Saying “I Don’t Know” is a Strength

/in , , /by

“A culture of asking questions – the really big ones and the seemingly small, incremental ones – is critical for innovation.”
– Karl-Ludwig Kley, CEO of Merck

The great physicist Richard Feynman once described how you can spot a real expert versus a phony. Look for three little words, “I don’t know.” The phony will have all the answers, while the expert will be willing to admit what they don’t know. Real experts are relentlessly curious, even assertively curious – that is, they will demand explanations for things that many others simply accept as rules.

Creativity consistently ranks among the most sought-after and valued characteristics of workers today. Executives know that the next killer app, product, service or innovation is going to come from relentlessly curious and creative people. The most desirable professionals today are happy, collaborative, and have hustle, but above all are relentlessly curious and creative.

In a recent study from September, 2015, Merck surveyed over 2600 people on both the value of creativity in the workplace, and the ways in which their company encouraged (or stymied) creative practices.

While a staggering 90% agree that the best ideas come out of persistent and curious behavior, including constantly questioning company practices, less than 25% of those working today describe themselves as curious people. We are more likely to call ourselves “organized” or “diligent” or even “friendly,” than to call ourselves “creative”. If anything, it’s swinging the other way. Over 80% of us say the pressure to be more “productive” is increasing in intensity.

As work pressure builds to be more productive, our work environments increasingly stifle imagination.

Here’s an interesting fact about people who describe themselves as curious and creative. These people are also assertive. Curious people are decision-makers. They are influencers. In interviews, they often say they have direct influence over the outcome of decisions and change. If you think of the people in your company and community who consistently drive change, I bet you will be thinking of inquisitive people – people willing to ask the hard questions.

That may seem counterintuitive. After all, if we are busy questioning the world around us, aren’t we in a listening and receptive mode, and not in a decisive action-taking mode? But these two behaviors of deeply questioning, and then taking action, are reinforcing levels of creative engagement. This is because highly creative people also tend to also be fearlessly persistent. They often describe themselves as “adventurous” and “risk-taking.”

Another characteristic of highly curious and creative people is that they are generally less affected by peer pressure. They tend to follow their values, even when it may run counter to what the group is doing.

Stay assertive, curious, and follow your values.

____________________________________________________

Shawn Hunter is President and Founder of Mindscaling, and the author of Out•Think: How Innovative Leaders Drive Exceptional Outcomes. It’s about how to lead joyfully in life, and also to lead cultures in your company to drive great results.

Twitter: @gshunter
Say hello: email@gshunter.com
Web: www.shawnhunter.com

What’s Your OQ? (Originality Quotient)

/in , , /by

einstein-big-idea

There are many echoes in the world, but few true voices.

We are all standing on the shoulders of giants, borrowing brilliance, hopefully adding value along the way, and constantly making a positive difference. The difference between real originality and blatant rip-off is the extent to which we make it our own, the extent to which we take the basic building blocks and circumstances presented, and create new value, new innovation.

However, it’s not enough to be original simply for the sake of being original. High originality without impact is just weird. Like this hamburger scented candle. This motorcycle lawn mower might be somewhere lost in the middle between cool, and actually usable. It might get some teenagers to mow the lawn, but maybe only once or twice before the novelty wears off.

On the other hand, low originality without adding any value is a straight up swindle, or worse, fraud. Katie Perry released the copycat hit “Roar” three months after Sara Bareilles released “Brave.” You can hear them both overlayed together here. Ms. Bareilles is being very kind and generous to Ms. Perry in the press about it. Sara Bareilles is saying copycat work is a good thing because it raises everyone up. Maybe, but it’s still not innovation. There’s a reason why The Monkees never became The Beatles.

Wooden-duckOr for a business example, in the 1930s a Danish woodworker was making wooden toy ducks and calling them LEGOs. That’s right, toy ducks was the main product line of LEGO. Meanwhile in the UK, Kiddicraft released their “Self-Locking Bricks” in 1940. Then, almost ten years later, in 1949 LEGO released their now-famous “Building Blocks” known the world over. And I would argue LEGO in fact did add value by offering the market reach and visibility that Kiddicraft couldn’t. The Self-Locking Bricks might have been lost forever. Or not. We’ll never know for sure.

