Strategy. Innovation. Brand.

Featured

This week’s featured posts.

1 4 5 6 7 8 29

Marissa Mayer — You Go, Girl!

marissa-mayer-is-putting-the-kiboshnbspon-workplace-flexibilityMarissa Mayer, the new Mom who is also  the CEO of Yahoo!, recently announced that all Yahoos (that’s what they call employees) have to work at the office, not from home. Since then, the blogosphere has been all aflutter. A majority of the bloggers I’ve read suggest that Mayer is retrograde, dumb, and sexist. I have to disagree. I think it’s a very smart move and about time, too.

The arguments against Mayer’s decision have to do with productivity, convenience, women’s rights, and maybe even clean air. Stephen Dubner (one of the two Steves who created Freakonomics) wrote that an experiment at a Chinese travel agency shows that woking at home can increase your productivity and reduce health problems. Apparently long commutes raise your blood pressure. A recent article from Stanford (based on the same Chinese study) suggests that the productivity of those working at home is 13% greater than those working at the office. An article on WAHM.com (Work At Home Moms) argues that telecommuting shifts the employee’s emphasis away from politics and towards performance. Months ago, Slate wrote that Mayer doesn’t care about sexism. Grindstone calls Mayer’s decision a “morale killer” and a “giant leap backward for womankind.”  The Atlantic Monthly flatly declares that “Marissa Mayer Is Wrong”.

But is she wrong? It depends on what she’s trying to do. Raising productivity is generally a good idea. But if the price of productivity is reduced innovation, then the cost is too high. There’s a strong case to be made that working from home — while it provides many benefits — inhibits innovation. I’ve written about the mashup nature of innovation. Many of the best new ideas are mashups of existing ideas.

The same logic applies to people. Getting people together — and encouraging them to mix and mingle in more-or-less random ways — helps them mash up concepts and create new ideas. It’s why Building 20 — a ramshackle, “temporary” structure on the MIT campus — generated so many innovations. People bumped into each other and shared ideas and, in doing so, created everything from generative grammar to Bose acoustics. It’s why cities produce a disproportionate share of of inventions and patents (click here and here). It’s why reducing the number of bathrooms in a building will increase innovation –you’re more likely to bump into someone. It’s why I advise my clients to allow e-mail to flow freely between buildings but to banish it within a building. If you’re in the same building as the recipient, get together for a face-to-face meeting. You’ll get more out of it — maybe even an innovative new product.

So, what is Mayer trying to accomplish? In her memo to all Yahoos, she speaks of “communication and collaboration” and notes that “Some of the best decisions and insights come from hallway and cafeteria discussions, meeting new people, and impromptu team meetings.” She doesn’t use the word “innovation” but that’s exactly what she’s talking about. And, in my humble opinion, Yahoo! could use a healthy dose of innovation. So I think Mayer has got it right: PPPI — proximity and propinquity propel innovation. All I can say is: you go, girl!

Sunday Shorts – 9

Fish gangs.

Fish gangs.

Interesting things I’ve spotted this week.

Boston Consulting Group highlights the most innovative companies of 2012. What makes them more innovative than your company?

What makes beautiful things beautiful? What’s the perfect ratio of fractals to non-fractals and how did Jackson Pollock know it? Maybe the secret of beauty is buried in our genes.

The rate of growth in health care costs has slowed dramatically over the past four years. Now why would that be?

Spending on health care construction has also dropped precipitously. See the most important health care chart that nobody is talking about.

Do you flush your Valium down the toilet? You could be causing fish to join gangs and drop out of schools.

What happens to the thermostat when it’s re-designed by the people who designed the iPhone and the iPod?

Sunday Shorts – 8

Alexandria to Oslo to Times Square?

Alexandria to Oslo to Times Square?

Interesting stuff from around the world that I’ve discovered this week.

Amazon wants to build an ecosystem of apps for their Kindle Fire. Sounds like a hard job. So what does Amazon do? Simple… they create their own currency.

What’s the secret to fast innovation? It could be modular design.

They re-designed the Alexandria library. Then they created an opera house in Oslo that’s partially submerged. Now they’re planning to re-design Times Square. Who are these Snohetta folks?

Distributed sensing anyone? How about atmospheric data gathered from bazillions of mobile phones? What’s the result? Better weather prediction. Maybe even better weather.

In lots of countries around the world, girls score higher than boys in standardized scientific tests — but not in the United States. Why would that be?

Can geodesign protect us from natural disasters? Well, maybe.

Are cats really just your “friendly, neighborhood serial killers”? Will they be banned from New Zealand?

 

Computers Are Useless. They Only Give You Answers.

Questions and Answers signpostI’ve worked with some highly creative people during my career. I’ve also worked with very insightful thinkers, both in business and in academia. Oftentimes, the two skills overlap: creative people are also insightful thinkers and vice-versa. I’ve often wondered if creativity leads to insight or if insight leads to creativity. Lately, I’ve been thinking that there’s a third factor that produces both — the ability to ask useful questions.

Indeed, the title of today’s post is a quote from Pablo Picasso, who seemed both creative and insightful. His point — computers don’t help you ask questions … and questions are much more valuable than answers.

So, how do you ask good questions? Here are some tips from my experience augmented with suggestions by Shane Snow, Gary Lockwood, Penelope Trunk, and Peter Wood.

It’s not about you — too often, we ask long-winded questions designed to show our own knowledge and erudition. The point of asking a question is to gather information and insight. Be brief and don’t lead the witness.

You can contribute to a better answer — even if you ask a great question, you may not get a great answer. The response may wander both in time and logic, looping forward and backward. You can help the respondent by asking brief, clarifying questions. Don’t worry too much about interrupting; your respondent will likely appreciate your help.

