A Dog’s Brexit – or why you don’t give students a vote on homework

Watching the fall out from the 2016 Brexit vote has been met with increasing alarm and bewilderment. No matter what side of the debate you are on.

The increasingly entrenched tribal views of each side of the Brexit question have added to the mess. No one is listening anymore. Hard, extreme core groups are facing off against each other, making it hard to see a sensible way forward or any palatable compromise that can get passed by the UK parliament that is also acceptable to the 27 EU member nations, and that also honours the ‘Leave’ result of 3 years ago.

At this stage, no one knows what the end result will be. At the time of writing almost anything is possible: from a no deal crash out of the EU, to a managed exit with some kind of deal, to a long delay, to a total change of mind and remaining in the EU.

The poor British public are losing the will to live – they are either saying “get on with Brexit!” or “for goodness sake, stop this Brexit madness!”

It’s an extremely complex issue, as global and regional trade, business and politics are intertwined in all kinds of ways. Hundreds of thousands of companies in Europe rely (and have been built up on) free movement of goods, people and services over the past 45 years, and to rip that up is very destabilising.

Even more so, when those businesses have no idea what the final outcome of all this wrangling will be. Uncertainty is the greatest killer of business.

What happens to the millions of Europeans who have settled in the EU, and those Brits who have done likewise in Europe? What happens at the Northern Ireland/Irish border, and what implications does this have for the 1998 peace deal (‘The Good Friday Agreement’)? What about Gibraltar?

It is for these precise reasons  – and many more – that a complex issue such as Britain’s membership of the EU should never have been boiled down to such a simplistic choice of Leave or Remain in 2016.

Lunatics taking over the asylum

It’s akin to asking school students whether they would like to ban homework or not.

I bet if you held that vote in pretty much any school, it would come down on the side of ‘Leave’.

“We want to take our lives back!” you could hear the Leaver camp scream. “It’s a golden, new future that awaits us – we can do this!” they would argue. “Imagine all the time you would have now to do those other things you can do, like social media, listening to music and going to parties?!”

Sounds like much more fun. I am sure it would get up. It’s easy to bash things that are difficult to understand. Even easier if you want to stick it to those in power.

No doubt there’d some some brave souls arguing the benefits of remaining with homework, the educational benefits, the long term lessons it teaches in working independently, solving problems yourself and solidifying your understanding. The study skills it teaches. The self reliance. The confidence. The feedback on learning it provides.

But they’d be drowned out by the leave populists. Why not try it? What’s to lose?

On the Leave side, there may even be some arguing against homework stating its adverse impacts on education, how only the richest kids have nice study areas at home and how divisive this is. And how mean it is to set homework which some students can’t complete. But mostly, the Leave arguments would be based on emotion, not facts.

“I don’t really accept your alleged ‘facts’ about the benefits of homework,” a Leave proponent would say, “I am more interested in how homework makes students feel.”

And so, when it comes down to it, on polling day, a majority vote to ban homework. Great celebrations ensue. The lazies love it. They can’t quite believe it.

But it’s not long before issues start to take hold.

So we’ve voted against homework, does that mean all work done at home is banned (Hard Leave) or just that teachers can’t set and grade homework (Soft)? It was not all that clear. Leave meant different things to different people.

Parents and teachers bemoan a further dumbing down of an entire generation of students, and the results the school can deliver. The older students are only a year out from uni anyway so aren’t as bothered. It’s the youngest ones that will suffer.

The implication of banning bright, studious pupils from doing work at home is becoming hard to implement. There’s a back lash against the vote, and the decision to even hold it in the first place.

(It was only held to appease a noisy hard core of teachers who had had enough of marking homework. The head teacher had been pressured to hold a ‘put up or shut up’ in or out vote. That head teacher has since resigned and the much-harangued successor is now feeling duty bound to follow through on the decision.)

A mass exodus of families starts as they move out of the school catchment area, selling their houses and buying in other suburbs where the local schools still have homework. House prices fall around the school.

Sounds crazy right?

The Real Politic

Politicians are elected to make decisions in a representative democracy.

This means they represent their constituents and make decisions on behalf of the people. It’s why they are there. They don’t go back to their people every time they have a decision to make. The public have their own lives to live, and differ among themselves anyway.

Politicians are then held to account at the ballot box every few years. They make the decisions and vote on behalf of the people, for what they believe is in their best interests.