Here’s one way to think about it: Consider the intersection between Familiarity and Impact. On the chart below, low Familiarity and low Impact = the hamburger-scented candle.  High Impact and high Familiarity = a refrigerator, for example.

The pinnacle of life-changing, mind-blowing, and transformational originality is the intersection of low Familiarity and high Impact. The original iPhone, when released in 2007, meets that criteria. My favorite here is the alarm-clock-rug that only deactivates when you get out of bed and step on it. Genius.

Sometimes mind-blowing and transformational precedes the mundane. We went to the moon before we put little wheels on our luggage. Who knew? At the moment I’m inclined to believe self-driving cars might be the next game-changing social development. What do you think?

OQ

[I credit this entire idea to my friend and colleague Louis Biggie, who first suggested the idea of Originality Quotient to me several months ago. Bravo.]

____________________________________________________

outthink_book_coverShawn Hunter is the author of Out•Think: How Innovative Leaders Drive Exceptional Outcomes. It’s about how to lead joyfully in life, and also to lead cultures in your company to drive great results.

Twitter: @gshunter
Say hello: email@gshunter.com
Web: www.shawnhunter.com

Innovation Hack: Flip the Story

/in , , , , /by

Pay very close attention. Ready?

Three hikers finish a long hard day on the Appalachian Trail. They trudge into a small inexpensive hotel and ask for a room. The clerk at the counter tells them it’s $30. Great, they each pay $10 and walk down to their room.

The manager wanders in later and asks if there have been any guests. The clerk reports the three hikers and the manager inquires what they paid for the room. The clerk tells him $30, and the manager reminds him they are having a $25 special this evening. The manager instructs the clerk to provide a $5 refund.

The clerk asks the bellhop to return $5 to the hikers. While the bellhop is walking to the room with the refund, he thinks to himself, “I’ve been hauling bags all night and I haven’t had any tips! What are they going to do with $5? I’ll take $2 for myself!”

The bellhop arrives at the room, knocks on the door and returns $1 to each of the three hikers. Each hiker originally paid $10, then had $1 returned. So, they each paid what? Correct, $9.

9 x 3 = 27. 27 + 2 in the bellhop’s pocket = 29. What happened to the other dollar?

One step at a time. Yes, each hiker paid $9. Multiplied by 3 equals 27. 27 plus 2 for the bellhop equals 29. Brain freeze. How is this possible?

The solution often turns out to be more beautiful than the puzzle.
– Richard Dawkins

It’s a fun riddle because the more you persist in one direction in the story, the more it becomes unsolvable. It’s in the telling. If you fixate on each hiker paid $9, then add $2 for the bellhop it’s impossible. It’s really fun to tell this story to kids.

As my friend Jay explains the solution: tell the story in another direction. The three hikers paid $30, got 5 back, and gave 2 to the bellhop, which equals 27. So yes, including the tip they did each pay $9.

We can get wrapped up in the persistent narratives of our work and life every day. At work, at home, at school we build up a narrative bias in which we tell ourselves stories about how things are.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
– Albert Einstein

To break the narrative bias, try telling stories in a different way. For example, when you have to pitch an idea to your colleagues or your boss, first tell it one way, then try it again using completely different words and phrases. Then a third time, with completely different language again. Or when attempting to solve a problem in a group, ask each member to propose a different approach.

We have tried this in many different settings, trying to solve different types of problems, or pitch different ideas. I’ve discovered that not only do the ideas get better with each telling, but people hear them differently. Varying language will land differently on people. They will hear the story in novel ways when you change the language you use. And when you populate the team with people from different expertise and backgrounds, each will naturally have a unique interpretation to contribute.

After all, remember the story of the six blind men describing an elephant? The first one touches the elephant’s side and says, “It’s solid and tall like a WALL!” The second blind man feels the elephant’s trunk and declares, “Not at all. It’s much more like a giant SNAKE!” The third blind man reaches out to the elephant’s knee and states, “You are both wrong, this is much like a TREE!”

And each was partly right, and each was partly wrong.

    ____________________________________________________

Our company Mindscaling, is busy building powerful human and digital learning experiences for companies of all sizes. My new book Small Acts of Leadership, is a Washington Post bestseller! You can grab a copy now. Have a meeting coming up? I love to work with groups large and small. Let’s talk.