Remember your who, what, where, when, how … and sometimes why — these words introduce open-ended questions that often result in more information and deeper insights. Be careful with why. Your respondent may become defensive.

Don’t go too narrow too soon — decision theory has a concept called premature commitment. We see a potential solution and start to pursue it while ignoring equally valid alternatives. It can happen in your questions as well. Start with broad questions to uncover all the alternatives. Then decide which one(s) to pursue.

Dumb questions are often the best — asking an (open-ended) question whose answer may seem obvious often uncovers unexpected insights. Even if you’re well versed in a subject, don’t assume you know the answer from the respondent’s perspective. He or she may have insights you know nothing about.

Be aware of your ambiguities — even simple, seemingly straightforward questions can be ambiguous. Your respondent may answer one question when you intended another. Here’s a simple example: what’s the tallest mountain in the world? There are two “correct” answers: Mt. Everest (if you measure from sea level) or Chimborazo (if you measure from the center of the earth). Which question is your respondent answering?

Think of parallel questions — I’m reading a Kinsey Millhone detective novel (U is for Undertow). One of the important questions Kinsey asks herself is, “why were the teenage boys burying a dog?” It gets her nowhere. But a slight tweak to the question — “Why were the boys burying a dog there?” — provides the insight that solves the mystery. (Reading detective novels is a good way to learn questioning techniques).

Clarify your terms — my sister is an entomologist. She knows that there’s a difference between a bug and an insect. I use the terms more or less interchangeably. If I ask her a question about bugs, she’ll answer it in the technical sense even though I mean it in the colloquial sense. We’re using the same word with two different meanings. It’s a good idea to ask, “When you talk about bugs, what do you mean?”

Think about how you answer questions — when you respond to questions, observe which ones are annoying and which ones lead to interesting insights. Stockpile the interesting ones for your own use.

Silence is golden — when speaking on the radio, I might say “over” to indicate that I’m finished speaking and it’s your turn. In normal conversation, we use body language and tone-of-voice to make the same transfer. Breaking the expected etiquette can lead to interesting insights. You ask a question. The respondent answers and turns it back to you. You remain silent. There’s an awkward pause and, often, the respondent continues the answer … in a less rehearsed and less controlled manner. Interesting tidbits may just spill out.

Don’t be too cleverPeter Wood probably says it best, “A few people have a gift for witty, memorable questions. You probably aren’t one of them. It doesn’t matter.  A concise, clear question is an important contribution in its own right”.

 

 

 

 

Will Sweden Ever Build a Las Vegas? Not On Your Lagom.

You wanted to see a Swedish supermodel?

You wanted to see a Swedish supermodel?

Suellen and I lived in Stockholm for three years and generally loved it. The winters are long and dark but the people are sunny and positive. Taxes are high but services are great. And they write some of the best murder mysteries in the world. Here are some things we’ve found out about Sweden, Scandinavia (Sweden, Denmark, and Norway) and the Nordic countries (Scandinavia plus Iceland and Finland).

They’re innovative — Sweden produces more patents per capita than any other country. Finland is second; Denmark is sixth. The U.S is ninth. In the Bloomberg Survey of Innovative Countries, the U.S. is first. Finland in fourth; Sweden is fifth; Denmark is ninth.

They’re happy — The Danes are the happiest people in the world. Finland is second; Norway is third; Sweden is seventh. The U.S. is 11th.

They’re free (from prison) — Sweden has about 70 people in prison per 100,000 population. The U.S. has 700.

Women are close to equal — Sweden is widely considered the best place in the world for a woman to pursue a career. Iceland usually ranks first in surveys of overall gender equality. Even in the Nordics, however, men still make more money than women.

They’re healthy — On the Bloomberg Survey of the World’s Healthiest Countries, Sweden ranks ninth. Finland is 22nd and Denmark is 26th. The U.S. is 33rd.

They get great vacations — typically six weeks of paid vacation plus various national holidays. If you want to take four weeks in a row, your company is obligated to permit it.

They’re egalitarian — the Nordic countries rank among the most egalitarian in the world in most measures of income distribution.

They’re well governed — according to The Economist‘s ranking of the best governed nations in the world, the top four are: Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Norway. The U.S. is eighth.

What explains all this? I think some of it is the Swedish concept of lagom. We have no equivalent word in English but lagom is usually translated as “just enough” or “just the right amount, not too much”. Here are two examples:

The Swedish soccer (football) team played another nation and won by a score of 5 to 0. The Swedish coach worried aloud, saying, “I wish we had won by 2 to 0. We humiliated them. It’s not lagom. They’ll be looking for revenge the next time.” Have you ever heard any coach, anywhere in the world wishing they had won by less?

Suellen got into a long conversation with some Swedish friends about public education. Somehow, the subject of special programs for gifted and talented kids in the U.S. came up. The Swedes were dumbfounded. “Why on earth,” they asked, “would you invest extra money to help kids who already have all the advantages? If they’re so gifted and talented, they’ll figure out how to succeed.” The Swedish way would be to invest more in kids who are below the norm to help them come up to the middle. That’s lagom.

Could lagom explain Sweden’s (and the Nordics’) successes? Probably not all of them. But it does provide a sense of balance and fair play that lubricates the country’s society and economy. It also prompts a questioning attitude — Why are we doing what we’re doing? What does it lead to? What do we hope to achieve? The answer is not just more. It’s more balance. Perhaps that’s why this week’s issue of The Economist claims that Sweden is leading a “quiet revolution”, “thinking the unthinkable”, and fundamentally re-inventing capitalism. It’s a great read — just click here.

 

 

 

1 4 5 6 7 8 29
My Social Media

YouTube Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

Newsletter Signup
Archives