Joe Macleod on Endings

Joe.jpeg

This is an extended edition of the Dot Maker interview in Connecting Dots 11 with Joe Macleod. Given the last edition of the Connecting Dots Newsletter discusses information elaboration and group reflexivity it was only right to share the thoughtful extended interview with Joe.

Dot Makers

Joe Macleod, ex-Nokia during the glory days and my close colleague at ustwo where he was Creative Director. These days he helps us think more about death and endings, topics most of us like to avoid.

What aren’t we talking about that we should be?

Endings. Groupthink about endless technology solutions has blinded us to consider longevity and responsibility at off-boarding of the consumer lifecycle. Although this started in post-industrial times, it has sociology that can be traced back to a change in religious practices from after the plague and the consequential uprising of the Protestants. These changes energised a distancing at the end of the consumer experience. Digital, although recent, is adopting similar characteristics to other past industries.

Digital innovation in many cases seems hopelessly narcissistic. Scrambling to perceived future horizons. Failing to acknowledge the consequences in the present. Or consider learnings from the past. The chemical industry boom of the last century drove forward with similar excitement and ego. Responsibility was short-lived.

What unexpected innovator do you admire?

Christine Fredrick, a home economist, author and, although the title wasn't available then, an interaction designer. She was credited with standardising the height of kitchen worktops in America, amongst other things. But the reason I think she was a pioneer was that she coined the phrase 'Progressive Obsolescence'. She then went on to encourage a change of thinking around consumerism. To purchase, because you want to, not because you need to. She has pushed consumerism more than any advertising exec or marketing guru, yet is sadly overlooked.

What’s the hardest moment of your job?

Persuasion. Turning peoples world view upside down. Trying to persuade an established business culture that a good off-boarding experience for a customer is vital, profitable, and critical to the environment. I am reassured though, that once they see this, the majority are super thankful for their newfound vision.

The established mindset of business culture is a parody of Epicurus the Ancient Greek philosopher 341–270 BC, who said... "Why should I fear death?
 If I am, then death is not. 
If death is, then I am not.
 Why should I fear that which can only exist when I do not?"

Business thinking, and also some of the modern methods and processes we use can not tolerate the idea of being responsible and present in both places with a customer and a past-customer.

What does a break-through moment feel like to you?

After a conference talk or a training session, I can see the penny-drop in peoples minds about endings and off-boarding. They then engage in these exciting conversations about failed endings they have experienced or how they can apply it to their product development work. After which I witness a fresh bright look in their eyes as they start to see the world upside down or at least the end from the beginning.

When it comes to digital innovation what do you wish we knew that we don't?

The consequences of having so few big players in the digital space and the emerging awareness of surveillance capitalism.

Connecting Dots 10 ◎⁃◎ The Crazy Ones

Welcome to Connecting Dots where interdisciplinary learning helps leaders innovate for the digital era. I’m Brett Macfarlane and this newsletter is a testbed for my INSEAD research into the behavioural and psychodynamic factors behind today’s innova…

Welcome to Connecting Dots where interdisciplinary learning helps leaders innovate for the digital era. I’m Brett Macfarlane and this newsletter is a testbed for my INSEAD research into the behavioural and psychodynamic factors behind today’s innovation crisis and the coming revival.

KITZBUHEL, AT The warm electric synth tones of Euro-pop and Schlager music thumps through the valley. The Super Bowl of winter sports is preparing to welcome 100,000 enthusiasts of downhill ski racing and entertaining demonstrations of precision by Red Bull, Audi and the Austrian Army. After a morning skiing the high alpine, I’m down in the stands watching the first Hahnenkamm training run while starting to sketch my INSEAD research model.

Like the ski racers careening down the mountain, my research is a chance to dive into a challenge and take some calculated risk. The rules, rigour and relentless curiosity of academic research at this level is new to me. I love how business school research acknowledges and embraces complexity to open understanding rather than converge on brutal simplicity to drive alignment as does most business logic. Systems and complexity are especially important when innovation is the field of study and arguably the highest test of change any group may face. 

