ChangeLabs™

Change the way you think

Dom Thurbon — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 03:31:00 +0000

Last weekend as I was reading the Sunday paper I came across this brilliant and funny article by Richard Glover. In it, Richard conducts a simple thought experiment. He asks us to imagine what we would think of inventions if they occurred in reverse order. For instance, how would we feel about landlines, if they were invented after the mobile phone? What if 2D movies were invented after 3D movies?

Richard imagines the following scenario:

Imagine we only had 3D films — a format so expensive that only
mainstream movies can ever be made, with seen-it-all-before plots and
action themes. Even worse, everyone has to wear those Buddy Holly
glasses that get all sweaty and itchy after about five minutes.
Then, voila, someone develops 2D movies. Suddenly films
can be made for a fraction of cost; there’s a flowering of smaller, more
eclectic films. Ticket prices drop. Even better, it’s suddenly possible
to kiss and make out in the back row of the cinema without your glasses
getting tangled.

Oh, thank you 2D. What a revolution in filmmaking and
viewing. What progress.

I find this blog amazingly insightful for two reasons. Firstly it highlights our natural tendency to assume that ‘new’ means ‘new and improved.’ Once a new product appears on the market we tend to ignore its shortcomings and get swept up in the excitement that comes with embracing a new product.

Secondly it highlights how simply considering things from a different angle can make the mundane and commonplace seem suddenly exciting and new. Who would have thought that AM radio could be made to seem more advanced than podcasting? Or that a landline could be considered an amazing technological leap?

The importance of 'searchability'

Dom Thurbon — Tue, 25 May 2010 01:33:00 +0000

One mantra that I like to repeat over and over when I speak to people about the power of social networking and web 2.0 is that ‘if we all knew what we all knew, we’d be unstoppable.’ In other words, one of the greatest limitations that most companies and individuals face when searching for information is that they don’t know where to look, or who to ask, for information in the first place.

Social networks are invaluable tools for connecting people to other individuals who have the information that they need.

However, simply having social networks is not enough to make sure that we can find out ‘what we all know.’ There’s one more prerequisite - the networks must be searchable. The reality is that it doesn’t matter how connected to people you are if you don’t know what information people in your network have at their fingertips. Unfortunately, while the vast majority of social networks can be searched for ‘social’ content (like interests, favorite bands and TV shows), very few can also be searched for expertise. But as companies increasingly embrace social media and everything it can offer, I believe that making people and their individual talents ‘searchable’ will be increasingly important.

The organisation of data into easy to navigate ‘chunks’ is so important, that people are now suggesting that functionality will form the basis of web 3.0. Exciting!

I stumbled across the following video recently that describes just how important searchability is, and what a huge role it will play in the future of the internet. It’s really worth a watch!

Web 3.0 from Kate Ray on Vimeo.

Diff-functional (n): Differently Functional

Dom Thurbon — Tue, 25 May 2010 00:41:00 +0000

I had a great conversation with Ken Wallace on the weekend, who’s not only a cracking screenwriter but also has the pleasure of being my brother-in-law. He has recently had his second child, and was saying how he thinks in general people consider the way that they parent, ‘normal’. Everyone else does it incorrectly or abnormally.

That is, you become your own benchmark for what is ‘normal’. Everything else is a bit wacky or, often, ‘dysfunctional’.

There is such wisdom in this – it is not just parenting, it’s everything. We become our own benchmark for what ‘normal’ all the time. And then we get caught up in diagnosing problems with others; we talk about how people need to change and improve and fix things.

Generally by ‘improve’ we mean ‘become more like us’!

But I actually think there is another approach to consider: that other people aren’t ‘dysfunctional’, but rather diff-functional.

Differently functional.

It is a useful lens to consider others’ mindsets not as being dysfunctional because they are different, but as being just that: different. How much we might gain from acting not from a desire to change or correct, but from a desire to understand and learn! Consider this the next time you’re about to launch into a self-righteous tirade about this and that; maybe it’s not wrong, just different?

The power (or at least the omnipresence) of the internet

Dom Thurbon — Mon, 03 May 2010 02:41:00 +0000

I came across the following video the other day:

JESS3 / The State of The Internet from JESS3 on Vimeo.

This is a fascinating look at the amount of data seen, generated, and shared over the internet.

Two things jumped out at me from this video. The first is just how powerful the internet is becoming as a way to reach and connect with people. It’s an important reminder that we need to re-evaluate the stereotypical view of the internet as a social barrier and instead consider it a social enabler. It’s not something that people use because they don’t want to form meaningful relationships with people – its a tool that people are increasingly using to connect with like-minded individuals around the world.

