An occasional series of slants at the Wonderful World of Business - in visual form.
Sunday, 27 March 2011
Smashing. The Mental Model!
Etiquette Shmetiquette, David Attenborough and the birthing of a big idea!
Saturday, 26 March 2011
If you ask a London cabbie!
Living Life Axiomatically!
Friday, 25 March 2011
Vision For Better Thinking!
Monday, 21 March 2011
Seems we have a problem...
Until it gets fixed - In the meantime - head here http://johncaswell.tumblr.com/
Sunday, 20 March 2011
Aiming Low.
Our media has perfected a sewer rat/train smash mentality. And it's no coincidence that we are calling social media - 'Social' Media.
Playing to the lowest common denominator (it would appear) IS the strategy for guaranteed profit and cash. At the expense of our lives and our futures – but let's not get picky. Yeah, so are we all good with that? What could WE do anyway right?
Ensuring that our ethics - the low bar of morality sinks deeper into the swamp with every edition - IS the best way to keep them demon denominators falling. No question. The more they fall the more big business and society cashes in on the lazy product and services that go with. Easy! Cheap.
Reality TV doctrine states it like that and sees to it that each 'new' sad idea sucks yet more blood from the audiences along with their cash. Whilst frowned upon publicly (through the self same media) by both the political and business ‘systems’ it’s no secret that this very clear business model exists. It is the model. Simples.
Lowest common denominator means highest possible audiences. Numbers!
Speaking personally - as a westerner - I intensely dislike all the big three systems. I call them the unholy trinity. Politics. Business & Media. The political ‘system’ represents everything I dislike. It's corrupt, foolish, inept, untrustworthy, unhelpfully argumentative and not intelligent. It has a bad side too. Business, typified by the financial sector, needs no more 'outing' and the media, well that our diet and we get what we deserve if you agree with most commentators. And we do nothing about it because we don’t have a voice.
Sadly we seem to lack a credible alternative to these systems.
I don’t hear the triumphant throngs or massive hordes of fans for the fat cat salaries of the ‘system’ of Business or the 'Business of things' - Finance, Education, Health or whatever. I meet countless people who are very unhappy working for these businesses so the internal ‘systems’ are pretty messed up too.
This isn't rocket stuff.
But we don’t have a single ‘system’ of our own – under the control of the WE.
One that could change any of this. We lack a unified ‘system’ outside of the 'Unholy Trinity'. I will not go into the other major ‘systems’ like religion here. I do so to avoid getting stuck/sidetracked.with the point I want to make. It is the same point.
All of these systems were borne out of command and control thinking.
Understanding the western systems means to get at the heart of our stuckness.
It will be argued - I'm sure - but I think the following is true. Most of the problems and frustration in society can be laid at the door of our inability to influence these three institutionalised ‘systems’.
I believe that they are so well entrenched and so self serving as systems that - however unintended initially - they are the cause not the solution of the problem. They are deeply woven into the subconscious. We are not really challenging them as if we thought of them as ‘systems’. We are simply anaesthetized.
Worse still they defend themselves by purporting to be at our service and disposal.
These three systems are connected and self serving - Political, Business and Media. Each is in cahoots. Each has a wink and a nod to the other when we are not looking. Sadly they wink and nod even when we are.
WE vote in the governments, we buy from the businesses and we are influenced (or say are not) by the media. But we are the recipients of all these three interlocking systems. The media swings between each color of political party in order to keep this insidious and diabolical melting pot going, business goes where the money is and governments know that this keeps all the systems oiled (as long as it can keep it in balance).
WE are immensely critical of all three and we can and do complain. We complain all the time. We've complained for as long as I can remember. But the dirty little secret is there is no WE.
There is no We. We are not WE.
Apart from the internet there isn't a ‘system’ that I can see that is representative of WE. I don’t see a ‘system’ capable of being a valid alternative in a way that balances out or alters the unholy trinity. Why would they let us is? The internet though presents a compelling opportunity. However it is merely the platform.
WE have to use it as WE.