The thing about change in work, life and society is when you’re in the middle of it you’re swarmed with questions and questioning of where it will end up. The discomfort of the liminal phase of having left the old state and yet to arrive at the new destination is a slow and steady swell of anxiety. Yet in that froth is where the richest learning emerges.

My training as an economist forged my interest in trying to enlighten fragments of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” that guides us forward. Amidst our paradoxes, accidents and mysteries the one unique trait of humans is innovation; the drive to initiate evolution which improves our condition, even when we recognize the consequences. 

A revelation came to me when excavating my past work comparing when things did or didn’t work no matter how badly people wanted to innovate. It’s no surprise there is no magic process or single hero in the successes. Nor did more or less raw ambition or talent determine failure. Same for time and resources. Afterall, innovation is an act, a performance sport if you will, where decisions and emotions must be effectively managed in the face of uncertainty. 

A key observation was success came with balanced risk appetite and perceived risk. I was thinking about an experience when working with a rather large brand on the eve of the Olympics. Desperate to innovate they were with huge ambition and yet they couldn’t execute on the simplest of attempts. Like a child at the end of a diving board unable to bring themselves to jump. Every day their despair grew as they saw other Olympic sponsors do the very things we unsuccessfully attempted to do months earlier. 

“Why can they but not us?” they asked.

“They did it because they did it” I replied (unhelpfully.)

I look back now and see that while they had an appetite for risk, the risk perceived in this specific initiative was wildly overestimated, irrational in fact. Their denied anxieties and fears distorted their thinking leaving them trapped in the no-man’s land between ambition and ability to perform. Truth was, they were terrified and paralysed by their own ambition. This imbalance manifest itself in the distorted risk perceptions.

The good news was we did innovate in other areas but each time is different, even with the same team. In this situation we should have addressed the ambition not the risk perception. One shouldn’t jump off a cliff if they aren’t willing to fly one might say, or maybe that’s just all the Red Bull talking.

One of the most important gratifications of adult life in the ability to work well.
— Isabel Menzies Lyth

Movements

It’s a week of fresh air in Kitzbuhel and Munich. Early February I’ll be in Zurich/Zug and then back to Fontainebleau to start setting up research at INSEAD. Late February I’ll be at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona so please do let me know if you’ll be there and we can try and meet up. As always feedback welcome and please do continue reading below for this edition’s Connecting Dots with Gerry.

May you thrive in 2020,

- Brett

PS Please forward this newsletter to someone you feel would be interested. Your forwards and shares go a long way and are appreciated! 🤟

Dot Makers

Gerry Haag is one of those sparks of life that helps lighten any work challenge before you. A well-travelled German based in Majorca he’s long worked at the front lines of Europe’s technology ecosystem. Most notably helping Amazon’s market entry amongst other unicorns.

What aren’t we talking about that we should be?

How technology can assist in humans achieving the next level of consciousness

What unexpected innovator do you admire?

Ken Wilber, Vishen Lakhiani

What’s the hardest moment of your job?

Breaking up the old management patterns

What does a break-through moment feel like to you?

When everything is in the flow and just happens, stars align

When it comes to digital innovation what do you wish we knew that we don't?

The role of blockchain

Connecting Dots Redux ◎⁃◎ Look Back to Look Ahead

Welcome to Connecting Dots where interdisciplinary learning helps leaders innovate for the digital era. I’m Brett Macfarlane and this newsletter is a testbed for my INSEAD research into the behavioural and psychodynamic factors behind today’s innova…

Welcome to Connecting Dots where interdisciplinary learning helps leaders innovate for the digital era. I’m Brett Macfarlane and this newsletter is a testbed for my INSEAD research into the behavioural and psychodynamic factors behind today’s innovation crisis and the coming revival.

BRAY, ENGLAND I’m effusive as I greet the new year by cycling through the foggy English villages of the Chilterns outside London. It’s a moment I feel grateful for you reading and joining the Connecting Dot journey. Through this newsletter, I’ve better connected with old acquaintances while making new ones. All of whom are curious about how to better unlock the mysteries and paradoxes of change and innovation in organisations and society at large. Thank you.

