genius does in his corner. First there is humility and the profound appreciation of the role ordinary people should have in shaping and creating the project of their dreams. It is no longer the designer who tells the world what the solution should look like, it is the designer who uses his/her expertise in unlocking creativity to enable others, who perhaps habitually are less confident in the creative realm, to unlock their thoughts, ideas and creativity.

At LEGO work continues to expand the ability of ordinary people to create the product of their dreams. An approach pioneered by the Mindstorms NXT development process of involving the Mindstorms community in designing the hardware, software, the toy and pieces for the new robot, has rapidly continued into completely user-designed products sold through the company's LEGO Factory channel, where users can indeed create their very own LEGO model and buy exactly that model as well as be inspired by and buy the creations of others. This of course in parallel with existing product development of LEGO toys, still handled by designers themselves - but even here community interaction is becoming more and more commonplace as the insight and ideas coming from LEGO users are simply too valuable to ignore. Long gone are the days of the lone genius - instead here we are at the advent of collective creativity where the power of many creates far better products and experiences than any one of us could have dreamt up on our own.

What Makes Us Wise?

Recent quiet time on this blog induced by excessive cycling, the surrender to Facebook and a workload that simply refuses to diminish are my excuses for depriving you of my musings, hopefully some of you still haven't given up on me and will return to read this post... if so, Welcome back!

The autumn is almost upon us and if you live in the UK, it has been since about June. A lot of time for reflection in all this rain and a great quote by Yoko Ono I saw recently got me thinking about age, wisdom - why some grow wise and others just grow old.

Yoko Ono was asked recently whether age matters in her opinion, to which she answered: "The advancing of age matters when it gives you experience - the kind that adds wisdom, power and self-confidence to you - and thereby makes you a more attractive individual for the satisfaction and joy of you, your family, your friends and the world."

This captures the sensation I woke up with today - a dream of two racing cars, one symbolising the left brain and the other symbolising the right brain. These two cars were in a very close competition, side by side, each in turn inching away in front of the other only to be caught up and challenged again. The dream ended with a strong realisation about bridge-building, how wisdom is really about bridging the two halves of how we function.

On one hand we are emotional beings and emotions sometimes take control of us completely and experiences create many connections in the part of our brain which deals with emotion. Many religions, even psychoanalysis, tries to temper the emotions and make us think about the consequences of irrational, emotional behaviour - whether it is through ethics, thinking about treating others the way you wish to be treated and so on.

However, someone also recently pointed out that radicalisation is about emotions devoid of reason and why radicalism is so infectious particularly among younger people is that many don't have a clear understanding of the rational implications of radicalism, nor a strong ingrained will to prevent human suffering in all its forms. This expert continued to point out that the reason Islamic radicalism is so dangerous is because emotions have been infused with Islamic rationalisation, apparently lending legitimacy to otherwise irrational emotional desires of hurting fellow human beings. And the most depressing of all, whether we are talking about politicians, Islamic radicals or society at large is that the desire to eliminate human suffering, today and in the future is still not the top priority of our actions - we think human suffering can be justified in the name of the right cause.

On the other hand pure reason and rationalisation without the emotional dimension is no good either. I once read that the reason why Nazism was so destructive during WWII was through its ability to institutionalise and rationalise the process of elimination of those less desirable in Hitler's Germany. The cold rationalisation and institutionalising of the most horrific human atrocities somehow made it easier for people in all parts of the Nazi bureaucracy not to think of the human (emotional) consequences of their actions - how many lives were lost, families torn apart, contributions is science, literature, art, medicine etc. never realised as nascent careers or even young lives were snuffed out through an effective process of elimination, logistically perfect and emotionally completely sterile, revealing the horror of pure rationalisation unrestrained from emotional considerations.

