The Why
109
paged,page-template,page-template-blog-large-image-whole-post,page-template-blog-large-image-whole-post-php,page,page-id-109,wp-custom-logo,paged-4,page-paged-4,bridge-core-2.9.7,qode-page-transition-enabled,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,boxed,,qode-title-hidden,qode_grid_1300,footer_responsive_adv,qode-content-sidebar-responsive,qode-theme-ver-28.1,qode-theme-bridge,qode_header_in_grid,elementor-default,elementor-kit-423

Our culture mythologises creativity while, simultaneously, putting up barriers which prevent people from reaching their creative potential.

As much as “innovation” has been put on a pedestal, enshrined in corporate vision statements and funded by private, state and transnational investors, most companies still do the thing they have always done, in the way they have always done it. We keep hanging on to the coattails of the status quo, for good psychological reasons – fear of failure, various biases – but also because most people, most of the time, do not really understand the direct connection between business innovation, imagination and creativity.

We applaud the achievements of star artists, musicians, designers, architects but that is as far as our appreciation, and our understanding of creativity usually go. The process is reduced to admiration of talent and awards for spectacular success. Creativity is for the chosen few. With talent. And special abilities. It’s just not a thing for average people. Right? Wrong.

We celebrate creativity and applaud the achievements of those star artists, designers and entrepreneurs, but when it comes down to it we accept the new and exciting only once it has been well tested by others.

In the meantime, instead of trying the untried, dreaming up the new, we continue to attend fabulous events and reading blog posts by thought leaders, who continue to tell us that innovation is a good thing, and we must all do it. Yay! It really is like putting lipstick on a pig.

It’s a wonderful idiom “putting lipstick on a pig.” Trying to make something that is too difficult and too ugly seem better by pretending that if you put gloss on it, you’ve done the hard work. Lots of effort, lots of shine, but practically no real effect.

Somehow, putting lipstick on the pig has become the central activity to such a degree that we no longer see the pig, just the lipstick.

If a business is to survive the next five years and then thrive for the subsequent decade, assuming it is in an industry that has a future and that it is run by competent professionals, it has to draw on the collective creativity of all of its people, and all of its customers. It has to see fishing in this collective pool of ideas as a strategic asset, not a thing you do on team building weekends. Can you remember the last time when you spent a week working on something completely new, doing things in ways which were different from the usual ways of doing things, connecting with people outside of your normal circle of colleagues?

Creativity is in part about connecting what is in our heads with ideas from “the edge” and seeing patterns and linkages which may not be apparent to anybody else at the time.

What is required are ways to release the inherent creativity of your people and a system which builds on people’s natural strengths by centering on the psychology of individuals and groups. It needs to be simple in its fundamentals, and a “natural” thing to run. The point of innovation thinking is to allow people in your organisation to have insights about what can be done better, with a system in place to inspire them to do so, collect those insights when they come, and work with them.

Creative professionals have very real value to the business world just beyond that boundary line where art and commerce ordinarily meet.

The value which creative professionals can bring to the table, in addition to providing their specialised services, is in assisting executives in being able to look into the future and to train their people to work in this quickened, confusing, rapidly changing digitally transformed context that surrounds us. Creative professionals can answer the call when someone asks “take me, where I haven’t been.”

Creativity is not about finding new ways to put lipstick on a pig but about ways to make the pig a better pig.

This is the reason why I do what I do – or rather a number or reasons, all pulling in the same direction.

This text is an edited version of a talk I have given several times at conferences large and small, including gatherings of hundreds of bankers, and a dozen or so telecommunication executives. The message is always the same – to innovate you need new ideas, to get new ideas you need people and places you do not necessarily meet or see every day, and the best people here are artists and creatives of all kinds.

On Monday, March 23, 2020, Boma Global’s network of partners around the World staged a rolling 24-hour Global Virtual Summit to energise multidisciplinary conversation about COVID19 and its broad context. By the end, hundreds of thousands of viewers from 152 countries would see the transmission. This is how it came together. 

Half way through the combined Japan / Germany session of the Boma Global Virtual Summit, Marconi Pereira saw what he had been dreading for more than a week– a blank window on the Boma Global website where the live stream should have been. This was only the second session of the Summit, the programme was streaming just fine on Facebook, but the Boma Global website was buckling under the load.

An experienced engineer and SysAdmin, Pereira struggled with the server for an hour, increasing the performance specs of the system and testing it repeatedly. It kept failing under the steadily growing demand. Finally, he migrated the website to a dedicated server with five times the performance specs of the original and adjusted the configuration to be more elastic and responsive. That worked. The stream flickered into life. It would continue to work flawlessly through the rest of the 24-hour transmission.

Pereira could only smile to himself. “In the run-up to the Summit, there had been indications that the transmission would be popular but we had not anticipated a 6300% increase in traffic.”

Ten days of intense effort of some seventy people in twelve countries around the World had come to fruition. Expert speakers from over twenty countries were sharing their knowledge and wisdom on not just the disease itself but also its broader context and likely consequences. Pereira, sitting in front of the computers in his Porto apartment and feeling a mixture of relief and anxiety, watched a global experiment finally proceed as planned. So far so good. Twenty hours to go.

Only twelve days earlier, the global virtual summit appeared as an idea during one of the regular Zoom calls attended by the Boma network’s country partners. Michel Levy-Provençal, Boma co-founder and the leader of the French team, pushed to get full team buy in: “We absolutely have to do this, to prove to ourselves and the World that it can be done, and it can be done well.” He did not have to push very hard. In what has been typical Boma fashion, inception of the idea was followed by several very quick declarations of “we’re in, of course” coming from teams spread across the globe.