Hopefully, you’ve enjoyed a holiday breather, inhaled some cheer and exhaled the parts of you that can stay behind in 2019 to make way for what’s ahead in 2020. 

We appreciate that of the thousands of readers to Connecting Dots over the year, many only joined us recently. Below is a recap of the year grouped by how you might be feeling as you head back to work and start realising the opportunities ahead.

May you thrive in 2020,

- Brett

Feeling Courageous:

07 / Unrealised Potential

08 / Quantum Leadership

09 / This is Going to Hurt

Feeling Curious:

01/ Systems at Play

04 / Artificially Intelligent

06 / Innovation’s Process Paralysis

Feeling Worried:

02 / Oh Man the Future

03 / The Tyranny of Collaboration

05 / Fair Process and an Identity Crisis

PS Please forward this newsletter to someone you feel would be interested. I’d love them to subscribe and we can grow the Connecting Dots Community to learn from each other.

Connecting Dots 09 / This is Going to Hurt

Welcome to Connecting Dots where interdisciplinary learning helps leaders innovate for the digital era. I’m Brett Macfarlane and this newsletter is a testbed for my INSEAD research into behavioural and psychodynamic factors behind why we aren’t inno…

Welcome to Connecting Dots where interdisciplinary learning helps leaders innovate for the digital era. I’m Brett Macfarlane and this newsletter is a testbed for my INSEAD research into behavioural and psychodynamic factors behind why we aren’t innovating more.

WHISTLER, CANADA The air is mountain fresh and the ground crunches frostily underfoot. I’m scrambling over the boulders, scree and moss of the untouched Boreal forest behind our mountain cabin. Hours before I was on Vancouver’s waterfront in a polished hotel lobby. I was discussing innovation risk with an exec at a leading global tech player. He works in one of the world’s most risk-tolerant cultures.  Yet innovation is still very hard. Painful in fact when it happens.

Back in the mountains, I’m revisiting the wilderness where as a young aspiring athlete I trained. Running, jumping and lifting in pursuit of a dream. Deep in the forest, I felt safe that nobody but bears and eagles might see me. Where I could leap, bend and move in new awkward and weird ways to acquire high-performance skills and capabilities. The new movements and physical exertion hurt but it allowed me to take risks and find out what I was capable of, and more painfully, what I wasn’t. 

What makes digital innovation so painful? Even for those with the talent, endeavour and capabilities in the safest of safe spaces with genuinely supportive colleagues? In any environment intention is easy but action at the edge of what is known to be possible is hard. Not so much for the physical exertion but the deeper personal risks of embarrassment, failure, stability, security and identity. 

Typically, innovation is a discussion of process, methodology, resources and material rewards. Very little focus is made on the acts of innovation themselves. The very moment where one bends, jumps or leaps with their thinking. The painful real work of pushing boundaries, daring to dream, taking risks, learning you were wrong, trying again, succeeding and trying again.

So how does one know if their team or they themselves are ready to do the serious work of innovation? Here are seven practices to endure innovation’s pain:

  • Willingness to venture forth

  • Building tolerance for discomfort

  • Growing courage to exert will

  • Practicing agreeableness to create a collective

  • Building resilience to keep going

  • Maintaining open eyes for opportunities

  • Accepting limits of the controllables and knowables

All seven will rarely if ever be topped up to 100%. It’s a goal to strive for and on some days it all comes together. You throw everything into it, it’s exhausting but oh so rewarding.

Up for it? If so smile and enjoy the pain of progress. 

A pile of rocks ceases to be a rock when somebody contemplates it with the idea of a cathedral in mind.
— Antoine de Saint Exupéry

Dot Makers

As I’m on the West Coast I asked entrepreneur, professor of innovation at the UBC Sauder School of Business and future of work provocateur Jonas Altman to join us in the second edition of Dot Makers.

What aren’t we talking about that we should be?

Amplifying our insecurities, neurosis, anxieties, and fuelling cultures of narcissism.