The referendum was flawed from the outset. Even leavers could not agree on (nor know) what they were leaving for, and how that would be arranged. No one is happy. One lesson from the mess is not to ask a simple question to a complex issue; especially if those answering it have little idea of the long term consequences, or understand what’s good for them.

~~

Photo by Deeana Creates from Pexels

Advertisements

Learning startups at uni… what a blooming great idea!

Now in its second year, UWA showcased its Launchpad graduates – which gives participants full six credits for any undergrad course at the university – at an annual pitch night…

They never had uni courses like this in my day‘ – is what almost every audience member over the age of 25 was probably thinking, as they watched the nine graduating teams from UWA’s Launchpad unit pitch on Monday night.

Not only that, most people were also thinking ‘I wish they’d had‘. And ‘what a great idea‘.

Yes, it’s true. A 13-week course, with mentors and guest speakers, took enrolled students through all the main stages of ideation, lean canvas model, customer problem, market validation, key metrics, channels, the pitch and reflection, culminating in a pitch night.

FUTURE LEADERS: Graduates from ‘Launchpad’ – UWA’s startup unit

KPMG consultant Graeme Sheard and Bloom Lab co-leader Jack Hallam put the students through their paces in a 3-hour workshop every Monday, with weekly assignments including blogging and business plan development.

It’s the only university in WA to offer such a course, and in a fitting conclusion, the final pitch night at Bloom showcased all 9 businesses, before a panel of judges, which included visiting Professor  Martin Katz from the University of Denver (Colorado, another hotbed of startups).

Last year, Humm Tech went through the program, and they were on hand, via video link to wish the graduates well. As reported a few months ago on, Humm are now based in San Francisco.

CLEVER CUPPA: Easy Brew’s drip coffee solution for adventurers

The startups this year were a real mixture, with five of the nine having a social enterprise angle, and four being educational.

The businesses ranged from a neat little coffee capsule for making a great cuppa in the outback to story telling cooking classes to help better understand different cultures to a program to help Year 12 students find their true purpose.

After much deliberation, the judges gave the pitch contest to Charlotte Pennel from ‘Mother & Bride’, who in a pitch perfect performance, explained how her new wedding planning web service works. Yes, she got married earlier this year – and found the process of the wedding planning a pain – and yes, her mother is also in the business. And she already has four weddings booked up on her platform.

Honourable mentions were given to the team from ‘I Can and Will Do’ (educational resources for rural kids in Cambodia), ‘EnviroVend’ (vending machine to replenish food and staples, to reduce plastic) and ‘Pay It Forward’ (an app that allows you to gift a meal to a homeless person).

All great ideas, and some real potential businesses here. Plus, another unit ticked off at uni. How good is that?!

~~

MAIN IMAGE: Charlotte Pennel pitching her ‘Mother & Bride’ startup

This article first appeared on Startup News.

Leadership means leading, not turning a blind eye

A leader asks not commands, says ‘let’s go’ not ‘go’, develops people rather than orders people… a leader sets the tone, the culture, demonstrates the core values, which begets behaviour.

A leader can’t be everywhere, do everything. So it’s crucial that they communicate clearly what they want the organisation or team to do, what the goals are, how we are going to get there, while also listening and learning.

Perhaps their most important job is to select the best people and let them get on with it. Which does not mean you turn a blind eye to things, nor have no control. Quite the opposite.

Effective leaders know what’s going on, what’s happening, and how to judge and analyze. They walk around and listen. They engage. They are open and approachable. They ask good questions.

Bad culture

So when analyzing the recent failure of leadership among the Australian cricket team, one might ask how did it come to the point that they felt cheating was the answer?

When the “leadership group” (which seemed to be code for David Warner) decided to cheat, gets his young opening batsman colleague to cheat; when the captain asks ‘what are you two up to?’ (knowing its nefarious) and then says ‘I don’t wanna know’ then the culture has become one where winning (or the fear and perceived humiliation of losing) seems greater than the importance of playing the game within the rules.

There’s never any disgrace in playing hard and fair, and knowing you’ve done your best, yet always have things to improve on. Sometimes the opposition plays better as a team. You can’t win everything. No one does. Losing provides valuable lessons. Failure is knowing you could have performed better, and didn’t. That’s when you go away and put in the hard work.

Events like we have seen recently are not one off isolated incidents. It’s the result of a build up of an organizational and team culture. Many have argued that it stems from a humiliating defeat in Nov 2016 in Hobart against South Africa. Incidents and issues have grown since. The snarling and sledging have been on the rise.