How does one navigate this minefield of emotion and reason. How does one make sure in every case we ensure the consequences of our actions are always on the top of our minds and that we methodically strive to eliminate destructive thoughts and behaviour from ourselves and focus on nurturing the good in each of us? Is that was true wisdom is? The ability understand others and an ability to consistently choose a self-less path where we refrain from greed, jealousy, anger, hatred, aggression and so on. Is it that wisdom really gives us a distance to things, a weariness to react to soon, judge too quickly, but instead to be determined in looking for and seeing the big picture, understanding how many things are really interconnected and attacking one may indeed simply worsen the other thing we'd rather keep. Is wisdom the ability to understand cause and consequence, the capacity to judge emotion and reason side by side, not favouring either on the expense of the other - but indeed seeing the world as a whole and bigger than the sum of its parts?

Flight BA 349: A study in chaos theory and the importance of managing expectations

A technical problem compounded by lack of leadership among ground staff; a flight delayed 28 hours; a riot on-board - what does it all mean and how it could have been avoided?

Here's the story of how my weekend away turned into a nightmare.

As mentioned in the previous post - here was I really looking forward to a weekend away, in South of France of all places, but a safe bet this time of year in terms of sunshine, good food and in this case, also nice company - all factors conspired to create a most wonderful break and memorable party away from the rain and cold of Britain during Wimbledon and it would all have been perfect if it wasn't for the flight back. So what happened?

T - 2 1/2 hours:
We arrive at Nice airport, a smooth journey from Cannes - expect to check in; nobody at the desk so we check in using machines and sit ourselves down to wait.

T - 1 hour:
1 1/2 hours later BA staff appear at desk so we drop our bags off and head for the restaurant.

T - 1/2 hour:
We are called to gate; proceed to board and sit ourselves down onboard plane.

T + 1/2 hour:
We are still sat on-board and get informed by pilot that there is a technical problem with the hydraulics and we need to check this before departing.

T + 1 hour:
We are told a hydraulic pump has failed and it cannot be fixed. BA is trying to source one in France along with an engineer to come install it.

T + 1 1/2 hours:
We are told there is neither a pump nor an engineer to fit it in entire France; so both of these need to be flown down from Heathrow in the morning. We are advised to exit the plane (it is now 9 pm) and go find the BA desk in the terminal where the staff will advise us on hotel accommodation and give us drinks/food vouchers.

T + 2 hours:
We are waiting in front of BA desk along with 200 odd passengers; having to queue up individually to the desk to state our names and receive information about our accomodation. To ease congestion some are told to leave now and claim back their hotel expenses from BA customer relations. Some take this advice and leave; others stay. General pandemonium exists as people are conviced there is no space for them on flights scheduled for the next day so there is a scramble for getting wait-listed; buying places on other flights etc.

T + 3 hours:
It turns out the queue we have been standing in (there are 6) is for people trying to reschedule themselves onto flights tomorrow and not for accomodation at all, so we shift ourselves over to the queues for accomodation.

T + 4 hours:
We finally receive information about which hotel we need to go to. Turns out it is only 200 m from the airport and this could have been announced to us collectively 4 hours ago. We are told to make sure we are back at the check-in no later than 11 o'clock the following morning in order not to miss the flight, now rescheduled for 12.30. At this point it is finally explained to us that there will be an extra flight scheduled that day - our famous flight 349 will appear again, to take all original flight 349 passengers back. This eases some of the fears people had about getting back, yet some speculate whether this will really happen and how free BA are to schedule extra flights in excess of their allotted slots.

T + 4 1/2 hours:
We arrive at hotel, discover it is a 2 star hotel, the kitchen has closed and there is no minibar in the room. We dump our stuff and decide to go find food.

T + 5 hours:
We, along with 50 other people, decend upon the local Novotel whose kitchen is still open and virtually scramble to order the last food they have.

T + 6 hours:
Exhausted, but full we make our way back to the hotel and fall into bed.