In other news, our son and I bicycled across America with two other dads and their teenagers. We published a new book about it called Chasing Dawn. I co-authored the book with my cycling companion, the artist, photographer, and wonderful human jon holloway. Buy a copy. I’ll sign it and send it to your doorstep.

The High Cost of Conformity

/in , , , , /by

Imagine you are in a room with seven other people, and the person running the meeting presents everyone with two cards. On the left-hand card is a line. On the right-hand card are three lines of differing lengths. You are asked to pick which line on the right card matches the length of the line on the left card.

The answer is obvious. Any fool can see the right answer. But each person, in turn, around the table picks the wrong line, the wrong answer. Now it’s your turn. What do you do? Do you speak your mind? Speak the truth? It’s baffling that these people can’t see what you see so obviously. What’s wrong with these people?

About a third of us would agree with the group. Against our opinion, against what is so clearly obvious, we would reluctantly agree with everyone else’s wrong choice. These are the results of a series of psychology experiments conducted in the 1950s by Solomon Asch. In fact, in control groups during the experiment, over 98% of the participants recognized the correct answer, and yet 32% voted incorrectly along with the rest of the group.

When we perform tasks or engage in activities because “we’ve always done it that way” or because the person with the greatest seniority in the room suggested it, we’re acting out of conformity. Don’t misunderstand, conformity can be a great thing – it can allow teams to soar, military groups to function seamlessly and efficiently, and allow decisions to be made faster. Conformity is acting in accordance with social standards and conventions. I’m certainly glad we have accepted communication and behavioral conventions over at Air Traffic Control, and the people over at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (Here’s the audio feed from ATC at my home airport in Portland, Maine. I’m certainly glad they’re not just making it up as they go.)

In fact, Charles Efferson and his colleagues demonstrated that social conformity can present a higher rate of correct decisions, and higher performance in specific tasks. Conformity is how we deal with the complexity of life, the tsunami of data and information we are presented with, the unmitigated firehose of media we are bombarded with. We look at what other people are paying attention to. What they are looking at, what they are doing. And we do that.

But positive and creative deviance is what drives change. On December 1, 1955 in Montgomery, Alabama, Rosa Parks, at age 42, refused to obey bus driver James Blake’s order that she give up her seat to make room for a white passenger. In her own words, she was “tired of giving in.”

Know that we are all vulnerable to conformity. Think of these small awarenesses when participating in a group decision:

  • be aware of our vulnerability to conformity
  • cultivate healthy skepticism towards our own group
  • be willing to disappoint people

It’s the difference between belonging to a group, and simply fitting in. When we fit in, we conform. When we feel a strong sense of belonging, we feel enabled to be ourselves, wholly and authentically.

To learn about how build a culture of continuous learning see:

    ____________________________________________________

SmallActs-3DShawn Hunter is President and Founder of Mindscaling, a company building beautiful online learning courses based on the work of best-selling authors. My new book Small Acts of Leadership, (Bibliomotion) will be out in October, 2016. You can pre-order a copy now. Have a meeting coming up? Let’s talk.

Twitter: @gshunter
Say hello: email@gshunter.com
Web: www.shawnhunter.com

Three Tricks to Seeing The Bigger Picture

/in , , , /by

onsummit

“I can’t recall a period of time that was as volatile, complex, ambiguous and tumultuous. As one successful executive put it, ‘If you’re not confused, you don’t know what’s going on’.”
– Warren Bennis

In 1961, Edward Lorenz was a junior professor at MIT working on meteorology. He used a rudimentary computer called the Royal McBee to crunch algorithms which simulated weather patterns. Using the computer program, he could plug in different variables into the equation and then let the virtual weather unfold. So it was sort of a weather simulator in that each time he would run the program, there would be underlying trends and patterns but no two sequences would be identical. He was trying to recognize the patterns – to see the big picture.

One day, he decided to revisit a particular weather formula which intrigued him. He plugged in the original numbers, intending to let the program run for a longer period this time, and then went to get a cup of coffee. When he came back to the computer the virtual weather pattern unfolding was drastically different than the first time he ran the same numbers.

In fact, the result was so incredibly unlike the first result using the very same numbers that he assumed the computer must have malfunctioned. What he discovered instead was that he had accidentally abbreviated one of the input variables from .506127 to .506 – an abbreviation which he thought was so small, as to be inconsequential.