Of course we would embark on creating a high-quality show of continuous programming, interviewing experts in a dozen time zones, and orgnising it from a cold start, in under two weeks, working from our homes. What else would we be doing, stuck inside, “social-distancing”?

What we had not known was that we would also be testing a fundamental concept behind Boma itself —  whether we could build on a tribal bond we had formed around the core ideas of excellence, reliance on scientific enquiry, sharing, social cohesion and common, if loosely defined, goals. Pereira had a word for this organising principle — the Portuguese portmanteau caórdigo; organised chaos.

Boma had been set up as a distributed network, called into being by Lara Stein, who eleven years earlier had founded TEDx for TED and grown it to a global phenomenon. She then grew Singularity U’s global outreach for some years and still managed to find time to increase the impact of the Women’s March. Stein had founded Boma with three experienced TEDx organisers, who were soon joined by others from that extensive global community. From the outset, the network’s distributed nature had been seen as a great strength by all the partners but we had not had an opportunity to test it at scale. Now that chance was here, provided by a terrible global crisis which was unfolding faster than anybody could make sense of it.

Kaila Colbin, the New Zealand Country Partner and a Boma co-founder, had remarked during an all-hands meeting “We have been preparing for this for two years.” Someone else countered “actually, we have been preparing for this for eleven years”, referring to the length of time many of the Boma Country Partners had known each other.

For Stein, the Summit would be yet another proof that great collective power would come from letting go of centralised control. She had seen it in her other global projects and it was about to happen again. On the Saturday, right before the Summit, she wrote in the team’s general Slack channel: 

“I woke up this morning and realized, on March 23, 11 years ago I officially launched TEDx, with TEDxUSC. Something strangely poetic about the fact this Summit is happening on March 23rd.”

On Monday night New Zealand time, organising teams from twelve countries were sitting in front their laptops and monitors — separated by distance, but united by technology and a common trust in the process. We had worked around the clock and now the show was rolling, proving that the official name for our modus operandi, a “global network of local partners” was not a hollow phrase but a name derivative of its function of being real, credible and useful.
Work stations set up at our homes had been adjusted, relying in part on experience, and in part on improvisation. With the rest of the French team stuck in their various Paris apartments, Levy-Provençal was working alone from a house which he and his wife had bought not much more than a year before as a quiet place to spend weekends, some 100 km from the capital. Now he and his family were hunkered down there in self-imposed isolation, and in their living room he had set up a makeshift studio, complete with a green screen.

In Berlin, head of Boma Germany and the fourth Boma Global co-founder Stephan Balzer closed himself off in his walk-in wardrobe, the only place where his new-born baby might not suddenly, and loudly, make its presence known. In São Paolo, Juliana Elorza had considered using her son’s bedroom, where one of the walls had the exact colour needed for an effective green screen effect but finally decided in favour of her usual work station. A true Brazilian, glamorous even with limited resources, she set up two lamps either side of her laptop, and covered them with shoe bags, to diffuse the harsh light.

In Warsaw, Boma Poland partner Filiberto Amati was looking after the team’s technology. For him, as for many people in the network, the major challenge had been not so much in preparing the Summit in ten days but rather doing it while simultaneously home-schooling three highly energetic children. For Pereira, the challenge was similar: “Lockdown started just as we were beginning this project. Luckily, we had put in a 200 Mbit fibreoptic, and beefed up the wifi as my wife works remotely and I provide the tech support, while studying for my Master’s degree. We managed to set up game licenses and consoles ahead of the lockdown so our boys, 17, 16 and ten years old, would only kill each other virtually. Counterstrike would take some of their energy.”

When India’s session began, the analytics dashboard on one of Pereira’s screens immediately demonstrated the validity of his earlier decision to go to a dedicated server. “All graphs went into a straight vertical climb. India pulverised every other country’s viewership.” Now we were humming. During the French session which followed Poland’s and preceded his own, Pereira sent a Slack message on the global channel: “Guys, this is the pilot. The plane is now flying steadily and we’re not expecting any turbulence.” With that, he turned to the Portugal / Kenya session ahead of him. He had been up since 5 a.m. and would remain at his computer till 4 a.m. the following morning.

Two and a half hours later, Juliana Elorza had meditated, taken a long shower, and eaten a light meal. She sat down, ready to moderate the Brazil session, and her concerns ran not so much to anything going wrong with the technology but rather to a worry attached to what had been going in São Paolo. Since the previous Tuesday, Brazilians in towns and cities of the country had been staging nightly protests, bashing pot and pans to express their anger at the country’s president’s mishandling of the coronavirus crisis. This panelaço was scheduled to go off again at half past eight — right in the middle of the Brazil session. Still, if that happens, she thought, we will just talk about it, share it with the audience. After all, that is our reality.

Elorza settled in, with her three-year- old pug Nico napping in her lap. (Since pugs have a tendency to snore, she laid out a supply of dog treats out of the camera’s view, and muted her microphone.) She watched as the speakers one by one entered Zoom’s Green Room, where everyone’s audio settings would be adjusted, and visuals checked before being directed to the live room. By then this procedure, common to all teams, was polished and smooth, or so she thought.

On the hour, Marco Brandao, running tech support from his house in Rio de Janeiro at the other end of the country, invited the speakers into the live conference room, and Elorza began to introduce the first guest. Within seconds, she realised she was speaking into a void. The speaker had somehow not made it into the live conference.

Not everything always runs according to plan at a live event, and in the real world speakers have been known to end up not only in the wrong room, but in the wrong conference. As it turned out, a speaker could lose his way even in a virtual environment, if anything, underscoring the newness of this way of working for all participants. With the Brazilian audience tuned in, Elorza went on to introduce another speaker instead. “I told them, he’d just gone to answer an urgent phone call. Not that far from reality, really, given how crazy busy all those people have been.”