What unexpected innovator do you admire?

Margaret Mead

What’s the hardest moment of your job?

Stopping

What does a break-through moment feel like to you?

Lightness - like floating on clouds (if I ever get chance to do that).

When it comes to digital innovation what do you wish we knew that we don't?

How can we find a better balance so that we become more, not less human.

Movements

After a quick stop in London I’ll be at Fontainbleau for my last road trip and INSEAD stint of 2019. Then it’s holiday time in London. Say hi for coffee.

Thank you as always for feedback and sharing Connecting Dots. You may have seen us featured in the exceptional Silicon Valley must read Exponential View newsletter. Which is amazing. Thank you Azeem Azhar and everyone else who shares Connecting Dots with their smartest friends

See you on the digital frontier,

-Brett

PS Please forward this newsletter to 2 or 3 of the smartest people you know. I’d love them to subscribe and we can grow the Connecting Dots Community.

Connecting Dots 08 / Quantum Leadership

Welcome to Connecting Dots where interdisciplinary learning helps leaders innovate for the digital era. It’s an experiment during Brett’s INSEAD journey. This edition we explore adaptive leadership and launch our interview segment with our inaugural…

Welcome to Connecting Dots where interdisciplinary learning helps leaders innovate for the digital era. It’s an experiment during Brett’s INSEAD journey. This edition we explore adaptive leadership and launch our interview segment with our inaugural contributor the futurist Nik Badminton.

Normandie, FR  My body is zipping along at 234kph aboard the Eurostar.  Yet my mind is deep in the Fontainebleau forest behind the leafy INSEAD campus. I’m transported atop a ridge at sunset reflecting on innovation leadership academia. One of the curious things about leadership scholarship is how little there is. Especially innovation leadership. There is much understanding of processes and market dynamics but little on the behaviours of leaders working at the edge of their domain attempting to forge into new territories through technology. 

In the corporate real world I’ve often wondered why innovation attracts much interest yet little action. Many want to “look” in the form of a workshops or throwaway comments but not “touch” by committing themselves to taking something to market despite companies desperately wishing they would. A paradox seems that the decrease in organizational hierarchy and decentralization over recent decades has unexpectedly discouraged commitment to seeing innovation through. Without a protective organisation around one chaotic group dynamics really wear you done and erodes confidence in the many micro-decisions of any innovation. 

Making it trickier is the fact digital innovation works with software. A material that is actually very abstract even for engineers.  It’s a language technically but exists only as pulses of light. You can’t hold it, feel it or smell it. Even though you use it, regularly. At best you tap keyboards, slide fingers over glass or speak to a box but one really doesn’t actually “feel” anything distinct one program to the next.  As a professional it can be really hard to commit your whole self to something so immaterial.

Thus a concept I’m exploring is an evolution of adaptive leadership. It is a build of the leader-follower relationship to understand what’s really going on in successful digital innovation leadership. In the concept of quantum leadership we recognize that anyone regardless of title at any moment has the capability to lead some aspects and follow in others. Though it’s more than a binary choice as we aren’t always ready to commit either way. Like quantum computing there is a third state beyond leader and follower in successful innovation efforts; ambivalence. 

In ambivalence you are neither leading or following, but also not actively rejecting leading or following. You are holding a position of not having a position. It’s a safe position that allows people to not feel threatened by needing to choose whether to lead or follow at a given moment.  It is an active suspension of disbelief. The team takes no judgement. You don’t feel forced to defend just wanting to see how something plays out. It is its own statement of leadership by granting trusting space to your colleagues. 🙂

Let me know if you have examples of quantum leadership and the importance of ambivalence. It might be the topic of some academic research next year. 

Leaders who can successfully convert their negative emotions into positive energy will be less emotionally exhausted and less distressed than leaders who only engage in impression management and fake positive emotions in their outward expressions.
— Brotheridge & Grandey

Thank You

Your sharing is appreciated as the last edition of Connecting Dots on Unrealised Potential reached over 2,000 readers. Thank you.