Lorenz’ revelation in the power of seemingly inconsequential small actions, led him to write a paper in 1972 called, “Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil Set Off a Tornado in Texas?” This beguiling idea crept into pop culture and time travel movies and later became known as the Butterfly Effect.

But what if we could learn to see the big picture, to simplify the complex, to develop what the French call “coup d’oeil?” Coup d’oeil is an expression meaning literally “stroke of the eye” or “at a glance.” It’s the ability to glance at a complicated terrain or environment and immediately see opportunities and understand the situation more simply – to grasp possibilities and connections within complexity.

Your turn. Here are three ideas to hone your coup d’oeil:

Draw a picture: Instead of writing down your next big idea, draw it. Turn words into pictures on a whiteboard. Or draw a map with plenty of circles, dotted lines and arrows. Or draw emoticons associated with the different ideas. As we know from researchers, when we can visualize something, we can often make new mental connections to simplify the situation.

Say it out loud: According to Harvard medical researcher Jenny Rudolph, often the best advice is to say what you are thinking out loud, in the presence of those whom you trust and who will hold you accountable. By simply saying our understanding out loud, we force ourselves to consider our opinions and biases. We not only hold ourselves more accountable, but implicitly ask those around us to also check our judgment.

Let it rest: Ever work on a hard problem that feels impenetrable, and then wake up and it clicks easily? If you study music, that piano sequence was impossible, yet felt easy in the morning. As sleep expert Dr. Robert Stickgold from Harvard Medical School describes it, ““When we first form memories, they’re in a very raw and fragile form.” But when we sleep, “the brain goes back through recent memories and decides both what to keep and what not to keep.”

This was written in memory of Warren Bennis, who contributed so much to big thinking. We cherish his immense contributions to the world.

You don’t have to choose between creative and valuable

/in , , , /by

creative_designAndy Cohen was a marketing ad agency guy back in the day when Direct Response TV ads were considered tawdry, cheap ways of marketing. The kind of TV advertising that kept asking you to CALL NOW! It was the domain of late night used car and vacuum salesmen. Brand businesses wouldn’t touch it.

Andy helped change all that. He and his colleagues wrote award-winning ads for Clorox, Chase Bank, Club Med, Time Warner, American Express, among many other marquee name brands. Their mantra was never compromise direct response volume for the sake of creativity, and never compromise creativity for the sake of direct response revenue. In their mind, both had to be elevated together in tandem. In their mind, they believed they could build brand integrity while simultaneously elevating ad impact and revenue. They demanded innovation of each other in pursuit of excellence.

Andy had an idea for a short Direct Response TV spot. It goes like this: Man wearing a suit in a city somewhere. Closeup on smiling face. Voice of God narration: “Why are you so happy? Did you recently find a high margin, low cost investment offer? And you’re excited about how hard your money is working for you? You must have discovered the new bond offer? No? Oh, it’s trading at $5 and returning 13.5%. its not too late…you can still get on board…”

Meanwhile the viewer watches the individual’s face start proud, smug and happy, and gradually go to sad and appalled that he was missing out, and then back to a sense of urgency and opportunity. Only at the very end the viewer hears a voice say, “Hello, Merrill Lynch. How can I help you?” Andy’s design of the ad spot relied on the notion that the man’s facial gestures convey more urgent emotion than dialogue.

Andy showed this ad design to his boss who said it was crap, terrible – a waste of thought, and told Andy to go make something valuable. Andy didn’t throw the idea in the trash. He kept tweaking it to make it better.

Lesson 1: Believe in the power and novelty of your ideas.

Meanwhile their client, Merrill Lynch, was in a pinch. They had purchased a billion dollars worth of bonds from the government and needed to move them, fast. They were sitting on a billion dollars worth of uninvested static assets. So at the next advertising meeting with Merrill Lynch, Andy pitched his idea.

The Chief Marketing Officer listened quietly and then declared he didn’t like it. So of course to agree with the client, everyone in the room said, “OK no problem. We have other ideas.” Not Andy.

Andy asked “Why? Why don’t you like it?” He persisted to find the real reason why the CMO didn’t like the ad idea.
CMO replies, “Well the tie is ridiculous. No one would wear such a ridiculous tie.”
Andy grabbed the sketch artist in the room and asked him to redraw the face. “How about now?” Andy asked.