Finding speakers is never an easy job, and as experienced event organisers most Boma Partners are painfully aware of this fact. The need to balance contents and form is always present, with no allowance to skimp on either if you want consistently high quality. Since public speaking is frequently mistaken for merely speaking in public, outwardly impressive but ultimately vacuous speakers with not much to say are easy to find, while highly knowledgeable people who can present that knowledge to a roomful of strangers are rare gold to any event organiser. This is even more true in an online event, for the simple reason that we all are just learning the ropes in this new virtual, yet very real reality.

It had been a scramble to fill the programme with what would end a roster of some sixty multidisciplinary professionals, high-profile scientists and technologists, policy and public health experts, artists, bloggers and many others. Country teams chose a range of formats and approaches in the process, and every session eventually took on a life of its own even as the development of the content progressed. New Zealand’s segment would be a freewheeling moderated public discussion with two scientists approachable and personable enough to fill the two hours with engaging, informative conversation. Poland’s choice, from the beginning, had been to not have medical professionals on the show but rather to concentrate on addressing the urgent question of “what comes after” and speaking with a total of eight people, among them a policy professional from Warsaw, an English distance learning expert, American travels bloggers based in Berlin  and an Italian investor.

Todd Porter in Japan and Stephan Balzer in Germany, working in tandem, filled their two hours with a diverse international line-up to highlight collaborative action around the planet. France would present a range of public administration professionals and scientists.

Canada’s Jess Weisz and Dan Jacob planned to pick up many threads of discussion with a large range of speakers, and weave it into a cohesive whole from a highly personal perspective. In China the team led by Ellen Cheng and Yvonne Li took on the difficult task of drawing out individual experiences from a wide range of different people, while in the US, Daniel Kraft placed the emphasis on high-profile individuals able to present scientific and technological perspectives. In India, Puja Puja and Deep Bali would create a conversation around mental health and well-being during and after the crisis.

Portugal’s segment would serve as a particularly instructive example of our way of working. It started out as a conversation around hacking the crisis with technologists and bio hackers, but eight days out several team members around the World remarked on a gaping hole in the programme — we needed more Africa voices. Pereira agreed and after several fruitless approaches, called Stephanie Busari, a CNN anchor from Nigeria, while Lara Stein contacted several people around the continent, including Nivi Sharma, an internet infrastructure entrepreneur in Kenya. “You have 12 hours to find speakers” they told them on Friday. Remarkably, Busari and Sharma delivered, and a four-speaker Portugal session became a shared Portugal / Kenya session with eight speakers, including drummer and singer Mouthoni, though their final run of the show would only be ready by Sunday, leaving little time for preparation.

Whether going through “official channels”, fishing out existing contacts from their address books, or pulling favours from friends and acquaintances, everyone filled their desired speaking slots with people of impressive substance, and were rewarded with speakers freely sharing their knowledge. The speakers, too, took away useful insights of the value of working with professionals from other fields. One epidemiologist, initially not convinced about why he should take part at all, eventually enthusiastically commented on how valuable and refreshing it had been to talk to an economist on the show.

This, of course, reflected one of the deeper reasons why Boma exists at all, and that is to help people and organisations to smash intellectual and professional silos. Multidisciplinary collaboration is important at any time, but really shines in a moment of crisis.

Boma’s Head of Global Partnerships Becca Pace, put it most succinctly: “This was a global conversation which needed to happen. Closing of borders and nationalistic tendencies will not help — viruses do not respect borders, and this problem will not be contained till it’s eradicated. We need deep, ongoing collaboration.”

As the 23rd neared, the multitude of Slack channels built up to a steady 24-hour hum of conversation, filled with information, editorial ideas, notices of rehearsals and, particularly appreciated, news of successful partnerships or particularly impressive speakers snared, in the Winning channel. To Deep Bali, this all seemed like “a distributed New York Philharmonic, with people taking turns as conductors and as performers.” Bali was the latest addition to the Boma global network, and found his head was spinning at the sheer energy and commitment of the team members. “I would see a Slack message come up in the middle of my afternoon and realise that people were texting at 2 a.m. their time. The passion, or rather obsession, with the desire to get this done made the air crackle with energy. And that passion was infectious, if you pardon the expression. We were getting commitments from some truly extraordinary speakers, who could sense that this was something they needed to be part of, even if they could not fathom how we were putting it all together, aligned and synchronised across the time zones.”

Key to this synchronisation, of course, lay in investing as much time as possible in preparation. Every successful event is built on a foundation of weeks and months of pre-work, including coaching speakers in order to draw out their best, and hone the clarity of their delivery, but how much preparation could we put in when people who had been working their entire careers towards exactly the kind of moment were expending all of their time and energy on helping patients to not die?

So, since we could not fully control the preparation of the speakers we had to be fully prepared ourselves. That meant repeated technical run-throughs and rehearsals with support from the Zoom and Facebook technical teams — and that level of close collaboration was new territory even to them. We ran multiple rehearsals for different geographic areas, with regional Zoom reps answering a multitude of detailed questions. Trouble was, of course, each answer would usually generate two or more new questions. By the Saturday, at the end of one last session of practicing hand-overs between the Polish, French and Portuguese teams, we thought we had practiced enough to be able to not make a total dog’s breakfast of the Summit. We were ready.

In the end, albeit with minor technical glitches, it worked. Mutual trust made it possible for this distributed network of motivated individuals to deliver a complex project, on zero budget, within a time frame that stretched the definition of “agile.” This was a good example of the sharp distinction which organisational theorist Karl Weick had drawn some decades ago, between heedful action and habitual performance. Heedful, because the team’s attentiveness to the goal, the details, and each-other, provided the fulcrum of thought and energy around which the entire project revolved.