Dot Makers

You readers of Connecting Dots are a smart lot so let’s learn from each other. Here’s our inaugural rapid Q&A with Nik Badminton who is a futurist, presenter and host of Dark Futures in SF, Toronto and Vancouver. 

What aren’t we talking about that we should?

The climate crisis and how we can all have an impact by changing how we live, travel, play and run our companies.

What a unexpected innovator do you admire?

Thomas Heatherwicke is an incredible designer, architect, and innovator. Constantly evolving and pushing boundaries.

What’s the hardest moment of your job?

Staring people in the face and speaking the truth to those that deny obvious change, supported by market indicators and/or science.

What does a break through moment feel like to you?

8 hours of sleep

When it comes to digital innovation what do you wish we knew that we don't?

That digital is not standalone. It surrounds us. It is us. 

Movements

It’s peak strategy season as we approach the end of the year. I’ll be in Copenhagen/Lund, Zürich/Zug, Vancouver and Parisx2 before Christmas. Say hi for coffee and Christmas chocolate. 

See you on the digital frontier,

Brett

PS Please forward this newsletter to 2 or 3 of the smartest people you know. I’d love them to subscribe and we can grow the Connecting Dots Community.

Connecting Dots 07 / Unrealised Potential

public.jpeg

St. Andrews, SCOTLAND - It’s a delightfully drizzly day along Scotland’s Fife Coast. Cycling through ancient fishing villages and their hardy hand built harbours it strikes me how much they made from so little. A stark contrast to now, when we do so little with so much. 

The unrealized potential of our time is puzzling. The barriers in the developed world to education, company formation and tools for innovation are unprecedentedly low. By exponential historical multiples in fact. Yet, we live in an era of decreasing patents, fewer startups, reduced market dynamism and stagnant productivity. We have the ingredients to innovate like crazy, but, we aren’t. Don’t let the covers of Wired magazine fool you. We’re in a winter of innovation. 

It’s not a tragedy of innovation, rather it’s a glut of unrealized potential. Why does so much ability stay trapped as ideas or creative thoughts, rather than graduate to launch and become innovations? Real things for real people. This is the puzzle of our time.

Based on my front lines research, the usual gripes of bureaucracy, politics, market consolidation and organizational hierarchy aren’t sufficient explanations. Since the Second World War companies have been getting less hierarchical, more individually empowered, more access to capital and drowning in data for better and faster merit based decisions. 

One hypothesis is behaviourally we’re getting in our own way. Like the star goal scorer who finds themselves in front of an open net and misses wildly. Or worse a defender who intends to smartly pass out of bounds and instead passes into their own net. 

This observation brings to mind some common innovation own goal behaviours we commonly see:

  • Novelty Seeking: unwilling to do serious work and move on when it gets hard.

  • Failing to Fail: see failure as something great, for someone else to do.

  • Disappointment Defences: partial commitment to easily fall back on generic “risks.”

  • Learning Liability: unwilling to truly challenge our own beliefs and worldview.

  • Permathaw: continual state of transformation launches without completions thereby nullifying progress.

  • Innovation Intellectualisation: talking about the potential of technology without understanding how it actually works by hiding behind process.

Those behaviours may seem counterintuitive to the conventional dogma or a com pay’ s intentions. Yet we humans tend to behave in counter intuitive ways. Just as most smoking prevention advertising is proven to increase smoking might many pro innovation programs prevent innovation? The evidence indicates in many cases yes.

But maybe that’s okay. Just as I want to win an Olympic gold medal, doesn’t mean I can win one no matter what training program I follow and how engaging are my slides dissecting competitive weaknesses and tends in my sport. Maybe we shouldn’t be talking about unrealized potential and rather interrogate why so many aspire to innovation in the first place, what need is it filling and might they direct that energy better somewhere else? Innovation is high risk and brutal, maybe that’s why we build so many defences around ourselves when trying to do it in corporate environments where failures are very public.

Good news, bad news time. There isn’t actually very much research in this space, so there’s a lot for us to uncover. Thanks for being part of the journey.