I remain optimistic but impatient. Slowly we see the 'unholy trinity' being challenged in critical ways.
- Media is struggling with its sales, caught in the headlights of blogs, self publishing and citizen news self-reporting. Look what is happening in the Middle East and Africa with Facebook and the social media. It’s still very free and open source has had dramatic effects to enable a fluid world of opportunity for newer and greener shoots.
- Political change is apparent via the 'voice' that is increasingly created on-line. Political blogs, surveys, manifestos, tribes and communities rising up and thankfully it is still democratized and free of too many controls. Countries are being overthrown by social media.
- Business has had to get its act together to understand the phenomenon of online channels but its early days and proves that business simply follows the mantra of shareholder return above all else. When it comes to them being sustainable or more ethical, well they will go there but only if its profitable. Organic foods is profitable so yes they do that and if alternative energy investment by the big oil companies isn’t they will pull out. They did.
- I can't speak about the Financial Services and Banking sector pay situation here. But my message would be to - enjoy it while you can you leeches as with luck a smarter generation is growing up and gonna deal with you - because my generation failed.
Well it's not surprising. It’s the system.
"The major problems in the world are the result of the difference between the way nature works and the way man thinks." - Gregory Bateson
I am suggesting that we need to be a more complete and connected 'WE' if we are to alter the thinking - and if WE wish to avoid the catastrophic implications – the pursuit of growth at the expense of all else. Well…
We humans aren’t deliberately stupid and a vast majority of us see that if WE continue this way then there is a highly predictable outcome. Destruction of the raw materials - end of the 'system'. It is finite. Our ‘system’ relies on constantly squeezing the contributors to the supply chain. The result frustrates all the mini-systems and suppliers that are implicated - constantly marginalizing them in the name of profit or efficiency and ignoring the natural systems that it raids to create the goods in the process.
Nothing stays the same.
Such a simple statement. Positions on this idea rage on every second of the day. It's such a natural and obvious truth and we seem utterly fascinated by the why, what and how of it all. At the same time we are so blinded by the significant opportunities presented by it.
Instead of leveraging the natural systems, evidence of which we see all around us, we fight or ignore them. Each time the natural cycles come back at us with interest. We fuss and interfere with the 'way' of things and wonder why they bite us so badly. Whether it's depleted natural resources or the differences of cultural systems leading to wars we just fail to understand what we are dealing with.
C'mon us – let's imagine WE!
A Drive-By in Downtown Dystopia!
- A cornucopia of myopia and dystopia - our world seems represented by individual 'stuckness' and small thinking. Not smart – just dumb. We experience it all around and held in place by those who defend outdated tradition. Little evidence of dynamic thinking - cognition – patchy reasoning, little reflective analysing
- In the shadow of tyrannical pyramids – the vast majority of humans still live and work in the age of the creativity sapping 'Org Chart' – beset with hierarchies of command & control cultures; seeding frustration, demoralization, low output, corruption, fear, uncertainty and doubt.
- Gorillas In The Midst – 800 lbs of systemic permafrost - we seem happy to live with the official 'systems' unwritten code that we all know is ‘there’ and that we cannot do anything about it. Do not speak. Do not speak.
- Bedevilled by 'experts' - hiding behind standards and so called 'best practices'. Outdated doctrine built on dubious data that was designed for another era. Dressed as an expert gets you past the scanners and ensures that we solve the wrong problems really well. Self-serving bollocks.
- Hoovering With Idea Vacuums - No intuition please we don't get paid for that. Thus no spark, not even ignition – little inspiration, creativity or energy for change.
- Leadership? What leadership? - breeding apathy, amnesia & anaesthesia – what 'burning platform' - I'm alright jack! People in positions of power, unproven, unqualified and with little humility, charm, grace or credibility to secure any follower ship.
- Lies, Statistics and Damn Lies and Statistics – oh and software – making the data prove what you want it to prove – making it so layered that everyone gives up - or put language around it to confuse the crap out of everyone who dare get close to witness it's lack of integrity. The trail goes cold. So does our breath.
Is it me, or what?