We will need all of that heedful attentiveness going forward. Traditionally, or as are now coming to call it, in the BV era (not hard to guess that this stands for Before Virus), most money in corporate events had been in private label productions, and many of the various Boma teams around the World had made some or most of their revenue from those. This has now been thoroughly disrupted.

Speaking a week after the Summit, and immediately following a successful live streamed discussion which he had just concluded, Michel Levy-Provençal reflected on the frugality with which we were now living. BV, staging such a live stream would have cost thousands of Euros, and taken days of preparation. Instead, the discussion which ran on the French Huffington Post site to an audience of over 14,000 viewers, had taken four hours of his time and cost nothing.

Of course, it also made nothing. If we are to remain a sustainable, relevant voice, we need to find new methods of generating income for our team members or our ability to fulfil our proclaimed mission of facilitating intelligent debate and helping to find solutions to really big problems will be short-lived. Still, “we did impact the World” as Marconi Pereira said to me when I spoke to him in the course of working on this article.

Yes we did. And we will do it again, soon.

In this three-part interview I talk to Mark Krawczynski, Polish/Australian architect best known for turning the Sydney Opera House into an actual Opera House 😉 (you’ll have to watch it to find out the details.) The main thrust of the interview, however, as the title would suggest, was sustainable architecture, and in particular Mark’s energy-positive building designs collectively known as Elemental Flow Towers.

WATCH the interview on YouTube

“The extraordinary speed and the unsettling complexity / ambiguity of the online business environment, profoundly affects not only leadership requirements but also other key managerial processes, including communication, decision making, and vision.”

Michael Brown and Dennis Gioia, in an article in The Leadership Quarterly “Making things click: Distributive leadership in an online division of an offline organization” contributed a sharply defined image of just how challenging it has become to lead a company in these times, saying that “two contextual features, the extraordinary speed and the unsettling complexity / ambiguity of the online business environment, profoundly affected not only leadership requirements but also other key managerial processes, including communication, decision making, and vision.” They wrote that in 2002. We are now at a point fifteen years later, when those processes have become more complex and more rapid. We are building our future reality at high speed. In 1965, pioneer of information technology and inventor of the word “automation” John Diebold said in an interview in the New York Times: “Today’s machines, even more than the devices of the Industrial Revolution, are creating a whole new environment for mankind and a whole new way of life.” What would he say today? Incidentally, the word “automaton” denoting self-powered devices or systems – “engines that move themselves by springs and wheels as doth a watch” – was coined by the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes some three hundred and fifty years earlier… People have been considering these things for a long time.

An innovation programme which organically grows out of the structure of the organisation is going to work far better than innovation that is an artificial patch slapped on from the outside. Innovation thinking cannot be deployed, it needs to be cultivated – and for this to happen, it needs to be fully embraced by the top brass. The leaders need to decide on a course that rests fully on the principles of innovation thinking, including general approval for the uncertain processes of trial and error. Once that happens, you will need that network of dynamic, creative people who will serve as Ambassadors of Innovation, working to build such an innovation programme right into the bones of the company.

The mistake made by many innovation consultants and their clients is to treat innovation as a sort of add-on feature. This rarely works because a company, even at its etymological level, is a group of people and in order for innovation thinking to take root, introduction and fostering of it need to follow human behaviour patterns to the deepest levels. Choreographer Twyla Tharp, in her book The Collaborative Habit, talking about how she works with dance companies as teams of individuals, describes this very point beautifully: “Outside of the dance world, this individual attention is not understood – or noticed. You see a company of dancers performing in sync. What you don’t see is that the choreographer doesn’t train a company, but rather twenty-five individuals. Out of many collaborations comes one.”

Enlightened leaders realise that their people need permission and inspiration to access their creative resources. They also realise that those resources are their best – sometimes only – weapon in the struggle against companies and teams which are more aggressive in adopting innovative practices, have faster decision making processes and embrace creative thinking as a fundamental strategic value. Companies are therefore hungry for intellectual stimulus and their leaders are searching for new ways to provide it. This against a background of time pressures and shareholders demanding ever increasing dividends. All the while, there is continuing disagreement over the practical differences between innovation and creativity. Let’s not get into that scrap, since you cannot have the former without the latter and it is the mechanisms and outcomes of both that concern us here. It is interesting to consider this briefly, however, in the context of language and its power. I have a sneaking suspicion that the discussion over definitions and relative merits of both frequently ensues, without either creativity or innovation taking place. As is often the case, we will argue over semantics without getting on with the stuff that is a lot more difficult: actually doing it. Language has a hold over logic, is incredibly important, yet in so many business circumstances we take it absolutely for granted. Other than legal documents, and even those can suffer from imprecision and sloppiness, we often are careless or at least not careful with the language we use.

A post on the Boma Global blog:

The Medici knew how to get the maximum value from their artists – by working with them, and not just commissioning their works. Commissioning by itself is, of course, a wonderful thing. It keeps artists fed and watered; the patrons are satisfied with how their support is translated into creating beautiful, meaningful objects; and the critics and dealers get their wheels greased. However, that is just the beginning of what the relationship between business and the Arts could look like. 

Working Artfully: How Art Can Help Your Business

READ MORE on the Boma Global site

Boma Global has taken off. From a standing start, we are now in eight countries and can expect to be growing fast and making an impact worldwide over the coming years.

Boma is a format and content company. We are a global network of local partners and deliver value through executive education, public and in-company events, long-term engagement programmes and community building. We work with business leaders, public administration professionals, entrepreneurs & young people so that in a world of continuous, dramatic change we all can be more intentional and intelligent about the future.

I will be contributing blog posts to both the global site and the Polish site, and posting the links on this blog so they’re easy to find.