🚀

Also, thank you to dear readers and friends who have given such exceptional feedback. I’m working out the right format and audience for this newsletter but there has be a resounding endorsement from some. Mostly the smartest people I know. Who want something non-obvious, that makes them think. Which I believe is less about the words I write and more about the good thoughts already in their heads. A mutually beneficial exchange. 

Please do keep sharing your thoughts. We’ve only just begun. 

We have met the enemy and he is us.
— POGO

Hungry for More?

Excerpt from Embracing the Paradoxes of Leadership:

“If we cannot construct good dreams for selves, families, regions, nations and the world; if we therefore cannot construct the future as a mental object collect- ing those dreams and utilizing them for vital matrices that connect citizens of all nations in a meaningful progression, then as adaptive creatures we have turned to new strategies in order to tread water.

Movements

Today I’m inbound to INSEAD where we’ll be going deep into leadership research, theories and practice. Later in October it’s San Jose and San Francisco. In between enjoying the crisp London Autumn. Say hi for coffee.

See you on the digital frontier,

Brett

PS Please forward this newsletter to 2 or 3 of the smartest people you know. I’d love them to subscribe and we can grow the CDC (Connecting Dots Community.)

Connecting Dots 06 / Innovation’s Process Paralysis

Image-1-1.jpg

Zürich, CH - The water smacks my face as my heels helicopter awkwardly over-head. At this moment it strikes me that I don’t really know how to dive off a 3m springboard any more. I mean I know what to do, I’ve done it before, could even draw a chart but right now I’m out of practice and don’t know how to. As dusk settles over Lake Zürich the well tanned locals silently agree and flawlessly fling themselves off the diving board for elegant entries. 

I had just left visiting an innovation lab for a prominent manufacturer. They were doing serious work creating proper digital things for real people. Yet they are grappling with how aquire a new kind of know how within the company’s exceptional high performing talent base. They knew what they needed to do but recognized they don’t know how to do it. They had enough theory and needed help developing the practice. 

It made me think about all the Medium posts and “canvases” sharing innovation  “know what” masquerading as “know how”. It’s one hypothesis I have for the stagnant rates of innovation and growth in corporations. We confuse grabbing yet another process or framework with developing the ability to actually do innovation at a high performing level. 

Like any craftsperson the first times you use a tool it’s awkward. With practice and application it goes from knowing what to do to how to do it.  All the agitation for change and innovation is just telling us to awkwardly jump off a diving board. I’m much more interested in once we’ve jumped how to enter the water elegantly, repeatedly and under any conditions. An ambition we’ll continue to explore in coming editions of Connecting Dots.

Are you paralysed by process discussions at the expense building know how?

Hungry for More?

  • This post was inspired by Clayton Christensen’s anecdote of Andy Gove at the pinnacle of Intel’s innovation era. Andy challenged Clayton to separate the what (to do) from the how (to do it.) Ref: The Four Disciplines of Execution

Movements

This week I’m in Girona Spain cycling, eating and reflecting on my upcoming INSEAD research in 2020. One leading candidate topic is ‘what is enough stability in constantly transforming organisation to enable meaningful digital innovation.’ We challenge the conventional notion of permafrost and change resistance with the concept of permathaw as a phenomenon of organisations under continuous digital transformations.

Late September I’ll be in London with another possible visit to Zürich. Early October it’s Fontainebleau and Paris possibly followed with anther SF jaunt. Say hi for coffee. So great to meet up with readers/friends Tom Williams and Dan Moore in SF last month.

See you on the digital frontier,

Brett

Next Edition - my dispatch from San Francisco and what hardened corporate leaders can learn from hardened criminals in the Pelican Bay innovation accelerator. 

Connecting Dots 05 / Fair Process and an Identity Crisis

Image-1.jpg

Paris, FR - I’m coming down from my most recent INSEAD EMC Module with a Sunday morning wander through Fondation Louis Vuitton. It’s Frank Gehry’s latest white washed and tranquil temple of contemporary art. Plunked down in the middle of Eastern Paris’ leafy Bois de Boulogne thanks to some successful bag and box merchants. Today I embrace my new favourite artist I need bigger walls for in Gerhard Richter (sorry Ed Ruscha.) 