Saturday, 19 March 2011
Truth Serums!
Wednesday, 16 March 2011
Not solving the wrong problem really well!
- Framework thinking ensures that a structure emerges that contains and aligns all of the moving parts.
- 'Framing' and agreeing the real question – the one that is driving change or transformation - is crucial to a successful outcome.
- Answering the whole of the question properly requires that the right people are fully involved throughout the development of the 'frameworks'.
- Decision Quality criteria must be defined at every step and used to parse every single decision – consistently for the correct decisions to be made.
- Aligned (possibly new) and shared meaning of all the key terms is vital. Language has to be agreed. Communication can only then be coherent to drive change through everyone.
- Visualisation is critical to create agreement over the intangible concepts such as vision, mission and operation.
- Impartiality of thinking, especially in the early stages of innovative/creative re-thinking is vital.
- Co-creation and collaboration is the only way to create ownership, understanding and sustainability.
- Behavioural change is only possible with deeply felt inspiration and motivation at both individual and enterprise level.
Tuesday, 15 March 2011
Wrestling with your lizard at the last supper?.
Some of us are not going to make it.
Our lizard brain keeps us wanting that safe place – so this is tough. You probably stopped reading this way up there anyway. Holy Amygdala Batman. Check these emotions – sound familiar? http://bit.ly/hk5XWm
Most of us want to believe that the choices we make will work out, that everything will be okay. We seek decisions that are low risk and there's avery chance it will all just be fine. Well forget simplicity and low risk unless you are prepared to work hard at the sheer complexity of what low risk calculations demand. Everyone in business wants to be sure, they want the low risk strategy – the simple solution, the fast ride.
No, everything is not going to be okay. It never is. It isn't okay now. Change, by definition, changes things. It makes some things better and some things worse. But everything is never okay. Finding the courage to avoid constant, often empty, reassurance is a critical step in vital transformation. Once you free yourself from the need for approval, and recognise that stuff is likely to come with increasing risk of failure - it's a lot easier to do the critical stuff.
Sunday, 13 March 2011
Thinking. Change.
Saturday, 12 March 2011
32,000 Years of Visual Thinking
Ethnographic studies of these contemporary
"The shaman would retreat into the darkness of the caves, enter into a trance state and then paint images of their visions, perhaps with some notion of drawing power out of the cave walls themselves."
- Listening to the people and their conversations - distilling the importance and priority of each phrase, term and idea in terms of the task or challenge at hand.
- Retrieving from your memory the context of the idea being formed into a helpful visual or phrased conclusion – drawn to suit the topic being discussed.
- Comparing this conversation against the menu of images and symbols in your mind and that have worked from experience
- Drawing and writing the culmination of all this in real time onto the wall in the correct space and in the right relationship to everything else – respecting the scene and the impression it needs to create.
- Continuing to listen to the conversation going on as you work so that any refinements and adjustments can be made as it evolves.
- Being creative in all of the above by grasping fresh vocabulary and ideas from the air - adding them within the mix in a way that increases the value - innovating by compressing the strands into something yet more crisp or accurate than anything you have heard so far.
- The resulting imagery is now a complex/simple 'product' of many things. It is a rich synthesis of ideas that form in the midst of connected yet disparate dialog.
1. Know your cave’s decision-making criteria
3. Choose the right people to join you in the cave
4. Divide and conquer to beat that woolly mammoth
5. On your mark, get set, go!
6. Wrap it up
7. Follow up quickly
Compa
The result? Some attendees remain stone-faced throughout the day, others contribute sporadically, and a few loudly dominate the session with their pet ideas. Ideas pop up randomly—some intriguing, many preposterous—but because the session has no structure, little momentum builds around any of them. At session’s end, the group trundles off with a hazy idea of what, if anything, will happen next. “Now we can get back to real work,” some whisper.
It doesn’t have to be like this. We’ve led or observed 200 projects over the past decade at more than 150 companies in industries ranging from retailing and education to banking and communications. That experience has helped us develop a practical approach that captures the energy typically wasted in a traditional brainstorming session and steers it in a more productive direction. The trick is to leverage the way people actually think and work in creative problem-solving situations.