The Digital Economy Lab at the University of Warsaw is a research unit responsible for some very valuable work in that space where business and digital technology intersect. Their report “Wsparcie dla przemysłu 4.0 w Polsce” (in Polish) deals with the fundamentals of that ecosystem in the country. I contributed several quotes in the course of a workshop we held at the Lab as part of the research.

https://przemyslprzyszlosci.gov.pl/phavi/at/upl/2019/0325/0301-fppp-badanie-dojrzalos-ci-firm.pdf

Our team was one of the first outside of the US to grab the idea of creating a “mini-TED” of our own – I think we were event number 59 in the World. Since then well over twenty thousand of such gatherings, big and small, have taken place all over the globe, and we have contributed our annual flagship event TEDxWarsaw, and numerous others, including the first ever TEDx inside the seat of a head of state, the TEDxWarsawPresidentialPalace in 2014.

Part an excuse to talk to fascinating people, part an experiment in making sure volunteer teamwork is beneficial and enjoyable to everyone on the team, TEDxWarsaw was an important part of life for many tens of team members for over a decade. After a hiatus, the event is back as at 2021 – though I’m now what’s called Curator Emeritus 🙂

For the benefit of those who are still running events such as ours, here are some thoughts on what worked, and how to make sure it does for you, too. This was written following our very first TEDxWarsaw, held at Warsaw University’s Old Library in March 2010.

This is a long post. I thought I could break it up but then thought the better of it. If you are organising a TEDx event — or any other small conference with people speaking and presenting — this is for you, and I’m hoping it contains enough information to carry you to the end of the piece, so read on.

More important than anything else is to pick a good team. It is entirely possible to arrange everything yourself but it will take a lot longer and the results will not be as good as they could be otherwise, so don’t try it. To a degree the team may self-select, with passionates getting in touch with you as soon as you receive your license confirmation. Let it happen, even if — or actually especially if — they seem too young, too inexperienced, too whatever. Trust me on this. Far better to have someone passionate and enthusiastic driving forward than to try and convince a reluctant “experienced pro” to put their weight behind the project. Of course, the ideal would be to have both and at TEDxWarsaw we were fortunate to have a great mix of skills and levels of experience. Passion to get it done to the highest possible standard needs to be the underlying force and it goes without saying that excellence is a starting point and not a goal to be reached. Team leaders listen up: if you want several months of intensive leadership training then putting together a TEDx event is one of the best ways to get this 🙂

The three critical areas in terms of putting together a successful event are choice of speakers, choice of venue and choice of participants. Get these three mostly right and any whizz-bang technology or award-winning stage design (as nice as they are) will only add to an already outstanding event. Get one of them wrong and there is little that technology or design will be able to do to compensate. How to go about choosing the participants is covered elsewhere on the Net so here I’ll concentrate on the other two points.

The quality of speakers is the single most important aspect of the day, and the single easiest to get wrong. Selection of speakers needs to begin months before the day. Make lists, put out a call for suggestions and pick someone appropriate and, preferably, experienced in dealing with a large number of fragile egos, and have them manage the speaker selection. That does not mean one person can, or should, do all of the work. It means speakers, and team, need clarity in terms of who is responsible for what — which of course goes for all the other roles to which people will need to be assigned. (I threatened the team that if it were left up to me then the entire schedule would be filled with feminists and jazz musicians and I was only half-kidding. It’s important to have several voices making decisions on whom to include and whom to leave out, for all the best reasons of variety, scheduling and ‘flow’ as well as on the simple basis of their presentation and speaking skills.) Make up a list of likely speakers, follow up, cull, discuss within your core team, make a decision, then repeat the process.

Speakers will likely fall into one of three categories:
1 — happy to contribute, “where do I sign up?”
2 — socially-minded and happy to contribute with a little explanation
3 — primadonnas.
Needless to say, the last category is best left to itself since pushing a reluctant primadonna up a hill with a pointy stick is not something we usually have a lot of time for. Leave them to their primadonnaness. Their loss, not yours.

Have a couple more speakers lined up than you think your schedule can accommodate, and don’t “lock in” the speakers’ roster publicly till a few days out since someone will probably remember a wedding they’d committed to attending or get confirmation for that long-awaited lecture tour abroad. Conversely, keep the schedule as fluid as possible for as long as possible since excellent speakers will appear at the last moment and one of your afternoon speakers will desperately need to moved to the first morning session.

Communicate with your audience as frequently as you can. Whenever you have something to say, good, bad, or indifferent, post it, blog it and tweet about it. Train your audience to head for your website once or twice a week to get the latest lowdown. Following the same logic, announce speakers in batches instead of waiting for the last moment to announce everyone. Each speaker will have their own band of friends or followers who will do much of the publicity for you. Work with your speakers, prompt them to tweet or blog as soon as the are confirmed. Make the announcements using every channel available — do not assume that everyone reads your Twitter stream or your Facebook updates. Use every means you have to get the information out there, and make sure all team members are doing the same to get the news out to your entire social graph and to build buzz. Before, during, and after the day keep pushing speakers (and other, of course) to blog, tweet and generally talk about it. After a while, the conversation will build up momentum and volume. Check out some of our tweets — it’s all about keeping up a steady level of energy…

Assuming that your event is a general interest conference rather than one concentrating on a specific range of subjects, then hugely important to its success will be a good balance and mix of disciplines, approaches and levels of expertise of the speakers. At TEDxWarsaw we had several PhDs as well as some very young speakers, just starting out in their careers or fields of study. This allowed us to cater to our broad audience in terms of both a range of subjects as well as emotional identification with the speakers. It worked well.