Why Innovation Cannot Remain in the Realm of the Few

Last week a long-standing dream of mine finally came true when I had a chance to visit the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Boston. Even back in the day of studying product design at Central Saint Martins I was always intrigued by the level of experimentation, technical prowess and simply outright genre-busting design and thinking that was going on at the MIT Media Lab and I always wished I could have studied there too. As some of you know, the LEGO Group is a Consortia Research Sponsor and thus chance and fortune collided and enabled me to take part in both the fascinating H20 or Human 2.0 event last Wednesday and the Sponsor day on the Thursday. Both events gave me a unique insight into what it means to be human in the 21st century and how innovation is fuelled on a large scale, seemingly infecting all that enter the Media Lab premises.

Seeing all this made me think of innovation yet again and how the Media Lab was different from many other places I have visited in its attitude and relation to innovation. What strikes you when entering the premises is that innovation is seen a bit like oxygen - it's there, people don't even question it, everybody breathes it and moreover, everybody CAN breathe it, because it is natural. Too often, whether you are in a company or even browsing a bookstore for that matter - innovation seems like the new buzz word, something of a dark art that most people are mystified by, only few people master and more over, a billion-dollar industry exists to tell us how we can become better at it. Of course you will be amused to know that innovation is also part of my job-title, but rather than make me feel special or privileged I feel a strong, sometimes even daunting, responsibility in trying to engender it in everyone around me, empowering people to come with solutions themselves, acting more like a facilitator than some lone genius in an ivory tower.

A book I'm currently reading, called The Upside by Adrian Slywotzky delves into depth explaining what companies do to minimise risk when innovating. He very convincingly points out that not only is it a matter of identifying an opportunity and ceasing it, but how in fact most innovations are likely to fail, even when they are 90% right for the purpose they were developed. Slywotzky goes through a series of examples, including the development of the Prius, the Ipod and others, highlighting just how many steps were required to create these successes and how innovation was present in each and every one of those steps - proving conclusively that innovation has to happen at every level in a company to make such successes as the Ipod to really take off. A product innovation alone wouldn't have gotten Apple to where they are today, but instead a deliberate strategic application of innovation at successive steps of the process, towards the end involving over 50 people, a large project by Apple's standards, but essential in making sure that all parts of the business were optimised to deliver what we now know to have become a legendary example of innovation: the Ipod.

Slywotsky in fact lists a number of principles in his book, which seem to crop up again and again as an approach that works, a formula that ensures that Innovation doesn't remain in the realm of the few, but instead permeates an entire company and ensures that even the tiniest chances of success are systematically increased over time, step by step, by consistently and continuously involving everyone and ensuring that innovation is something everyone contributes to and is part of, rather than a select few.

1. Work fast to pre-empt competition - crazy deadlines mean you get people's undivided attention rather than the phenomenon of mission creep - when deadlines get drawn out, because people get involved in other things in the meantime
2. Share information freely, openly, between all - set up an email sphere in line with what the fifteenth-century mystic Nicolas of Cusa described as 'something whose circumference is nowhere and whose centre is everywhere. Everyone on the mailing list stands equally close to the centre of the action and everyone is capable of being the centre at a particular moment in time - able to draw energy from everyone else in the group to solve today's most pressing problem
3. Encourage young, flexible minds who like to challenge the norm and think in new ways - sometimes this is the only way to stop things being done the way we always have done them. In fact, encourage people to think this way whether they are young or old!
4. Always take pride in asking the toughest questions -about customers, their needs and interests, and the ways the company's business processes can serve those customers better.
5. Plan for version 2.0 - i.e learn from your mistakes and put the learning back in the organisation!
6. Design your business model (distribution, communication etc.) as shrewdly as you design your product!

Now these are very generic bits of advice and the really interesting thing is reading all the case studies and seeing what combination of general advice (above) was mixed in with strategic measures to address the specific weaknesses of the company mentioned. It's always a mix of both - but interestingly, in each of the successes mentioned, it was the deliberate involvement of all parties to the solution, early on in the process that created the necessary momentum to deal with everything else. Thus innovation should be, much like it is at the MIT, like the oxygen in an organisation - we all need to breathe it and we all CAN and SHOULD, because only then can breakthroughs happen!