Lesson 2: Persist until you understand the real reason.

The biggest misconception is that communication happened. If your audience immediately dismisses your idea, don’t assume they think it’s crap. People say No to great ideas for reasons that often have nothing to do with the idea itself. People often say No to ideas that have personal triggers. The key to identify the root assumptions behind decisions.

Merrill funded the ad, and they moved 750 million dollars worth of bonds in 9 weeks using that ad. And incidentally it was the first DRTV commercial to ever win a CLIO award, and many other creative advertising awards.

The Innovative Leader: Finding + Seeing + Leading

/in , , /by

A short excerpt from Out•Think – enjoy!
Mashup
Innovation doesn’t have to be complicated. Sometimes it’s as simple as designing the shampoo bottle so it rests upside down. Sometimes it’s as novel as a vending machine that mixes your drink on the fly.

Today’s leader is an expert on figuring out how to stitch together varying ideas and technologies which result in realized value in the world. The challenge will become how quickly can we both conceptualize powerful combinations of ideas, and then lead a team to execute on that dream.

I had an interview two years ago with Venkatesh Valluri, President of Ingersoll Rand India. In our conversation, he spoke of the qualities of successful emerging leaders as possessing three distinct qualities:

  1. The ability to scan a constantly moving stream of technologies and information and pick out the meaningful trends in their businesses
  2. The ability to conceptualize a mashup of disparate technologies and capabilities into new valuable innovations which are right for your market
  3. The passion, communnication, and conviction to lead a team to execution on this vision.

As he described it:

Today if you asked me, What would be a leadership development model at Ingersoll Rand?—it would be a very unique model, in the sense that, Okay, is this leader prepared to have a conceptual flexibility, and strength to scan the environment, look where the problem is in that market, and build a solution backwards? Now once having defined that, then I guess the next piece which really comes is: Would he be able to execute on that? And once you talk about execution, then, at the same time, is he able to rally the entire team behind that by saying, This is the right thing for us to do?

Valluri pointed out that industries around the world are developing deep expertise in many fields, including nanotechnology, energy sustainability, food preservation, or GPS tracking and reporting technologies. Ingersoll-Rand doesn’t need to develop expertise in each of these, he said, but the company does need be aware of that these technologies exist and be able to conceptualize new ways to leverage them to solve problems for their customers.

Valluri calls this “innovation convergence,” giving the following example: Historically farmers in India have used the technologies available to them to move farm produce to market—namely, carts and wagons pulled by human or animal power. There are many variables that can lead to product loss and missed market opportunity while picking, loading, and conveying farm produce to a buyer’s market or distribution center. The farmer may be unaware of deteriorating weather. There may be a lack of buyers in the market, and the produce will spoil. The seasonal rains may have created mud conditions that slow the farmers’ progress. There may be a glut of produce at one market and scarcity at another.

Ingersoll-Rand integrated multiple technologies, including ruggedized buggies with four-wheel drive, GPS tracking to monitor the location of shipments, technology to determine the status of demand at different markets and shipping locations, and finally refrigeration technology to preserve the produce in transit.

This solution optimizes the entire value chain, reducing loss and maximizing delivery and value to the market—all without needing to have within the organization deep niche expertise of each of these disparate technologies. All that was needed was for leadership at Ingersoll-Rand to have an awareness of these technologies, strong networked collaborators, the ability to conceptualize a new solution for the customer, and, perhaps most importantly, the strength and conviction to lead a team to execute on the vision.

That, to Valluri, is real innovation.

Hacking the Super You

/in , , , , /by

superhumanOver the years, my friend Erich and I have probably logged thousands of miles cycling together. In all conditions – cold, wet, early, or in the fading warm July sunlight – we have ridden these Maine roads together. And when you train with someone for long enough you recognize their strengths (he climbs like a scalded cat), odd proclivities (he prefers riding on the right side of someone else), and their hesitations (he often descends cautiously).

We trained for a triathlon together a couple years ago. We would meet and ride the 40km course a couple of times a week, sometimes twice in a day. We got to the point where we knew the entire course in great detail – every crack in the road, every undulation of pavement, when to push and when to recover. And more or less, it seemed we were evenly matched.

