Day 9: Turner, Kentridge, Stage

Best November day in Stockholm and we walked for hours. Having a real Siri to play with was also far more fun than the apple software version.
The top observation of the day is that hanging Monet next to Turner is not fair to Monet. Turner just seemed to transcend the canvas in a way that Monet's impressionism can only aspire to. The combination of Twombly and Turner though was magical. Anyone in Stockholm before mid-January should go.
Tucked away in the back corner of the Moderna Museet though was a small video screen showing a discussion between Kentridge and Marlene Dumas. By sheer coincidence Marlene Dumas mentioned an exhibition where Monet laid open his process, to prove that the "simple" art is not easy. Keeping the freshness of the experience or impression captured in the painting is truly challenging as we fight our impulse to carve and slice at it, until we end up with mincemeat. When a master really does strike their flow, it looks easy.
Kentridge spoke quite a bit about his process too and the need for an artist to stay open to exploring surprises. In the works where he started off with a clear idea of what he wanted, he invariably ends up with predictable, boring art. The confidence you get from experience does not make it any easier to break away from these pre-conceived ideas. In fact, the ego and reputation you have to uphold makes it doubly hard. Creativity does not follow a plan. In his words: "you have to get over your own predictability, your own stupidity." And in a way closing yourself down from new influences that you cannot predict or expect is stupidity.

But that is exactly what companies do. In order to shore up the stock price you have to, above all else, deliver predictability. This assumes that you know exactly what the outcome of a project or new venture is going to be, before it happens.
Amazing how we mock this assertion in tarot card readers, but quite happily fund this exact same mythology in the always climbing 5 year revenue predictions of start-ups and division managers alike. There is so much focus on designing the right plan and strategy, yet what really counts is how well the team will respond to changes in the plan. When is the last time you saw an explicit reference to "what we'll do if it doesn't go this way." Where are the early warning systems and the sensitive ears and eyes of the business plan?
Susanne reminded me of how different your connection with your job is if you believe in what you are designing. When you really care about what you do, you take your intuition to work. The difference shows in how you respond to change.

Day 8: Plays nice with others

Arrived in Stockholm and I still can't understand the torn jeans thing. The crisp autumn air is taking a slightly more serious turn as winter stirs but it feels calming to be in a country where the Rimowa wheels can roll gently on the sidewalk without getting stuck in the cracks.

The last night in Frankfurt was filled with talk about friendships and paths that we take from the random mix of people we meet on projects and in work settings. I asked Georgia why people feel the need to wear masks at work. Wouldn't it be so much simpler to just focus on the positive outcome everyone is chasing rather than hold back and focus on the image we are perceived to be projecting? Why can't we just feel satisfied in delivering exciting content? She made a good point though about workplace anxiety. Honesty is vulnerability, and most people fear that this honesty will be used against them. The more effort and focus we place on helping the fragile ego survive in our hostile world, the less we feel able to express untested ideas, new approaches or things that people cannot imagine. According to the  Forbes article, the most common workplace anxieties are:

•    fear of speaking in public
•    fear of interacting with authority figures
•    fear of taking on new challenges
•    fear of being noticeably nervous
•    perfectionism

I would add to that list, fear of interacting with real customers. Some companies take a radical approach to limiting the impact of such emotional bias in their decision making. The reality os though that the need for emotional security still jumps in to protect us before the rational mind can get involved.

How much more creative would a group be if we could simply accept vulnerability as a strength. A necessary condition to allow growth and protect the company against stagnation.

Day 7: Slow death

How nice to see Elke, who now has the responsibility to administer the art collection of the Deutsche Bahn. Building on this week's theme, the key topic that came out of our discussion was the struggle that large organizations have in delivering a consistent and personally relevant engagement to their employees.
The solution to employee motivation for many companies like this  is to send teams on multi-day seminars.

Although I am a big fan of extra mural activities and feeding people well at these seminars, this kind of adventure often becomes the only adventure in the employee's entire year. So for the participants the things that become important are: 1. Who are the people I get along with who will be there so we can hide together, 2. What will the food and hotel be like, 3. Will I be able to make a case for a salary increase once I have been. No comment on how this maps back to Maslow.

The absolute killer though comes when people go on these off sites, generate brilliant visions of the future and return to have their ideas ripped to shreds by the bosses and stakeholders who did not share the experience. Workshops are famous for generating a lot of energy and ideas very quickly, and being forgotten and irrelevant once you return home.

The focus is on the activity (workshopping) and not the outcome (real change in the organization). As long as these extraordinary moments of collaboration, and the permission they give people to express creativity, are treated as exceptional, they cannot be sustained by the mundane, predictable and repeatable confines of "the day job". Are there any management courses that go beyond building the skills required to write great business plans and actually teach leaders how to sustain trust, excitement and passion? Beyond the managers, it seems that most of consulting models demand and propogate a pendulum like swing between success and failure. Separated from the true feelings and interests of the mass of employees, this little dance must surely lead to the slow death of enthusiasm and engagement.

Day 6: The prepared mind

Seeing Tom is always a lift to the spirit. And a great reminder of the power of communication to prepare the sensorial matrix into which an experience is delivered. We spoke quite a bit about Frédéric Brochet's famous wine tasting experiments. Building on yesterday's theme, the power of expectation absolutely determines value. It is simply impossible to remove your past experiences from the way you understand and process the present moment. Even the parts of the brain that are engaged in deciphering a taste or touch sensation will be different depending on what you expect. 