Pushing the line between right and wrong, bending the rules as far as they can go, to get an edge, means that, unchecked, an event like this becomes inevitable.

When the leadership is so bereft of ideas that they resort to cheating to turn around a game, then the leadership has given up on leading.

Reap what you sow

And so the leaders and those directly involved have been stepped down. National disgrace has resulted. Tears of shame have been shed. The public humiliation has perhaps been far worse than losing a game of cricket. They have lost lucrative overseas contracts including the riches of the IPL. They will forever be known as cheats. It’s been a very public, global story.

Something tells me they are more ashamed of being caught out, than the actual things they did. This speaks volumes in itself.

Naturally, there’s been a backlash from supporters and those who cannot accept the sentences handed down. Or feel it’s a bit over the top. Mainly this has come from former players. QED.

No doubt, authorities wanted to stamp down on this and be seen to do so. They had to be seen to be doing something dramatic. A 12 month ban seems harsh, except there is little international cricket in the next 6 months anyway, and so all they miss is next summer’s home internationals. They will all be available for next year’s World Cup and Ashes in England. If they’d been made to miss that as well, then perhaps you could argue it was a strong punishment. But something tells me, Cricket Australia would like to be competitive in what are the two major prizes that only come around every 4 years – a world cup and winning the Ashes in England (the latter being something they’ve not done for what will be 18 years).

‘A little cheating’ is still cheating

While part of me sympathizes with the players involved, and the situation that drove them to take this action, I am someone who firmly believes that when you know you’ve edged the balled to the keeper, you walk. In the same way if you knocked the ball to any other fielder and they caught it, you’d walk.

I was stooped in the spirit of the game being as important as the laws of the game. HOW you played the game was the appeal, as much as winning or losing. Losing graciously, and winning graciously for that matter, was a life lesson.

I think everyone would agree that you’d look a bit stupid standing your ground if you smacked the ball directly to a fielder, who caught it, so why is a little nick (that you know happened) any different? Because you might get away with the latter, that’s why.

Exactly.

Push the boundaries between fairness, justice and law and you will then look to push them a little more, and a little more. The end result is sandpaper being taken onto the ground and being used to tamper with the ball to effect that damned illusive reverse swing, and who knows what else happened in the lead up to this that we don’t know about?

To me, not walking and ball tampering are both cheating, plain and simple. You are trying to get an illegal edge over the opposition, and cheat. It’s got nothing to do with how skillful you are with bat and ball.

A little cheating is still cheating. In the same way you can’t be ‘a little pregnant’ (you are either pregnant or not) it’s no defence to say it’s just a ‘little cheating’.

I also loathe sledging (repeated personal abuse of the opposition). Let the bat and ball do the talking. If you’re not winning with that, acknowledge the opposition played better. Shake their hand and have a beer with them after the game. Then go away and learn how to get better.

Aussie cricketing friends of mine cannot fathom my belief on walking (or sledging). They never walk, and if you do walk, you are weak. It’s part of the culture.

Precisely.

~~

“The Spirit of Cricket (from the MCC)

Cricket is a game that owes much of its unique appeal to the fact that it should be played not only within its Laws but also within the Spirit of the Game.

Any action which is seen to abuse this spirit causes injury to the game itself.

The major responsibility for ensuring the spirit of fair play rests with the captains…”

(Emphasis added.)

The fake fake news debate

Rather than put up an informed debate, all you need now do is roar ‘fake news!’ at anything you don’t like. How has it come to this?

Right off the bat let’s be clear what ‘fake news‘ is. It’s pure fabrication, invention and lies dressed up as a news story. It is intended to deceive. Anyone doing rudimentary fact-checking could expose the lies fairly easily.

Two things fake news is NOT…

  1. It’s not a new phenomenon. There are examples stretching back to Roman times and before. It is said Mark Anthony killed himself due misinformation spread about him by his opponents.
  2. It’s not news you don’t like. News you don’t like may make you feel uncomfortable. That’s OK. That’s how you learn new things. But that don’t make it fake.

New vs Opinion

It’s also important to distinguish between news and opinion.

The mainstream media publishes news (well researched and balanced facts) as well as opinion pieces (the author’s viewpoint).

Basically put, anyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is entitled to their own facts.

Facts are facts.

Put it another way, opinions are cheap, facts are expensive. Facts need checking. The truth is not always obvious.

Thank goodness for real journalists. I have worked with them. I know one when I see one. I can also spot a charlatan, dressing up their opinions as facts.