In order to build your programme you need to make up a day schedule as early as possible (as a spreadsheet or database), complete with the number of minutes everyone gets. Allow for two minutes between speakers and follow the TED guidelines as to the length of sessions and breaks between them. We had a very full, and exhausting, schedule of over twenty speakers and a dozen TED talks or so. By the end of the day everyone was spent but elated.

How to help your speakers reach their best is covered elsewhere, not least in TED’s own materials as well as the TEDx wiki which is available for licensees, so I will skip those subjects. A word on presentations, however: give yourself twice as much time to correct all of the speakers’ presentations as you think you will need, then keep hounding them relentlessly. Once the speaker has agreed to participate, they are subject to the same rules as everyone else. This includes handing over much of their creative and technical control over the presentation to the team. For most speakers this will be a relief! Even experienced professionals are often at a loss as to present their ideas succinctly. If at all possible you should have a highly trained graphic designer on hand to fix up most of the presentations. In some case this will mean starting from scratch… Such is life.

All presentations need to have a uniform title slide with the speaker’s name in the selected house style. In our case we decided to draw direct on the design vocabulary of TED, with Helvetica in two weights, no spacing between words, and so on. Study this aspect of the project. A little extra effort pays off on the screen. Not enough effort takes down an otherwise excellent day by a peg or two. That’s the unfortunate reality.

As early as possible create a written document with as much information and ‘pointing the way’ for your speakers as you have to hand. Update it regularly and send it to each speaker as they are confirmed. Other documents that you will find useful will be a questionnaire which you send to speakers following the initial approach, and a call sheet / schedule of the day, to make sure everyone knows precisely when they’re on. Some speakers may ask you to put them in before or after others in order to get extra synergies from the talks playing off each-other. Go with it if the schedule allows it. Cool things will happen.

A few more bullet points:

Find musicians who will amaze the audience. Our accordion and cello duet was truly astonishing, and I’ve heard a lot of music in my day.

Challenge the audience at every step — with the choice of speakers and their ideas. Showing up at a TEDx event should not leave the participants luke-warm. If they’re merely politely grateful, you have not done your job. They should either love it, or strongly disagree.

Mix disciplines. We had a monk, a nationally known actress and a horse whisperer among our speakers, and they were fantastic.

Open and finish with the strongest speakers.

Allow plenty of time for screening of TED talks and discussion between the live sessions. The whole point of doing this is to get people talking.

If you are not able to pin down someone you particularly want, keep in touch with them and make sure they know about the next event. Timing may be on your side then.

The venue needs to follow the Goldilocks principle and be “just right” for the event. That means the first thing you have to do is to figure out what kind of even you want to stage. In our case, being the first in the country plus staging it in the capital city we figured it was only fitting to do something fairly large and well produced. That, naturally, meant a venue with appropriate capacity and facilities. At TEDxWarsaw we are fortunate to have the unstinting support of the University of Warsaw who has provided a large and comfortable auditorium, with adjacent spaces, and an industrial strength internet connection. At the other end of the scale, if you are producing a TEDx for your local community an auditorium such as ours would be entirely inappropriate — a school hall, community centre, art gallery etc. would work far better. Pick a venue that is easy to get to on public transport, has decent parking nearby for those arriving by car, is easy to find (a major thing to get right since the majority of people will not have been to it before) and is close to a restaurant or lunch bar, if you are doing an all-day event but are not providing sustenance. People will need to eat, drink and then, naturally, find somewhere to take care of the other end of that process 😉

You will probably screw something up. We did. Not a major thing but we’d thought we sent out about a dozen invitations too many and were worried people might not find a seat if they did show up, so we recalled the invitations and offered a full apology. As it happened, we learned that you need to overbook by 10% anyway since even those who have confirmed will show up late or not at all. So this would not have been an issue, had they shown up.

Technical advice on projectors, cameras, audio gear and all those other bits of technology we come to reply on can easily be found elsewhere so I won’t double up on that subject here. Here, however, are some of the software tools we have used:

File sharing: DropBox — a file sharing utility well integrated into your desktop; a fundamental necessity for sharing files with the team without emailing them

Information management: Spreadsheets — you can use Google Docs of course, very simple to set up and run. We happened to save in Excel format though I open spreadsheets in Numbers and a lot of team members use Open Office.

Presentations: all of the presentations received in PowerPoint or other formats were corrected in Keynote, then exported as pdf to preserve typeface integrity

Communications: Skype for VOIP, Gabble for instant messaging

So much of what passes for “innovation” is essentially stuck on the same tracks as ever — merely doing more of the same, just faster or cheaper. That is not quite enough, any more, given that radical new solutions are required in virtually every area of commerce and culture. Yet, the very phrase “radical innovation” causes many to feel a definite chill down the spine. It need not be so scary.

At its core, an effective innovation programme is about balancing the absolute uncertainties of the new with the perceived certainties of the established. Its main aim must be to identify potential value and place it within the context of what the organisation ought to do right now so as to be able to capture that value in the future. Value in terms of not just money but also, to name just a few possible items, ease of recruitment of high quality people, cost reduction and ‘good karma’ of sustainable practices, lowered customer churn, and so on. Ultimately, many of those translate into ROI of money earned or saved, but it is important to not artificially limit the scope of the ideas which, we hope, will be generated. Innovation is the natural outcome of putting the right building blocks together. The building blocks are the right people, the right mindspace and the right tools and spaces — both physical and virtual.Without those building blocks, it has little chance of finding traction on the inside, making it very difficult to find traction for products and services on the outside.

People:

If you allow a group of change agents to emerge, give them training and responsibility, autonomy and challenge, you will be creating conditions for innovation to arise.

Mindspace:

If you start from a position of encouraging curiosity and rewarding learning by trial and error (which some writers have termed “failearning”) you will be conditioning your people to open up their thought processes and step beyond short-term thinking, which means that innovation has the right mental background from which to arise.