On the day of the triathlon I had a fine race and the ride was my strongest leg of the event. I was pleased to finish in the top 10% of riders. Meanwhile, Erich blazed the ride. While averaging nearly 25mph on the hilly course, for some sections he led the entire field chasing only the pace car in front of him. On that day over 800 people raced the event. Only four individuals – all pros – were faster than Erich, and only by mere seconds. I was astonished. He was dumbfounded. He beat me by over 7 minutes on the ride. And he did it in celebration of his 50th birthday.

I had many questions about where this super-Erich performance came from. As I listened to him talk about his ride, he never once made any comparisons to other riders. He never spoke of how he was performing in relation to anyone else. He didn’t talk of the event as a competition. All of his language around preparation and performance was in terms of him versus the course. Actually “versus” isn’t quite the right word. It was more that he spoke of being in tune with how he felt in each moment – riding with the road with a sense of totally embodying the experience.

Another interesting comment Erich made was that during the ride itself he was aware that he was crushing it. He knew, on an innate level of consciousness, that he was absolutely killing the course, but there was no emotion associated with it. He felt not frustration, pain, angst, or struggle – only focus. The celebration and elation would come later. During the ride itself, he was all focused execution, hyper attention to nuance, flowing with the road.

As Steven Kotler describes in his mind-bending book The Rise of Superman, this sense of “deep embodiment” is one of the external Flow triggers of immersion in the moment. In short, Flow is an induced state of energized focus, heightened awareness, complete absorption, and elevated performance. And often, exceedingly high performance accompanies Flow states.

While these states are often spoken of by top adventurers, Flow states are also common among artists, musicians, professional athletes, and yes, even business professionals. According to this McKinsey study, business executives stated that when they were at their most effective – in a state of Flow – they were more than five times more effective than their more mundane, and common, moments of activity while attending meetings, interacting with colleagues, and executing tasks.

Much has been studied and written about the importance of developing a strong creative capability for today’s busy professional in this always-on, bottle rocket economy. IBM’s global CEO study asserts that creativity, mental flexibility, and collaboration have displaced one-dimensional intelligence and isolated determination as core ingredients of competitive advantage in today’s turbulent market. Creativity is treasured among the most-valued traits of sought-after talent. Yet, creativity is hard to teach.

Here’s the thing: Flow states induce creative states. As Teresa Amabile’s 2005 study shows, Flow states often precede creative states. Early findings at Kotler’s Flow Genome Project suggest Flow states later induce up to seven times the creativity in test subjects.

While developing creative triggers can be elusive, finding Flow triggers can be more predictable. We recognize that feeling when we felt hyper-present and alive skiing through the trees, immersed in a book, hypnotized in a provocative conversation, even mesmerized by an addicting video game. These induced Flow states lead to creatively productive states, often in the following hours and days after a Flow event.

Don’t seek on-demand creativity of yourself or those around you. Instead seek those circumstances, environments, and personal and social triggers which induce your own Flow states. To inspire creativity in those around you, start by finding it yourself. Model finding those Flow states you want to encourage in others. Creative productivity will surely follow.

Jumping the Shark and the beginning of the end

/in , , /by

fonzsharkjump-300x300Colgate once introduced a line of dinner entrees. Harley-Davidson rolled out their own perfume. The Fonz jumped his Shark.

And you may remember the tragic 77 days of mourning when New Coke was on the market. But Coca-Cola marketing executive Sergio Zyman couldn’t bear just one product disaster, so he then championed the release of OK Soda under the slogan “Things are going to be OK.” It never made it past test markets. Actually, we shouldn’t beat up on Mr. Zyman. He did, after all, have outstanding success with the incredibly popular Diet Coke, and even the decade-long run of Fruitopia (which appears to still enjoy a Canadian following on Facebook).

We have to test products and throw new ideas at wall to see what sticks. Innovation needs volume. But the right kind of volume and experimentation – the kind of innovation which is challenge-driven instead of idea-driven. Zyman started with the idea that “OK” was one of the most popular words in the English language and deducted that the word would therefore make for one of the most popular drinks in the world. Wrong.

Better product design starts with a deeper look at understanding the challenge and opportunity. Intuit uses “follow me home” studies, which allow product developers to get as close as possible to native user environments. By watching how people actually conduct their days, spend their time, and follow their preferences, Intuit designers get closer to understanding the ticks and quirks of their customers. This is different than starting with ideas and testing them in controlled environments, where things are structured, rigorous, and researchers are managing the perimeters.