As always in a contemporary art museum I gravitate to the artist’s descriptions of how they seek to redefine “what is art” in our current time. The definition of art, like the definition of many industries, triggers an identity crisis at industrial scale. As artefacts of the past definitions of an industry are always up for discussion. Especially as they emerge, fade away or bleed together.

What is law? What is design? What is IT? What is digital? What is FMCG? What is management consulting? What is advertising? What is software? Are all questions I’ve heard professionals grappling with lately. 

Often these days it seems the identity crisis is triggered by digitisation or transformation. Two magic generative words that serve as vessels for hope and disappointment. Words absent of singular meaning or clear answers. Words that provide the opportunity to take a team or organisation through the ever fraught definition journey. 

In the last EMC module we dug into “fair process,” also known as procedural justice. Which explores why fair outcomes often aren’t satisfying, even if the outcome is in our favour, if the process isn’t perceived as fair. 

While I’ve long been very thoughtful around process I realized I have fallen into two traps that trigger fair process challenges in the definition journey:

  1. Too fearful of engaging stakeholders without the process defined

  2. Too fast to act on the outcomes of the process

These two traps leave little space to mourn the end of a prior worldview before internalising a new one. Leaving detachment, even behind a smiling and supportive facade. Fair process actually isn’t actually about the process itself but how we engage with people as part of a process. So next time rather than stick a definition on a wall I’ll engage even more folks beyond just the chosen few to help define it. To create an organization’s own definition sui generis. Maybe that way it won’t need to go on the wall, they’ll already know it.


Does a process you’re in or leading feel fair?

Trial & Error

Connecting Dots is about making the complex simple and multi-disciplinary learning to help leaders innovate for the digital era. It’s an experiment, thanks for being part of the journey, please tell your friends and enemies. Feedback most welcome.


Hungry for more?

  • It’s August, go out in the sun and start one of those books you’ve been meaning to read…


Movements

Next week I’m in Zurich for a couple days and possibly NY/SF later this month. London in between where I’m researching “perma-thaw” as a byproduct of ongoing digital transformations in many corporations. Say hi for ☕️

Until next time,

Brett

PS. I’d be grateful if you might forward this newsletter to one or three friends and colleagues so we can grow the community.  Click here to subscribe at Connecting Dots.

🙏🏻

Connecting Dots 04 / Artificially Intelligent

Image+01-07-2019+at+14.10.jpg

Welcome to edition 04 of Connecting Dots. A slightly longer dispatch. Thanks for being part of the journey as I experiment with the format.

WESTMINSTER, UK - It’s a searing and saucy day to be in Britain’s House of Commons. I’m feeling relieved. Unusual when it comes to discussions on artificial intelligence (AI.) Normally I get the same bottom of my gut unease when people talk about AI as I did circa 2005-08 social media. Where intelligent sounding yet artificial point scoring ran the day. 

I was relieved to join a Select Committee all party policy group panel of MPs, academia and industry sensibly discussing the opportunities and implications of AI. It was full of optimism with caution. Capturing the strengths and limits of our social contracts. As well golden doses of AI’s potential with pragmatism. Recognizing that we have existing legal frameworks and the precedents enabling us to address the unprecedented uses of AI that will continue to emerge. Unusually intelligent. 

Yet why was this such an unusually intelligent discussion? Why are so many AI discussions consumed with tech utopia or dystopian rejection with seemingly little substance in between?

My working theory is that general technology topics like AI overwhelm our mental models. It triggers the vital defences of the most educated, comfortable and participatative “know it all” era ever. We have so many who are so good with analysis of other’s work and talking about innovation. So much so there is little time or space to actually innovate. A similar dilemma of people and organizations obsessed with drafting strategy yet rarely enacting them. 

I’ve seen some great value creating AI powered services and have been a part of a few. I’ve also seen, felt in fact, a lot of angst, unease and superficial attempts. Might you have observed either of these patterns?