When we employ journalists, we are not interested in their opinion. We are interested in consuming a well thought out, clear statement of fact. The story. The main headline, the actors involved, and how it might impact on us and others.

At the same time, we are entertained by opinion writers. We are interested in their views. They present facts, but line up an argument, usually one way or the other. We may disagree, we may be convinced, we may already concur. But we should be made to think.

In life, we need facts in order to make decisions: where and whether to buy or sell a property and what type, or whether to start or sell or invest in a certain type of business or even who to vote for… perhaps our most important act.

Fundamentally, we need to distinguish what is fact, and what is opinion. In order to trust our media organisations, on which we base these decisions, we need to be comfortable that they are telling us the truth, as best they see it.

If we are reading opinion, this needs to be clear. We need to know the difference between this and news.

Authors should also provide disclaimers if their ‘news’ story was paid for by an interest group. That makes it an advertisement, not a news story. Not even an opinion.

Writers should also declare a personal interest. If they are writing about Telstra, they should mention they own Telstra shares if they do.

Why publish fake news?

Due to the long standing ‘trust’ in our mainstream news organisations, and their behaviour hitherto (exposing lying politicians, or scandals in the Church, or whatever) we take information written about someone or some issue in an editorial context as being more powerful than advertising (that is known to be ‘paid-for’ communication).

News has the whiff of gravitas (‘it’s there in black and white‘). It has been considered considered, prudent, weighty. Certain laws exist to protect someone being libelled in the press, and news organisations are careful to check facts before committing to pushing the publish button.

So, if you can dress up biassed opinion – or even downright lies – as news, you might be able to persuade people. If a story says something bad about a politician you don’t like, it can confirm your opinion. If it’s about someone you don’t like, you may find a way to ignore it, or even attack the source.

What if that story was totally bogus? A few years ago, the self-defense mechanisms in our democracy may have corrected the situation. The media organisation could be sued, or challenged to print a retraction, or provide compensation.

Times have changed. Fundamentally, and possibly irrevocably.

Over the past decade or so, journalism has been under attack. The business model of the news media companies has been disrupted. Many editors, journalists, sub editors and photo journalists have lost their jobs. A whole industry has been run almost to ground.

Few media organisations have found “the way” forward.

Maybe NY Times (which has put on 1M+ new subscribers since the last election), Financial Times and, locally, Business News have found a way forward by persuading subscribers to pay for their news and data content through paywalls. In this way they have aligned their information with their readers.

It’s a brave path forward, but perhaps the only one if we are to protect good journalism. If people value it, they’ll pay, If they pay, the media businesses survive. Trust is paramount. If paying subscribers feel they are being dished rubbish, they’ll not pay.

By the same token, if we expect news to be free, then that’s what we’ll end up with –  opinionistas who tell us what we want to hear. I’m a blogger, after all – this is my opinion. It ain’t news!

Faced with depleting revenues, some ad-model news media have had to run sensationalist headlines to cut through and make money. It’s a race to the bottom. Clickbait. A mug’s game. They are failing. It’s not the way forward. (In my opinion!)

Meanwhile, people get their news in all kinds of ways, many of them highly dubious. Few of them are actual news organisations.

Taking advantage of the situation

Among all this maelstrom you have politicians who now seem to get away with telling lies, knowingly, for effect. (‘He/she tell sit like it is. Says what we’re thinking.‘) I’m not going to name them, but you can guess to whom this refers.

[By the way, since when should we only listen to people who tell us what we are thinking? What’s the blooming point of that?!!]

Debate has now been dumbed down to Twitter rants and trolling. Sound bytes. Pre-staged photo opps and ‘door stops’. Lies, exposed fairly quickly by an exasperated media, are ignored as the entertainment moves on to the next distraction. No one takes responsibility, and political discourse has been damaged.

Worse still, our democracy is weakened. For if the people cannot gauge easily what is fact and what is plainly made up, as it whizzes past them on their Facebook feed (which itself is manipulated based on what you already like to see) then those same people can’t make informed decisions. People get elected on lies. And worse, the worst people could get elected to high office.

How should we respond?

The media has to call lies out, shine the light and expose lies when they are there. It’s their job, in a democracy, to do so. They speak truth to power. They clarify and explain.

But that’s not enoogh. They also have do a better job of getting people to pay for news. To subscribe. To make the case for this. And we, the consumers, need to front up and pay. Yes, I know you can get free news anywhere, but in the same way you have to pay for your shoes, food, water and shelter, you need to pay for your news.