We call our approach “brainsteering,” and while it requires more preparation than traditional brainstorming, the results are worthwhile: better ideas in business situations as diverse as inventing new products and services, attracting new customers, designing more efficient business processes, or reducing costs, among others. The next time you assign one of your people to lead an idea generation effort—or decide to lead one yourself—you can significantly improve the odds of success by following the seven steps below.
1. Know your organization’s decision-making criteria
One reason good ideas hatched in corporate brainstorming sessions often go nowhere is that they are beyond the scope of what the organization would ever be willing to consider. “Think outside the box!” is an unhelpful exhortation if external circumstances or company policies create boxes that the organization truly must live within.
Managers hoping to spark creative thinking in their teams should therefore start by understanding (and in some cases shaping) the real criteria the company will use to make decisions about the resulting ideas. Are there any absolute restrictions or limitations, for example? A bank we know wasted a full day’s worth of brainstorming because the session’s best ideas all required changing IT systems. Yet senior management—unbeknownst to the workshop planners—had recently “locked down” the IT agenda for the next 18 months.
Likewise, what constitutes an acceptable idea? At a different, smarter bank, workshop planners collaborated with senior managers on a highly specific (and therefore highly valuable) definition tailored to meet immediate needs. Good ideas would require no more than $5,000 per branch in investment and would generate incremental profits quickly. Further, while three categories of ideas—new products, new sales approaches, and pricing changes—were welcome, senior management would balk at ideas that required new regulatory approvals. The result was a far more productive session delivering exactly what the company wanted: a fistful of ideas, in all three target categories, that were practical, affordable, and profitable within one fiscal year.
2. Ask the right questions
Decades of academic research shows that traditional, loosely structured brainstorming techniques (“Go for quantity—the greater the number of ideas, the greater the likelihood of winners!”) are inferior to approaches that provide more structure.1 The best way we’ve found to provide it is to use questions as the platform for idea generation.
In practice, this means building your workshop around a series of “right questions” that your team will explore in small groups during a series of idea generation sessions (more about these later). The trick is to identify questions with two characteristics. First, they should force your participants to take a new and unfamiliar perspective. Why? Because whenever you look for new ways to attack an old problem—whether it’s lowering your company’s operating costs or buying your spouse a birthday gift—you naturally gravitate toward thinking patterns and ideas that worked in the past. Research shows that, over time, you’ll come up with fewer good ideas, despite increased effort. Changing your participants’ perspective will shake up their thinking. (For more on how to do this, see our upcoming article “Sparking creativity in teams: An executive’s guide,” to be published in April on mckinseyquarterly.com.) The second characteristic of a right question is that it limits the conceptual space your team will explore, without being so restrictive that it forces particular answers or outcomes.
It’s easier to show such questions in practice than to describe them in theory. A consumer electronics company looking to develop new products might start with questions such as “What’s the biggest avoidable hassle our customers endure?” and “Who uses our product in ways we never expected?” By contrast, a health insurance provider looking to cut costs might ask, “What complexity do we plan for daily that, if eliminated, would change the way we operate?” and “In which areas is the efficiency of a given department ‘trapped’ by outdated restrictions placed on it by company policies?”2
In our experience, it’s best to come up with 15 to 20 such questions for a typical workshop attended by about 20 people. Choose the questions carefully, as they will form the heart of your workshop—your participants will be discussing them intensively in small subgroups during a series of sessions.
3. Choose the right people
The rule here is simple: pick people who can answer the questions you’re asking. As obvious as this sounds, it’s not what happens in many traditional brainstorming sessions, where participants are often chosen with less regard for their specific knowledge than for their prominence on the org chart.
Instead, choose participants with firsthand, “in the trenches” knowledge, as a catalog retailer client of ours did for a brainsteering workshop on improving bad-debt collections. (The company had extended credit directly to some customers). During the workshop, when participants were discussing the question “What’s changed in our operating environment since we last redesigned our processes?” a frontline collections manager remarked, “Well, death has become the new bankruptcy.”