Rule #1 of great companies: Better before cheaper. Quality and craftsmanship. Beauty and elegance. But better is hard. Cheaper is easy. Quality demands hard work and excellence. “But I have low-price overseas competitors!” you say. “But I could use inferior materials or fewer people and raise my profits!” you say.

So you start to look at costs. Cutting costs is a straight-forward, even tidy process. This is the beginning of the end of excellence. It’s tempting to go after the savings. The trouble is it compromises your product integrity. And when you compromise your product integrity, you compromise your brand. When you compromise your brand, your loyal customers head for the door.

The Power of Shared Truth

/in , , , /by

A small excerpt from OutThink. Enjoy!challenger

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”
– Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

I was sixteen years old at the moment the Challenger Space Shuttle exploded high above NASA Kennedy Space Center in Florida, killing seven astronauts including New Hampshire schoolteacher Christa McAuliffe. Sadly, because a schoolteacher was on board, there were thousands of children around the country watching the event unfold on live television. In the months following, Richard Feynman, renowned physicist, was asked to help understand what happened in the Challenger disaster.

He not only gave a famous testimony to Congress describing the O-ring failure that led to the catastrophe, he also led a more quiet inquiry conducting interviews of the NASA engineers and leaders. He devoted the latter half of his book What Do You Care What Other People Think? to his experience working on the Rogers Commission. One of his sober conclusions was that the engineers on the front lines building the componentry had a much different perspective than the leaders in the organization regarding assessment of risk.

This recognition of risk disparity started when Louis Ullian, the range safety officer at Kennedy Space Center began an inquiry into whether or not to place destruct charges on manned Challenger, or other manned rocket flights. It was common practice at the time to have remote destruct charges placed on unmanned rockets in case something went wrong. The thinking was it would be safer to remotely destruct an out-of-control rocket, rather than have an out-of-control rocket dangerously explode on the ground. Ullian discovered a 4% failure rate among unmanned rocket flights he researched, and calculated that manned rocket flights, with their much higher safety standards and preparations, had about a 1% failure rate. However, when he inquired with NASA he was advised the official probability of failure for a manned rocket flight was 1 in 100,000. He told this figure to Feynman, who replied, “That means you could fly the shuttle every day for an average of 300 years between accidents – which is obviously crazy!”

Ullian needed a figure to inform his decision of whether or not to place remote destruct charges on manned rockets and settled on 1 in 1000 as a compromise. However, with NASA management estimating 1 in 100,000, Feynman became interested in finding out what the acting engineers believed the failure probability rates were.

Feyman requested a meeting with a group of engineers and began asking questions about how the rockets worked, were assembled, etc., in order to make a probability assessment. After a couple hours he hit on a better idea: ask the engineers in the room what their opinion of the risk was. He said to them, “Here’s a piece of paper each. Please write on your paper the answer to this question: what do you think is the probability that a flight would be uncompleted due to a failure in the engine.” He collected and averaged the answers in the room: 1 in 300.

Feynman went on to observe that unlike airplanes or cars, which are built “bottom up” using integrated systems that have been tried and tested over time, the space shuttle, as a unique vehicle was built “top down.” That is, it was conceived as a whole and built from individual and unique parts assembled to suit a finished product. In calculating the potential failure probability, the NASA engineers had evaluated the potential failure rate of each individual component, and extrapolated a failure probability of 1 in 100,000. This makes complete sense when you consider that individually the failure probability of an engine blade, electrical cable or bolt is vanishingly small.

What the engineers knew innately from their hands-on perspective, was that the failure probability of the dynamically assembled whole structure was far higher. Yet even with that knowledge available in the minds of the engineers, it didn’t come out until Feynman asked the question. In order to get closer to the truth and gain higher aspirations of everyone in the organization, first we have to find the hidden truths. And the hidden truths are at the edges of the organization with the people who are closest to the work – closest to the potential problem.

We have to ask those at the edges what they believe to be the truth. As leaders in the organization we have the obligation to say out loud that we don’t know the intricacies of complex projects, and we expect and demand that those closest to the detail surface publicly any concerns.