Tom's point was that if we are talking about a values proposition, what people value will be determined by what they expect. Crafting a values proposition becomes a process of expectation engagement.



In the 80's and 90's mission and vision statements were all the vogue, as a proxy for organizational expectations. In this era of social media and new ways of listening to "the chatter" it should be easier to close the loop in a more dynamic way. The boundaries of what you consider to be the company have also become more permeable. This HBR blog makes a nice point that social media success depends on purpose. Isn't it time this purpose became more explicit both inside and outside the organization? 

Day 5: Analogy drag

What we are good at, is what we tend to do, which makes us better at it and so the story goes. Enough has been said about the 10000 hour rule. The cost of this specialization seems to be less well known. As Michael Michalko (what is it with the Michael's?) says: "People who know more see less, and people who know less, see more."
As always the Germans have such a wonderful word for this: "Fachblind".. blinded by your subject or even better "fachidiot" and idiot who sees everything through one lens.

The stronger our mental models are that have in the past successfully explained the world to us, the stronger they influence how we accept and process new information. Ultimately this makes us blind to evolutionary shifts and disruptive newcomers.
A wonderful perspective that makes the new Booz study on innovation doubly interesting. In "Why culture is key" they unpack how an innovation culture trumps R&D for driving business growth and new product success. It seems that companies that place more emphasis on everyone being delighted and surprised by the world out there, do better than the ones who overly rely on "the experts in R&D." I suppose this is also why people are so slow to adopt new ideas; the analogy drag of our established mental models, ego props and securities hold us back and down like excess ballast.

(Talking of analogy, kudos to IDEO. I think Booz have made a wonderful adaptation of your "Desirability/Viability/Feasibility" model by calling it "Need seekers/Market readers/Technology drivers.")

How I read this is that a company is a community of people, gathered around a common intent (which may or may not be clear to everyone (-: ). The more distributed the responsibility of being alive and curious on the job is, the more vital and profitable the company will be. Where people become alienated from their curiosity (and search and discovery is left to "experts"), a company falls behind in serving its purpose.

Day 4: 7 Billion

So in the run of the day, the number of people alive on planet earth reached 7 billion. This number amazes me when I look back and realize that the number was almost half that when I was born. That means walking down the same street there would be only half as many people. Every second person I pass would not exist (or perhaps I would be the other half).

When I was born the total number of people who had been alive, up till that point, had maybe been 7 billion. So in one instant we are now living every dream, every hope and aspiration that had only 40 years ago taken over 40 000 years to accumulate. We are propelled into a new world not only by the speed of our technologies but also by the size of our expectation. All those new lives need to be filled with meaning.

Does the logarithmic scale indicate an imminent crash? According to Chris Goodall we have already passed some kind of tipping point. In an interesting paradox, the UK is now using the lowest amount of "stuff" since data started being catalogues in 1970. Since the 80's the consumption of everything from raw energy to flat pack furniture has been in steady decline, in spite of population growth. Does this mean we can shape a future where we are satisfied with less? And what will fill the void created by an insatiable consumer society?

Today I started a week long course where the youngest person is 20 and the oldest person is 65. That places me pretty much in the middle of the span of expectations. Each one learning the same skill but taking it into a different world. The student as a way to earn money to support her studies, the pensioner to connect to friends and maintain an active social life. Everyone of us is stepping into a multi-stream life where you are not defined by the one career choice you make, but by how you decide to spend your time with others. I suppose the onslaught of slashies (writer/consultant/party organizer). By taking responsibility for your own contentment (and not outsourcing it to an HR department), we may actually be happier by consuming less.

How are companies preparing for this mobile work force that won't be defined by a simple career ladder, driving to a set destination? How are companies connecting with the real things people value, and their ability to create value through these passions?

Day 3: The evolution of a comb over

Somewhere between 1945 and 1946 Picasso got rid of the comb over and the difference is startling. It seems that by letting go of the frail and thinning stylistic shelter he was somehow released and free to be more playful. At least that is the story I took from the exhibit.
Just as striking as this transformation is the presence of play in his life. Ever the clown one sees Picasso play acting with his statues in the making. A clay baby is cuddled and offered to friends to hold. Bruce Mau talks about how he uses laughter: as a barometer of how comfortable they are at expressing themselves in the studio. When people laugh they are confident enough to be a little vulnerable. It becomes easy to be themselves. When I was at adidas I was always struck by how the top athletes would always turn photo shoots into a game. Haile had to strike the cross on the studio floor just right with his stride and wasn't happy if it wasn't so, Kobe needed to show off with the most ridiculous shot he could do. People at the top of their game seem to relish in what they do. You really have to love what you do to be the best in the world. Steve Jobs knew this, and I suspect just about everyone does by now, so why do so many people ignore this?

A lot has been written about the use of play in the creative process and its importance to work. I wonder if there isn't more to Bruce Mau's assertion, that play and laughter could be used as signs of organizational vitality. Every person has a limited amount of energy. Doesn't it stand to reason that when that energy is not being channeled into protecting a fragile ego, where all efforts are not focused on protecting an image of yourself, more energy will be channeled into new ideas and productive contributions? Perhaps there is more to Picasso letting go of the comb over than meets the eye...