  • Action without thought

  • Thought without action

Both leave unrealized potential on the table. Ending in defeat as the intelligent, well intentioned and ambitious protagonists ultimately are consumed by their defence mechanisms. Let’s get clinical (zzzzz.... sorry) what defence mechanisms do we mean? Scanning the American Psychiatric Association’s catalogue of defence mechanisms these jumped out for commonly playing out in AI discussions.

  • Intellectualisation - avoidance and suppression of the emotional component of an event (e.g. skirting around implications of the technology or a solution)

  • Reaction Formation - Substitution of wishes or feelings opposite of the true feelings (e.g. claiming to want to change through AI but then not actually)

  • Splitting - unacceptable positive or negative qualities of self or others are suppressed (e.g. just going with the conversation ignoring the inevitable iceberg crash)

  • Rationalisation - Give socially acceptable explanations for behaviour (e.g. rehashing generic non-specific ideas or phraseology like “data is the new oil”)

We’re talking AI here but actually these mechanisms are present when any new ideas emerges. It protects existing world views and limits exposing oneself to risk. It’s why people celebrate the aphorism of fail fast, but would rather it’s actually someone else who does the failing while they succeed. Which ironically is a great way to fail long run 🤷‍♂️


Is technology the problem? Or the humans?

Trial & Error

Connecting Dots is about making the complex simple and multi-disciplinary learning to help leaders innovate for the digital era. It’s an experiment, thanks for being part of the journey, feedback welcome.


Hungry for more?


Movements

I’m in France at the moment. Trialing a “thesis writing” venue in Burgundy for next year. Much of next week is Fontainebleau/INSEAD then back to London for the rest of July. Say hi for ☕️

May you thrive,

Brett

PS. I’d be grateful if you might forward this newsletter to one, two or three friends and colleagues so we can grow the community.  Click here to subscribe at Connecting Dots.

🙏🏻

Connecting Dots 03 / The Tyranny of Collaboration

IMG_5472+2.jpg

It’s a sunny and brisk opening day at the 2019 D&AD festival in East London. As the New Blood jury president for the McKinsey Case For Her brief, the standard and holistic mindset of the young creative teams is uplifting. Though I can’t help to think about the amount of collaboration that would be essential to execute for real. 

The importance of collaboration in business is a common refrain. Especially in our times of heightened complexity and interconnectedness. A necessity when it comes to innovation. Where evidence tell us the best creativity comes not from solo work, or even a team but people networked across organisations and ecosystems.

But what if we think of the frequent calls for collaboration as a symptom rather than ambition? I’ve long noticed those most apt to preach collaboration are the least able to listen to others and give up control, to actually collaborate. I sometimes imagine everyone on a collaboration driven initiative thinking “collaboration, great, finally they will listen to me.”

A helpful definition of collaboration is “traitorous cooperation with the enemy.” Often blindly fuelled with a bias to action or low hanging fruit. The absence of addressing resistance or ambivalence results in passive commitment at best. Disintegration of the team at first opportunity. 

A more helpful mindset is one of careful cooperation. Digital innovation, if significant, requires everyone to learn from everyone in a team and across teams to collectively synthesize something truly new. The first action, either through reflection or exploration, is to address the inevitable learning anxieties: the fears of difficulty, looking stupid or parting with old ways.  Often failures can be linked to not addressing this selfish truth of collaboration and the collaborators. 


How often is one traitorously collaborating when the deeper wish is for cooperation?

Trial & Error

Connecting Dots is about making the complex simple and multi-disciplinary learning to help leaders innovate for the digital era. It’s an experiment, thanks for being part of the journey, feedback welcome.


Hungry for more?


Movements

I’ll be in London much of June then back to France in July; Beaune for the stomach, Fontainebleau/INSEAD for the mind and the Alps for the lungs. Say hi for ☕️

To a better today and tomorrow,

Brett

PS. I’d be grateful if you might forward this newsletter to one, two or three friends and colleagues so we can grow the community.  Click here to subscribe at Connecting Dots.

🙏🏻