Tools and spaces:

If you devote some physical real estate to spaces designed to promote group creative processes, you will be building an “architecture of possibility” (a phrase now often used) where innovation cannot help but arise. In a post-COVID world this may seem verging on impossible, yet the need for such spaces — real or virtual — is more urgent than ever. (And I suspect, with waning demand for standard issue “office real estate”, these types of innovation spaces will pop up with increasing frequency, both within companies and outside of them.)

The place where you want to end up is where innovating is as much a natural part of your business operations as planning and execution. Each business which wishes to still be in business by this time next decade, has to cultivate such an internal culture of innovation thinking. Unfortunately, this state of being still remains something of a theory for most companies, even post-COVID.Innovation is about the needs of clients, the process of satisfying those needs, and the pressure to compete in order to get there quickly. It is never just about the enabling tools but rather about overcoming groupthink, reducing delaying tactics and changing ingrained habits. It is often enabled by technology but is rarely solely about the technology.

The tools change constantly but the process continues, and the pressure to compete remains. This is against a background of our, human, natural tendency to seek order and simple explanations, while the world and everything in it is complex, and getting more so. Combine this with the desire for smooth social interaction and for phenomena to fit into existing patterns, and we can see where groupthink can easily sneak in. Add stress to the mix, and you can almost guarantee that things will go pear-shaped. For example, stress-induced groupthink has been attributed as one of the main factors behind the 1986 Challenger disaster, with team members putting higher value on consensus than on prudent dissent. Total focus on a goal at the expense of systems thinking and ongoing critical appraisal of the situation — have you seen it before?

Delaying is also seen as a rational tactic by many companies — “let’s just see how things pan out.” So is sticking to a very narrow view of what may constitute innovation. In a July 2014 article, a team of three researchers described a sobering, if unsurprising, discovery. Titled “Managers Reject Ideas Customers Want”, the article carried one key message: companies continue to turn out what they see as feasible products and services, and then wave their marketing magic wands to try and make people buy those products and services. “It makes sense that companies would be attracted to feasible ideas, but we found strong evidence that they are not what customers want” said one of the researchers, Jennifer Mueller.

Company leaders, for good psychological reasons, like to believe that they are being innovative when, in fact, they are choosing to make achievable products and services instead. Unfortunately, this is a slippery slide towards being disrupted by competitors who perceive the playing field altogether differently and ignore all the rules.

Seeing innovation as either a miracle pill or attractive bunting does nothing to fix the deep lack of innovative thinking which is required in every company which was not “born digital.” Pretend innovation may “make the people feel better for a while” — I have had this very sentence said to me by a client, so I am not making this up — but it gets the company not an inch closer to actual innovation thinking. If anything, it gets it further away, since the play-acting at innovation may be actually taken for real innovation, leaving no room, or perceived need, for any actual innovation to take root. Lipstick on a pig. Digital transformation, that context which envelops all business activity now, whether business leaders are aware of it or not, is both the threat, and the opportunity which must govern how you see your business.

The “sudden” and “unprecedented” river of change in which we are swimming is anything but sudden and unprecedented. The only thing that has changed is the pace of the flow.

“Capitalism is the midst of an epochal transformation from its previous model to a new one based on creativity and knowledge.” So reads the opening sentence of the 2015 Global Creativity Index, produced for the Rotman School of Management by a team headed up by the well-known urban studies theorist Richard Florida. We may argue the finer details, and Florida’s ideas have had their fair share of criticism, but the larger point made by the writers is the connection between creativity and “sustainable prosperity.” The Index invariably makes interesting reading in its entirety, but its key message can be summarised in one simple bullet point: countries which rank highly in the Global Creativity Index, report high levels of entrepreneurial activity, and their GDP and standards of living consistently outperform other countries. Creativity, however we care to define it, is good for business.

The greatest paradox about creativity is that it is at once immensely difficult and childishly easy. It is difficult because the process is usually riddled with self-doubt, its fundamental building material is patience, and its milestones are consecutive failures, each often greater than the last. There is no creativity without trying and failing, and trying again. It is easy because we are all inherently creative. Not in the sense of Leonardo-creative, but possessing the impulse to seek out new ideas. Whether it is planning a mission to Mars or putting together a team to tackle a stubborn production line problem, we are endlessly curious and eager to find new solutions. There is also, of course a caveat — being inherent in all of us, does not at all make it simple.

Coming from the world of creative industries and technology startups I hold a particular set of views about the value of creativity, placing it at the foundation level as the sine qua non of modern business. But I also have a clear understanding of just how difficult it is to continue to come up with good, valuable ideas. I’ve written about it many times, including this recent piece. It is hard enough to do when the problem is known. When the problem is fuzzy, the circumstances changeable and you have no clear idea of how to even start, it becomes really difficult.

Ultimately, creativity is about opening up your mind enough to make new connections between new stuff and the stuff you already know. Other processes are responsible for the sorting and application of any good ideas which may come up — filtering, selecting, adjusting and finally using them — but creativity is about swimming in the sea of possibility and catching any waves that come at us. Rather than any quaint ideas of “being creative” it has to do with self-confidence, however riddled with self-doubt it may be. It is also about inventing new tools along the way; tools which include new language — this is a process which is happening all the time.

Enlightened business leaders realise that their people need help and inspiration to access their creative resources. They also realise that accessing those resources is their best weapon in the competitive struggle against teams which have shown themselves as more effective in adopting innovative practices, or who have had a head start. Unlocking creative resources is the key to faster decision making, deeper and more varied sources of new ideas for products and services, and a higher level of employee morale. Companies are therefore hungry for intellectual stimulus and their leaders are searching for new ways to provide it.