The alternative? We’re living it everyday.

I’d prefer ‘power to the people’. Which is literally what the Greek word ‘democracy’ means.

Take it from Eddie Izzard – Quality is more important than Speed

Over the break I read Eddie Izzard’s excellent ‘Believe Me, a memoir of love, death and jazz chickens‘. Bill Gates, of all people, had recommended it as a top read, and I thought ‘now why would a serious bloke like Mr Gates be into the autobiography of an English cross-dressing comedian?’

Then I reached page 306, which I quote from heavily below.

Eddie Izzard was born a year before me, and was packed off to an English  private boarding school aged 6 after his mother died suddenly of cancer. He grew up with the same TV shows and music as I remember from the early 70s, and went to uni around the same time (although he dropped out to pursue his dream of performing).

As a teenager, while still at school, he decided one day to take a bus and a pay a visit – uninvited – to Pinewood Studios, just west of London (where they made James Bond movies and the like) walking right through the side door and exploring around all day pretending to be busy and part of things.

During his ‘lost decade’ of the 1980s he took various failed shows up to Edinburgh Fringe, then spent a few years as a street performer before finally getting into stand up. He explored and created, and slowly honed his craft. He put on shows himself, producing them from scratch and co-writing inventive nonsense with friends. Most of it simply did not work, but slowly he found his own voice and style and confidence and audience.

From the 1990s his stand up act took off and then he made it into films and TV. Now, in his mid 50s, looking back, his advice for creating new business is crystal clear …

“When I was 25, the direction of my career suddenly became shaped by my ‘Field of Dreams’ rule – if you build it, they will come. ‘It’ being quality and imaginative shows.

“Previously, this had not been my thinking. Quality was not high on my list. Speed was. But who the hell cares if you get somewhere fast? The only person who cares is you. 

“If you could get somewhere faster, then you’d just have a lot of money, a big house, a fast car and a big cat. The individual is the one who wants to get somewhere quickly. It’s what you want when you’re young. At nineteen I thought I would begin to cut through within a few years, but this was not the case. At 25 I was racing to get somewhere fast but getting nowhere.

“So I turned the plan upside down: don’t get somewhere as fast as possible. Get somewhere as good as possible.

“No one ever says, ‘This piece of creative work is crap, but it was made in a couple of weeks, so let’s go check it out.’ Contrariwise, no one ever says, ‘Now, this piece of creative work took 10 years to make and a lot of care and attention – so I must check it out because it took so long to make.’

“There is something fun about a fast trajectory, someone’s career taking off quickly. It’s all about the wind in their sails. But in the end, you want your work to last. And to do that, your work must be good…

“(My career) took 12 years to appear, and to me it felt like a bloody eternity… there was something I had to learn. It was stamina. And it was also the idea of quality over speed.

There is an eternal truth in this passage.

Do your best work, not your quickest work. It might take time. In fact, if you’re doing something new, wacky and disruptive, it will definitely take time. More time than you’d like. But in the end, only the best work wins. Keep plugging away, find your audience, keep innovating.

This experience and advice has obvious crossover to business and particularly startups. I think I can see why Bill Gates admires Mr Izzard.

Giving

“We make a living by what we get. We make a life by what we give.” ~ Winston Churchill

I trust your Christmas was fine and dandy, spent relaxing and  re-energising, in the company of good friends and family.

When you get to a certain age, Christmas is less exciting than when you were a child. Yet it’s a wonderful time nonetheless: the time to rest after a long year, time when you can de-stress, sit back and put your feet up, read a book, down a nice bottle of wine in good company, crank up the barbie, get some odd jobs done, go places you’ve put off going to for months, walk the dog a few more times, go to an outdoor cinema, catch up with friends, watch some Big Bash, dip in the pool and laze at the beach. It’s pretty idyllic this time of year in Perth. I ain’t going anywhere.

To spend Christmas with children provides a glimpse back to your own childhood, as they get as excited as ever, counting down the days til the 25th and not being able to sleep the night before.

On the day itself, I am happy to receive a few gadgets (oww, I do love me gadgets me) and a couple of books to read. My favourite bit is to watch my family open each other’s presents . We don’t go at it hammer and tongs, we try to space it out in the two hours or so between waking up and starting the preparation of the traditional roast turkey lunch.

What was different this year was that my eldest (now 16) has her own money, and organised some gifts for her brother, parents and a few friends. It was fascinating to see the joy that giving gave her. She was genuinely delighted in seeing us love what she’d bought us. She put a lot of thought into what she’d get everyone. The fact that she’d planned it all out, used her own money, wrapped and delivered it meant something to her.