The second is how bombarded we are with information – the number of tweets, emails and spam that we are exposed to is growing at an ever-increasing rate. And this means that companies and individuals who are trying to harness the capacity of the internet to connect with people are facing an increasingly difficult task. This has two implications. Firstly, there’s going to be a huge market for software developers to design tools that help users to cut through the increasingly baffling array of choices out there. Some of the more forward-thinking developers are already doing this. Apple’s Genius tool, for instance, is helping individuals sort through their increasingly gargantuan iTunes libraries to choose playlists that users will like. Cyndicate (the fantastic RSS reader by Cynical Peak Software) allows users to rate their favourite blog posts, and then sorts all new blog posts according to what it believes you will find most interesting. A huge asset given that I get hundreds of new blogs daily from the number of sites that I subscribe to. Secondly, anyone who’s trying to use the internet to disseminate information is going to have to provide increasingly valuable offerings if they want people to take the time and energy to read their material.

But don’t let these considerations get you down. The most important take home from the video is just how exciting life on the internet is going to become.

Get them while they're hypnotised

Dom Thurbon — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 01:02:00 +0000

I met recently with a fascinating guy – Jonathan Marshall – who among being variously talented and qualified in many fields, is currently doing some hugely exciting work in the early childhood space. He shared with me some research findings that blew my mind; and I wanted to share just one FYI. Forgive me if my use of some of the below terminology is a bit off the mark, this is dense stuff out of a Harvard school of early childhood development and I’m trying to paraphrase as best I can!

There are four different types of brainwaves – theta, beta, alpha and delta. In adults, they spend most of their life with beta rythmns, which are all about executive function and reasoning. Young children spend most of their time in with theta brainwaves.

But get a load of this: the only times adults are really in a ‘theta state’ is when they are hypnotised. That’s right – the mental state of a child is most analogous to a HYPNOTISED adult. No wonder companies fall over themselves to advertise to children – they are bloody well hypnotised! That means open to suggestion, responsive to adult voices etc.

Just had to share that.

Too much efficiency? There's a flip for you!

Dom Thurbon — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 02:01:00 +0000

Just read an article in BRW (from last November, actually – thanks waiting room magazines!) that made a fascinating point about efficiency.

For years now – during the ‘high years’, as I call them – the mantra in supply chain management has been ‘efficiency, efficiency, efficiency’. And by efficiency, people meant less suppliers, less time from input to production, production to shelves, shelves to customer etc.

Interestingly, during the economic crunch, many businesses with heavily optimised supply chains felt the crunch, however, as if you’ve got a heavily consolidated chain and a supplier goes out of business, you have REAL problems with your inventory.

So maybe actually what we need in supply chain management is NOT necessarily efficiency, as much as flexibility. BRW used the example of SuperCheap Auto. With nearly 1000 suppliers, they don’t source more than 2% of their items from any single supplier, meaning they are shielded from suppliers going under. They’ve had to get VERY good at component substitution and a few other things – but it’s shielded them from the crunch better than many other vendors.

Goes back to a philosophy written about by my good friend and colleague Peter Sheahan: sometimes the best thing to do with conventional wisdom is to get the hell rid of it! Or AT LEAST challenge it!

Change or get out

Dom Thurbon — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 00:16:00 +0000

In life there are two approaches to inspiring change: carrots and sticks.

A Rhode Island school has taken the rather ‘stick-ish’ approach of firing every member of staff because they wouldn’t go along with the (awesome) plan to fix the ailing institution.

Wow – I didn’t know we were allowed to do this. Look out, team!!

Future Proof: Genetically Modified Teams

Peter Sheahan — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:15:00 +0000

Have you ever had a colleague or employee that just didn’t fit? You know what I mean, when they just don’t seem to “get” things the way you “get” them. I have and recently is occurred to me that they really did see the world from a different perspective. And I don’t mean they had different opinions, I mean their brain seemed wired in entirely different ways.

What I enjoyed, they feared. What I desired repulsed them. And the way I saw the everyday issues that faced our business, compared to the way they perceived them, was so different it was as though we were experiencing completely different things. It was like we were from different planets.

After another exasperated conversation with an employee in question, a different member of my team (who happens to be a geneticist) suggested her colleague lacked the variation on the D4 Dopamine Receptor Gene that my geneticist has long ago determined the rest of our company to possess.

I was like, “what?”

She went on to explain to me that about 25 per cent of the population have a variation on a dopamine producing gene that made them seek novelty, act impulsively and embrace risk. It is the very same gene that has been associated with ADHD and thrill seeking adrenaline junkies.

She was certain that almost all of our team had that thrill seeking variation and that anyone who did not, simply would not fit in.

What went through my brain next may indeed horrify you. It certainly horrified me.