Let me celebrate the act of creating language by giving you a present, to help us out in defining the things with which we will be working.

Virtually all books on innovation talk about it being a process of answering questions, solving problems, facing challenges. Naturally, that is so, except this is language which forces definitions on the meanings of words we use. You have a question? You are not complete without an answer. You have a problem? Then a solution is what you seek! You see a challenge before you? Best gird up your loins, stand up straight and look it in the eye. All very harsh, brittle, and demanding response that is precise, immediate and, above all, correct. Which is precisely the polar opposite of what you need by way of mindset when climbing the snaking, rough path towards Mount Innovation, especially in a time when uncertainty and volatility are the only predictable qualities of our new-found reality.

What you need is flexibility and imagination, patience and urgency in equal measures, a new set of skills, and a will to pursue goals which can only become clear once you get nearer to them. If it sounds more like a quest than pursuit of clear-eyed business objectives, that is because it is. Innovation, at its core, demands that you set out for a destination whose location is uncertain, and on the way invent tools and methods to help you get there. It therefore requires a whole new word to describe the thing that you are doing. A new word that doesn’t carry the gut-wrenching expectation of a question, the dread of a challenge, or the uncertainty of a problem.

So here is a present for you — a new word for a new era — there is such a word, and it is quproch. You haven’t heard of it? I’m not surprised. I made it up a couple of years ago as part of a long series of workshops on creative thinking which I delivered for a large e-commerce firm. It is a portmanteau of QUestion PROblem and CHallenge. It contains all three, but has none of the negative connotations or the demanding presence of any of them, since it is a neutral neologism. We can use it to describe “the thing you’re working on now.”

Quproch. There you go. You’re most welcome. By all means, go ahead and invent your own words to help you in arriving at elegant solutions to complex problems.

The father of strategic management, Igor Ansoff, saw identification of weak signals and appropriate response to them as key components of strategy. Coming from a perspective of analysis (he was, after all, a mathematician) he defined a pattern to such identification and response. The essential realisation here is that “sudden” changes are actually not sudden, and there are usually warnings to heed. The five steps are sometimes combined, but the basic sequence is the same: 

  1. To begin with, we somehow “get a feeling” about a threat or opportunity. 
  2. On sensing it we investigate it and possibly locate the source of the signal. 
  3. On considering the signal we form an opinion about its vector (speed and direction) and its essential nature, then formulate responses and consider different scenarios.
  4. After some time, possible outcomes may become clear, at which point… 
  5. …we can reformulate our strategy. 

Since Ansoff, the idea of weak signals (a term which he coined, incidentally) has waxed and waned in relative importance being given to it by management thinkers and professionals. Over the last few years, foresight practitioners have been emphasising just how crucial detection and analysis of weak signals really is, since it’s precisely at the point of still being weak that emerging threats and possibilities offer us the highest chance for appropriate strategic action. Our current predicament of needing to deal with numerous vectors of change coming at us from different directions all at the same time makes it imperative that we rapidly tune up our weak signal antennae and put in place appropriate rapid response mechanisms. Management practice in the main, however, still requires people to put “clear-cut” arguments and “watertight” cases before the board. Fear is the driving principle, instead of curiosity. Terror of being wrong overshadows, and then kills, any possibility of being right early. Hear that? That was the sound of another opportunity biting the dust.

A major shift in management logic is required – broadening the horizon of what is taught and practiced, to include consideration of weak signals. This is rather difficult, given our roots in the empirical tradition and a business logic which demands rational decisions based on facts.

The point of this shift, however, is not to throw out existing modes of management but to augment them; to enrich and fortify them with approaches and tools more suited to today’s fast pace. It is clear that listening to weak signals, analysing them and acting on insights thus gained should be a course taught at every business school, but it is not. MBA courses continue to flood the executive market place with high quality experts in planning and optimisation, while what we need is vision and imagination. There are, of course, also many examples of leaders who tuned into weak signals and made decisions accordingly, resulting in big wins for their companies. Unfortunately for established enterprises, however, most of those leaders are steering aggressive digitally-enabled startups, and they are coming for you. Very soon, managing exclusively from a perspective of hallowed orthodoxy will become a museum relic and an example of what not to do. The zone of what is possible lies beyond what you know.

There are companies that have implemented similar programmes to great effect. IBM’s “Crow’s Nest” system for listening to weak signals coming in along the periphery of the business and sharing them with top brass is focused on four specific areas, which they call zones: globalisation, networks, customer diversity and time compression. Your own business environment will govern what those listening areas ought to be for you. Identifying them will be a starting point for the process of setting up a proper “early warning system.”

Working with artists and creative professionals can help. In Understanding Media, Marshall McLuhan wrote: “The power of the arts to anticipate future social and technological developments, by a generation or more, has long been recognised. This concept of the arts as prophetic, contrasts with the popular idea of them as mere self-expression.” He was very precise in his evaluation of art as a weathervane for the future: “I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it.” Among the many other writers who have voiced similar ideas is the poet and consultant (he is both, really) David Whyte, who echoed this in his book The Heart Aroused: “A good artist, it is often said, is fifty to a hundred years ahead of their time. The artist must depict this new world before all the evidence is in. Leaders must learn the same artistic discipline, they must learn to respond or conceive of something that will move in the same direction in which the World is moving, without waiting for all the evidence to appear on their desks. To wait for all the evidence is to finally recognize it through a competitor’s product.”

Business loves to measure results since measuring is an exact science (if you measure the right things,) and business loves exact science, however the need to combine science with other tools is desperately urgent. Learning to see through complexity and to read ambiguous signals is not a science. It is an art, and as such it can best be learned from artists.

/READ this post on LinkedIn