A few people laughed knowingly, but the senior managers in the room were perplexed. On further discussion, the story became clear. In years past, some customers who fell behind on their payments would falsely claim bankruptcy when speaking with a collections rep, figuring that the company wouldn’t pursue the matter because of the legal headaches involved. More recently, a better gambit had emerged: unscrupulous borrowers instructed household members to tell the agent they had died—a tactic that halted collections efforts quickly, since reps were uncomfortable pressing the issue.
While this certainly wasn’t the largest problem the collectors faced, the line manager’s presence in the workshop had uncovered an opportunity. A different line manager in the workshop proposed what became the solution: instructing the reps to sensitively, but firmly, question the recipient of the call for more specific information if the rep suspected a ruse. Dishonest borrowers would invariably hang up if asked to identify themselves or to provide other basic information, and the collections efforts could continue.
4. Divide and conquer
To ensure fruitful discussions like the one the catalog retailer generated, don’t have your participants hold one continuous, rambling discussion among the entire group for several hours. Instead, have them conduct multiple, discrete, highly focused idea generation sessions among subgroups of three to five people—no fewer, no more. Each subgroup should focus on a single question for a full 30 minutes. Why three to five people? The social norm in groups of this size is to speak up, whereas the norm in a larger group is to stay quiet.
When you assign people to subgroups, it’s important to isolate “idea crushers” in their own subgroup. These people are otherwise suitable for the workshop but, intentionally or not, prevent others from suggesting good ideas. They come in three varieties: bosses, “big mouths,” and subject matter experts.
The boss’s presence, which often makes people hesitant to express unproven ideas, is particularly damaging if participants span multiple organizational levels. (“Speak up in front of my boss’s boss? No, thanks!”) Big mouths take up air time, intimidate the less confident, and give everyone else an excuse to be lazy. Subject matter experts can squelch new ideas because everyone defers to their presumed superior wisdom, even if they are biased or have incomplete knowledge of the issue at hand.
By quarantining the idea crushers—and violating the old brainstorming adage that a melting pot of personalities is ideal—you’ll free the other subgroups to think more creatively. Your idea crushers will still be productive; after all, they won’t stop each other from speaking up.
Finally, take the 15 to 20 questions you prepared earlier and divide them among the subgroups—about 5 questions each, since it’s unproductive and too time consuming to have all subgroups answer every question. Whenever possible, assign a specific question to the subgroup you consider best equipped to handle it.
5. On your mark, get set, go!
After your participants arrive, but before the division into subgroups, orient them so that your expectations about what they will—and won’t—accomplish are clear. Remember, your team is accustomed to traditional brainstorming, where the flow of ideas is fast, furious, and ultimately shallow.
Today, however, each subgroup will thoughtfully consider and discuss a single question for a half hour. No other idea from any source—no matter how good—should be mentioned during a subgroup’s individual session. Tell participants that if anyone thinks of a “silver bullet” solution that’s outside the scope of discussion, they should write it down and share it later.
Prepare your participants for the likelihood that when a subgroup attacks a question, it might generate only two or three worthy ideas. Knowing that probability in advance will prevent participants from becoming discouraged as they build up the creative muscles necessary to think in this new way. The going can feel slow at first, so reassure participants that by the end of the day, after all the subgroups have met several times, there will be no shortage of good ideas.
Also, whenever possible, share “signpost examples” before the start of each session—real questions previous groups used, along with success stories, to motivate participants and show them how a question-based approach can help.
One last warning: no matter how clever your participants, no matter how insightful your questions, the first five minutes of any subgroup’s brainsteering session may feel like typical brainstorming as people test their pet ideas or rattle off superficial new ones. But participants should persevere. Better thinking soon emerges as the subgroups try to improve shallow ideas while sticking to the assigned questions.
6. Wrap it up
By day’s end, a typical subgroup has produced perhaps 15 interesting ideas for further exploration. You’ve been running multiple subgroups simultaneously, so your 20-person team has collectively generated up to 60 ideas. What now?
One thing