“I am going to genetically test my potential new hires from here on in,” I declared. “And I don’t mean for ‘aptitude’. I am going to genetically test them. If you don’t have this novelty seeking gene you’re out of the running.”

Needless to say she was a little taken back. As a geneticist she was well aware of the power and potential of genetics, but she happened to also have very strong opinions about privacy.

You’ll be pleased to know I recanted almost immediately, not because of privacy though, but because I do not support the ‘reductionist theory’ of human potential that suggests our achievements in life are pre-determined by our genetic make-up. Influenced sure, but pre-determined, no.

But this little internal debate got me thinking. Is it only a matter of time before we are allowed to do such tests? Sure, in most countries it is technically illegal to discriminate on such grounds but most legislation I have been looking at contains exceptions to capturing such information.

For instance, corporate wellness programs designed to help employees take care of themselves are an acceptable way to obtain genetic information. Now it is illegal to use that information in a discriminatory way, but once it is out there it is surely easy for someone to be influenced by the results?

Many companies already psychometrically test people . Why not extend this to much more fundamental issues such as whether they are genetically wired to take risks and push the envelope or not?

A challenging question, don’t you think?

And I don’t just mean because we will all want the risk-takers. 2008 saw the destruction of personal wealth on an immense scale. Why? Because a too many chief executives and senior executives took insane risks.

Perhaps we should be testing those with whom we entrust our life’s savings and the well-being of the global economy?

Should we be allowed to genetically test our employees so we can create the best “genetically balanced” teams?

What about testing CEOs and boards? They hold such immense power over the well-being of so many others, shouldn’t we use ALL means available to us to put the right people in these positions?

Do you believe it is inevitable that this will happen anyway?

——————————————————————
Originally posted October 5, 2009 on the Sydney Morning Herald

Future Proof: Sexist pigs?

Peter Sheahan — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:09:00 +0000

Imagine spending 10 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to solve a problem only to make it worse, not better. That sounds a bit like marriage doesn’t it? Just kidding! (I hope my wife doesn’t read my blog.) I am talking about the futile attempts of many Australian companies to recruit women into senior roles in business.

I have been working with a client recently trying to address this very issue, and as part of my preparation I did some research to find examples of best practice.

We ended up focusing on 23 global companies which had won awards in the last few years for their women’s initiatives.

What we found shocked me so much that I feel compelled to share it with you.

Of the 23 companies we studied we were only able to find evidence that six of them had made any substantial improvements in the number of women they had in senior roles. And none were Australian.

One European arms of a Big Four accounting firm even went as far to claim credit for 26% of their graduate intake being women. Some further search indicated that 50% of the available talent pool was female. Hardly an achievement worthy of commendation.

And here is the most disturbing part. The six who did were only able to do it with arbitrary quotas and targets. It turns out because we (and I am including women themselves in ‘we’) have such deep biases that our prejudice is mostly unconscious.

How is it that in 2009 we need to be “forced” to promote women into positions they deserve as much as the men with whom they compete for them?

I need to confess here that I feel like the pot calling the kettle black. In the middle of this research I hosted a lunch for 12 highly successful young entrepreneurs.

Only when we all arrived for lunch did it become evident that I had invited 10 men and one women. And it took the one woman to point that out to me.

Even as I was knee deep in this stuff, my unconscious biases were so strong I failed to take appropriate action.

Consider some of the following things that came out of the research:

* As a general rule senior managers overestimate their “open mindedness” and ability to make non-sexist judgments. It turns out that we are half as open minded and inclusive in their behaviour as they think they are.

* Women are just as capable of discriminating against other women as men are. Some researchers even suggest they are trying to protect their positions as the “only” woman on the board.

* Even when women’s networking groups exist, they are often excluded from the informal networks that count. That is, the networks where the most important decisions get made.

And what makes this most shocking is that ALL of the credible research shows that companies with greater diversity (namely women) in senior roles outperform the market by as much as 33%.

In other words, it is good for business but we don’t change?

Here are some insights from the six that have had progress which you may find interesting:

* Quotas work. As “insulting” as the need for a quota may be for many women, to get results we must forcefully break the biases which keep the status quo entrenched. Insisting that at least one female candidate be in the final three for each appointment and promotion to a senior position.

* Senior leaders are required to find at least 1 female that they will personally mentor and make it their personal responsibility to ensure they progress to the higher ranks.

* Facilitating much more intimate networks to form between aspiring women and senior managers (especially men) is far more powerful than formal women’s networks.

* Unleashing “change agents” with the power to enforce the diversity agenda, who actively seek out insight from women in the business and actively coach them to get on development programs in the like is a powerful initiative.