Anyone can receive, but to give is far more meaningful. As children grow up into young adults and branch out into the world, they will realise that to serve others – whether it’s friends, colleagues, bosses, clients or shareholders – requires a little giving up of self and thinking about the other person. The best team mates will be selfless, as will the best leaders.

It’s a life lesson. Perhaps one of the most important to learn.

 

 

 

Change is slow, and that’s good thing

Methuselah is a 4,849-year-old Great Basin bristlecone pine tree growing high in the White Mountains of Inyo County in eastern California.

An oft-heard refrain these days is a lament “Everything’s changing so fast!” and it would be easy to sign up to this notion.

Look how we totally rely on our smartphones these days, turning to them an average of 150 times a day. It makes one wonder what we did for entertainment, news and chat pre-2007. And yet, we’ve only had them for 10 years. It’s gone in a blink of an eye.

See how Uber and Airbnb have blasted into our market, totally disrupting and changing the way we move around the city, or stay in other cities (or have total strangers to stay with us). Uber only got going in Perth in 2014, and has over 20% of the market. Airbnb launched into Australia a couple of years earlier and has upwards of 30% across Australia these days.

And yet, even these stories prove that the best changes – the ones that stick – take time.

There had been smartphones well before 2017, and phones with access to the internet had been around for a while. The best marketing the iPhone did was to announce itself as the game changer, yet even the iPhone took a while to take off. Early versions’ battery life was poor, and not everyone liked using a finger to tap on a virtual keyboard through glass. The Blackberry ruled supreme, and had a built in keyboard. This was much closer to peoples’ existing experience, which was why it was named “the crackberry”. Its devotees were obsessed by it.

The iPhone 3 was the version that took off, launched as it was with the app store in 2009. It was this moment that saw the inexorable shift to the smartphone (which  really should have been termed the ‘app phone’, as phones had been smart before – it was the apps that made them different now). The creation of the cottage industry of app makers was the true revolution, and this underpinned the smart (sorry, app) phone’s rise. Soon Samsung and Google jumped on board.

Looking deeper into the Uber and Airbnb cases you can see that they did not exactly take off as over night successes either. Launched in 2007, it took til 2011 before Airbnb would launch in multiple cities and gain traction, on the back of some serious capital raises in 2010. Likewise, Uber, founded in 2009, took a couple of years and then a major seed round in 2011 before it could launch in various jurisdictions with UberX in 2012. Indeed, Uber was not the first ride-sharing service, and they held back looking at the rulings coming out regarding the legality or otherwise of this new form of transportation. (Others could argue that ride sharing had actually been created in the early 1900s, or even the 16th century, but that’s another story.)

The history of even these wildly successful game-changing disruptors started with relatively quiet 2 or 3 years where things were far from certain. They were learning, pivoting and inching their way to the best formula. When I meet tech founders who think they’ll take off immediately with hockey stick growth I tell them the real stories of hardship, years and years of struggle, before even the best break out. Are you up for that? Founding a startup may seem glamorous when you see the gazillionares adorn magazine covers, blaze around at Burning Man or stomp across tech conference floors delivering well honed keynotes in their black t-shirts, dark blue jeans and high end trainers. But they all had hard starts, and there were many failures, mistakes, missteps and sleepless nights. It’s not all glamour, believe me.

So I would argue that change is slow. Indeed, the best ideas always grow slowly, and that’s a good thing, because things that grow slowly tend to last a long time.

Just talk to a turtle (average age 100 years) or Methuselah, a Californian bristlecone pine tree that was seeded in 2,833 BC. She ain’t pretty, but she’s still here.

Slow is good. Slow and steady wins the race. It’s hard work. It’s not very glamorous. It’s a million small things you do, day after day after day, that get you there. There is no silver bullet. And that’s a good thing.

Selling to all kinds of people

BOLT-animals

Anyone can buy things, but selling doesn’t come naturally to everyone. That’s perhaps why 97% of home owners in Western Australia use a real estate agent to sell their home. No doubt it’s also because the agents have the experience and expertise to sell houses. It’s what they do, after all. The average person only gets to sell their house (usually via an agent) every 7 years or so.

After 13 years in teaching, I ended up running my own business and was immediately thrust into the nip and tuck of direct selling. To real estate agents! It did not come naturally to me, but I found it easier if I just acted as natural as I could. I found I could actually make sales. Some days I was better than others. But at least I could do it. I learnt new things every time I tried it.

Wind on almost 20 years and I came to work with the expert sales trainer Mark Wilensky (High Mark Systems), who is based in Maryland, USA. He taught me and my team the importance of understanding who you are selling to using something called the “BOLT” personality types.

It’s gold. And it works.

There are four main personality types, says the theory, defined by how open or closed the person is, or how direct or indirect they are. Each personality needs to be approached in a different manner, if you want the best outcome. (see Diagram above.)

BOLT stands for Bulls, Owls, Lambs and Tigers, each of the four main personality types. Everyone can be a mix of a couple of these, but tend to be more dominant in one of them, and this gives us clues as to how to interact with them…

BULLS … are DIRECT/CLOSED. Typical examples: CEOs, GMs & BDMs.

They are the classic ‘Alpha Males’ (used in the non sexist generalist sense, I have experienced females who are also very alpha). There’s not a lot of subtlety here. Bulls are direct, and closed. So they don’t give away much (closed), but if they don’t like you or what you’re saying, they’ll say it to your face (direct)!

They like the bottom line, and hate time wasters. They will ask direct questions, and want straight answers with no waffle. They hate long winded answers, so give short answers and say “would you like more detail?

They like you saying “let me cut to the chase” and “here’s the big picture”. They see things in black and white, have courage and confidence, so express these qualities when you walk in. I came across a lot of Bulls in real estate, I can tell you.

OWLS … are INDIRECT/CLOSED; typical jobs include CIOs & CFOs.

Like Bulls, they are closed (so you have to do the work), but unlike bulls, are not direct with you.

They are probably thinking “how can you prove it?”. Owls want data, proof, information. They hate “most of our clients do this” (too woolly, salesy), “probably”, “most likely” and fakery. They are risk avoiders.

They like you saying “let’s walk before we can run” or “My job is to provide you with enough information so you can make an informed decision.” If you don’t know the answer, admit it. If you’re usually enthusiastic, tone it down, slow it down. Most decision-makers within the organisation will be Owls. They have direct control over the purse strings.

LAMBS … are OPEN/INDIRECT; typical jobs include librarians, nurses, social work.

Lambs avoid conflict, so they find it hard to say no. They will drag you along for ages (indirect), so you need to cut them loose early. They will do your head in with delays, and it’ll be hard to shut them up (open).

Say things like “Let me know if you’re not convinced that we are a perfect fit.” (allows them to say no). Speak slowly, as they can get intimidated easily. You need to show them how the majority will benefit – this they like.

TIGERS … are OPEN/DIRECT; and can usually be found in sales, mid managerial roles.

They have a short attention span. Meetings are fun (open), but they’ll be quickly onto the next thing (direct). Don’t throw in too much detail, or be boring. Keep it moving, entertain them.

They like “we’ll take care of the detail, so you won’t have to.” They like dreams and big wins. “What will you do with your wins?” (they’ll tell everyone).

As a general rule, people who are strongly in one personality quadrant find it difficult selling to those in a diagonally opposite quadrant; so Bulls find Lambs very frustrating, and Tigers similarly find it hard dealing with Owls, and vice versa.

How do you spot a Bull from an Owl from a Lamb or Tiger? Listen to them.

Say your person is running late to a meeting, and you’re there at their office on time waiting. You get them on the phone. Here’s what each might say…

  • BULL (Loudly) TRAFFIC’S C$#P!! BE THERE IN 5!!! … YEAH, SAME TO YOU FELLA!
  • OWL I’ve been stuck here for 17 minutes, I’ll be with you in 6 minutes, maybe 8 or so.
  • LAMB I’m sooo sorry… I feel awwwful, how terrible of me to be late, are you OK? … etc etc
  • TIGER It’s crazy bud! Heh, sorry mate, I’ll be there as soon as I can! I’ll make it up to you.

The secret is to turn off your auto-pilot (selling to everyone in the same way) and pay attention to who you are selling to. Adjust your delivery, script and manner according to the personality. Stop the patter and listen.

Oh, and know thyself. I’m a classic Owl (analytical), with a few Tiger (stage performer) tendencies.

For more on BOLT personality types:

Leading Innovation: Harvard’s Prof Linda Hill

Smart leaders are no longer casting themselves as solo visionaries, but are rather rewriting the rules of innovation, so claims Harvard Business Professor Linda Hall.