* Making it customer focused and NOT diversity focused. Just using the word ‘diversity’ makes people’s eyes glaze over, but when it was framed as enticing more women customers and improving the retention of female clients, the changes were more openly embraced and sustained.

I know I am a little late to weigh in on this issue, and I know I am a man, but when I learned that Australia is regressing, I felt the need to speak up!

I am proud to say since starting the starting this research, I have appointed a female board member and six of my seven new employees are women.

If you are in a position of power in your organisation what are you are doing when it comes to this issue? Do you believe it is a problem?

——————————————————————
Originally posted August 28,2009 on the Sydney Morning Herald

Future Proof: Twitter-induced paranoia

Peter Sheahan — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:05:00 +0000

It was an absolute train wreck. The who’s who of the marketing industry had gathered in a mega-ballroom in an over-priced US desert resort on the outskirts of Phoenix to hear what we all believed would be a life-changing presentation from a well respected marketing mind.

There was only one problem. Twitter!
You see there is usually a social code. When things are not going so well at a conference we generally sit in silence, nod politely, and then bitch AFTER the session when we had some modicum of privacy.

Not anymore! In a desperate attempt to be modern and hip, the conference organiser had set up a live feed from Twitter to screens throughout the hotel for people to share their thoughts as the conference was progressing.

It was an all out ‘Twit’ attack. The speaker was getting roasted on screen for all to see and on the few hundred iPhones that seem to be spread throughout the room.

This was transparency and openness in it most blunt form and I have to admit I was afraid.

Afraid because I was up next, and afraid that I have been crowing about the need for this kind of open dialogue for years.

I mean it is bad enough getting beat-up on this blog – which happens on a weekly basis I can assure you – but to have it happen then and there, in the moment as you work, is a scary prospect indeed. No wonder brand managers continue to try so hard to protect their companies and products from any real feedback. Feedback hurts! ‘Twitbacks’ Kill!

Is all this transparency a good thing? Is it possible for things to be too ‘out in the open’?

——————————————————————
Originally posted August 10, 2009 on the Sydney Morning Herald

Online Retail

Dom Thurbon — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:24:00 +0000

Just came back from Nicola and I doing two sessions in two days at the big Online Retail expo at the Convention Centre in Sydney.

Two observations of interest.

Number one – doing rounds of the showroom floor; couldn’t help but notice that like 90% of vendors there were talking about ‘search’ and SEO. Now I totally get that search is important and driving traffic is ‘what it’s all about’; but to have only two groups there interested in what happens after people actually get there is of concern. We did two sessions over two days on how web 2.0 is going to change marketing; they were a big hit. I’ll post a video or something in the days to come on some of the content. It’s pretty cool stuff that people need to start thinking about.

The second observation is on just that – content – as we did more on the retail impacts of web 2.0 and as the content evolved I’ve started to realise just how significant the shift in power from organisation to individual is. With almost 80% of consumers saying that Word of Mouth is the most powerful form of advertising, and with significantly more than 60% of people who shop online visiting social network sites – you can connect the dots yourself. Dialogue is taking the place of monologue, consumer conversation taking the place of corporate dictation.

This is not a case of ‘companies can try this if they like’. This is THE trend; figure it out or not! Your choice!

Chicken, anyone?

Dom Thurbon — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 22:45:00 +0000

Anyone who doubts that Web 2.0 is going to change business (yes, there are actually still some!) consider the following App for the iPhone.

The NSW Food Watch app (check out this story) mash’s data from the NSW Department of Food Safety with Google Maps. What you get when you launch it is a map of the area around where you are (yes, your phone can figure that out) and ‘pins’ stuck in the map that represent any restaurants in your immediate area that have been fined for breaching food safety regulations.

Don’t dine without it!

But seriously, who knew how to access that info before this? And even if you knew, how could you possibly do it when you’re on the road?

Just wait until there’s an app that lets you compare prices for anything you’re looking at in a shop – soon we’re going to take a picture of the product we want to buy and in five seconds have a list of the cheapest places to buy it within a 5 minute walk.

Pressure’s on, gang. Web 2.0 is here – figure it out, or watch out!!

Personal V Professional Brands

Dom Thurbon — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:22:00 +0000

So as a side-note to the Productivity Project last night I did a session for a group of about 250 school kids on building personal brands. The topic of technology came up and web 2.0.

One of the interesting things I find is how web 2.0 is blurring the line between a ‘personal’ brand and ‘professional’ brand.

Just ask Kyle Doyle – here.

The update in the article claims the exchange never took place but whether it did or didn’t is irrelevant. The issue is alive and well and as we move towards open, collaborative, always-on modes of communication these are issues companies need to confront.