Together with a few other CEO-types, I was privileged to spend a half day with her recently in Perth courtesy of the RAC. She writes on leadership of innovation, and her central case was the recently departed Director for Technology and Innovation in Obama’s White House, Tom Kalil. Tom had the difficult job of trying to build innovation throughout the various realms of government (and of course, he was then summarily dismissed by You Know Who who then put his son in law in charge of the same project.)

Tom had to build coalitions, get funding and convince the most conservative types that change was necessary. Innovation was not an option, it was an imperative. He did this by talking to people, being open, listening. It was all on the tight time frame, as his appointment was political. But huge amounts of progress was made, and he left with a very high reputation. He spoke of creating “policy entrepreneurs” and made it acceptable (and, indeed, the norm) to have innovation in government.

Knowing that most conversations in organisations happen horizontally, he knew he had to break down silos to get communication going up and down the organisational levels.

Leading innovation requires an organisation to do two things at once:

  1. One group looks at the present (exploit) and does the best they can with the current state
  2. Another group looks at what might be, the future state (explore)

The difficulty comes, argues Professor Hill, in integrating the future with the present.

Leadership is about dealing with change, whereas management is about dealing with complexity. Leading change is the not the same as leading innovation.

Value Creators can close a ‘performance gap‘ (between where we should be and where we are), and Game Changers can close the ‘opportunity gap‘ (the different between where we could be and where we are), the moon shots. Leaders need to be game changers.

Leadership is a multi-levelled skill:

  • manage yourself ~ make yourself an instrument, have intent and impact, make an emotional connection
  • manage your network ~ build relationships, with those that can help you reach your goals
  • manage your team ~ develop those you have control over

Leadership run amok is a state where high achievement, high affiliation and power balanced people work hard, have high maintenance, but can balance all the main drivers. Great leaders unleash the powers within their teams, from where innovation comes.

Let your brain declutter – and clarity ensues

I’ve not posted for a while. In fact, last month was the first time I’d not posted anything since I started this blog over five years ago.

There are extenuating circumstances.

As some of you will know, I left my CEO job last month, and June was spent finishing off some important tasks as well as handing over to my successor. Along the way I have learned a few important lessons.

In the process of writing up hand over notes, I discovered that some of what I did I did not really need to do myself (directly), and that my delegation skills (which I thought were OK) needed some work.

It’s a bit like moving house. You find all this stuff you’ve kept over the ensuing years, and you really don’t know why you’ve kept it.

Whole drawers of drop files were thrown out. Why was I hoarding all this stuff? I rarely, if ever, opened those drop files, so what were they doing there? An important lesson learned. I also found that I did way too many tasks that really could have been palmed off to someone else. They weren’t all that time consuming, but as I’d initiated them, I’d carried on doing them, and could have hand-balled them way earlier.

I then had a week of catching up with about 18 different people (drank a lot of coffee), that I had been putting off til I had the time to do so. Then we had a family holiday in the sun.

Two weeks on, and I return to my blog, loaded with ideas. It’s amazing how the brain can get creative when you remove all the clutter from your life. All the stuff you do, and take on, because you can, but when you step back, should you really be doing it at all? It makes for a busy life, but is it as productive as it could be?

A week in the sun also helps put things into perspective. After a few days trampling through a national park, lolling on the beach or watching the sun set over a cool beer, your brain tends to do what it does so well – ideas come, and you see things with clarity. Things that annoyed you recede.

Cramming your brain with too much meaningless minutiae reduces its capacity to operate. Ever wonder why you get your best ideas in the car, or on a plane, or even on the toilet? It’s because, without the constant distraction of the bustling office, or emails or social media, the brain can breathe and function. (Life tip – don’t take the smartphone with you into the toilet.)

Paul McCartney kept a notepad by his bed, and often would wake up with a great tune, or the start of a classic song as he nodded off. He’d scribble it down, so he’d capture the thought. These days I use the virtual equivalent Evernote, which is an online app and website where I can capture all my thoughts, notes, drafts and to do lists. I can open it up anytime I think of something, and can access it from anywhere – on the plane, in the departure hall, on the platform. I’ve been making Evernote work overtime these past 2 weeks. It’s my external brain. A hard drive of information I can upload to, and download from, whenever I want.

So, to those of you in full time management and leadership roles, I would urge you to organise your day with some time for emptiness. It’s not wasted time. It will be productive, because only when you declutter your life and brain, does clarity ensue.

Photo: Sunset over Mindil Beach, Darwin ~