Maybe (finally, actually) allowing 'work smarter, not harder'

This past weekend I completed my second duathalon, a sequence of 2.2 mile run, 10 mile ride, and 3.3 mile run (and finished first in women 30 - 39, despite being at the upper limit of the range!). While on the ride I thought about how my cycling approach has changed over the last four years when I got more serious about the sport and upgraded from my mom’s ~40 year old bike. I loved riding that bike in Prospect Park, grinding away past others clipped in to more sleek operations: “Look at me working really hard on a decidedly non-fancy bike and getting a little bit further than you.” I didn’t understand how to really use the gears properly and even once I bought new equipment, I felt it was a point of pride that I was pushing up the hills on high gears while riders next to me were spinning faster. I thought they were taking the easy way out.

Fast forward a few years and I am constantly changing gears throughout my entire ride, adjusting to meet the road grade, wind conditions, and energy levels. In making things “easier” I have also made cycling more enjoyable. And I’m finishing faster laps! But it took me YEARS to really let this become my default mode of cycling. Trying to prove that I could ride on harder gears was not only not using my bike fully, it was pointless because no one else could see how hard I was working and I was getting too tired to ride longer distances, so it only appeared that I was a weaker rider.

I could probably now write about how I’m applying this in my day to day (”work smarter, not harder” etc etc), but really I think about the implications for career paths more broadly. There’s a deep seated Midwestern Protestant work ethic combined with years in management consulting where the feedback was to focus on constantly filling skill and resume gaps. And I do think that should be always be a part of growing and expanding your skillset, because hopefully you want to keep learning and improving. But there should also be more support for leaning into what comes easy to you. Where’s the flow, what do people come to you for, what are you curious about and would happily stay up until 2am reading research reports? That can drive success. Why go through your career always pushing on the hardest gears when you’re competing against people who have chosen or learned to lighten the resistance?

Two career books that touch on this include Designing Your Life by Bill Burnett and Dave Evans (along with their practical exercises) and Directional Living by Megan Hellerer (though it could be a 1 hour podcast). I won’t pretend I’ve figured this out for myself just yet, but to start I’m creating a list of those who I think have found or created success by leaning into their strengths and curiosity. More to come.

Returning from change

On (almost) a weekly basis I think about how I should start journaling, writing, posting, getting my thoughts on paper and putting them out in the world. And for the last several (many) years, I haven’t. But in the midst of several impending changes in my household, I’m giving myself an ultimatum to write for 30 minutes each week. Not even everyday! It won’t be super polished and it may not always be insightful, but I want to run an experiment with loose rules.

A topic I’ve been thinking about for a while - the August to September transition, one traditionally holding the back to school jitters and excitement. As an adult I still get that fresh feeling, like it’s time to come back from summer and show off a tan (though I’m now a SPF fiend), new shoes (still looking for them), and be ready to discuss all the assigned summer reading (I really should join a book club!). The last few years I’ve gone through some fairly large transitions in the August <> September corridor, which makes me wonder if others do as well.

In September 2020 my boyfriend of a year and I packed up our apartments, put everything in storage, and drove across the country to live in Palm Springs for several months, not knowing quite what our plan was after that. I was eager for change; being in New York (and Brooklyn especially) during the height of Covid was more emotionally draining than we realized and we needed to get out. Leaving for a brand new state, landscape, and potential future together was exhilarating and scary and felt full of potential. The trip was extended by another year and a half, with several months in Santa Fe and an engagement to round out our Southwest experiment.

We got married in 2022, moved back to Brooklyn full time, then found out in August of that year we were pregnant, something which happened much faster than expected. I think I was surprised by how quickly the calculus changed, but also by how slowly the news took to truly set in.

A year later I went back to work at the end of summer 2023, with an underlying feeling that I was rejoining classmates and diving back into subjects both familiar and brand new. There was also a sense that I had to prove that becoming a mother didn’t change the way in which I would approach or perform work. Of course that was ridiculous. I rolled into autumn with a new identity that I wasn’t quite sure how to embrace, particularly in the workplace.

Now we’re once again in September and there are a number of changes on the horizon, forced and voluntary. The dissolution of a promising M&A deal, a new job search, a new nanny. After a slower summer I’m gearing up to embrace the whirlwind and force some changes for myself. Hence, this post! The start of a new habit. And away we go.

The inherent tension of a shift from generalists to specialists

Earlier this week a former career coach (Tara Nesser, LevelUp) posted about the lack of training companies provide to employees who are moving into people manager roles. As one becomes less responsible for their own individual work, and more responsible for other's results and execution, it can be hard to divorce from the sense of purpose and pride that individual ownership provides. I certainly experienced that as I moved from analyst to engagement manager in the consulting world. It's hard to step back from being hands on.

 This need to delegate, or rather, pass on ownership to others has come up for me recently at the startup where I work. Though now almost six years old, we have grown the team size at a modest and concerted pace, giving (or requiring) individuals the opportunity to wear multiple hats, and extend their responsibility and impact beyond their stated job title. For many, this was exciting and they grew to expect the heavy plate of duties. Not that it was always welcome, and not that it always made sense - as VP of Operations I have done everything from lead VC pitches to write social media copy and recreate our Sales collateral. But by being involved in multiple streams of work, there is a sense of feeling needed by many, and that can feel good.

 Now we are ramping up for ambitious goals and future fundraising, and starting to hire both more people and more specialists. Over the last few months I have been leading efforts to stand up net-new teams as well as roles that were largely filling gaps in Product, People, and Marketing. As we've started onboarding these new hires, an underlying tension has started to peak through the cracks. Company veterans (which I define as tenures of over a year) have been told to either transition work or are not included in future efforts for projects they had helped get off the ground. This is done with the best of intentions, but I've now also seen that it can feel like a slight (we don't need you for this anymore), or it takes a team member away from the stretch work they may have found more interesting than their 'real' role.

 We have an opportunity to ease this transition. As a company grows, it should hire people for specific roles and move away from having a team full of generalists playing multiple roles. So we need to perhaps be more ceremonious in the shift - recognize and name the efforts of coworkers who have been carrying the heavy load, acknowledge how far they brought something along while operating outside of their domain. And then make sure the work they are turning back to is just as fulfilling, that there is a different sense of feeling needed by others. Being constantly busy and pulled in a million directions may create a sense of importance or being needed, but we all know enough by now that this isn't healthy or productive in the long run…a topic for another post.

On not escaping corporate annoyances

It has now been almost two years since I jumped into the startup world head first, after spending 9 years in management consulting and the corporate world. It has overall been a great learning experience, and I have said many times how grateful I am to my bosses (CEO and COO) for giving me the autonomy and freedom to make my role what it is.

When I joined, I most certainly had a picture in my head of what startup life would entail. There were visions of fast product spin ups, guerilla customer testing (thanks Steve Blank), fast decision making. I would be leaving all of my big company frustrations behind. About six months in, I began to realize that startups face the same trials and tribulations as corporates. Simply being a startup doesn't mean you're going to move faster, operate efficiently, or innovate better. As an acknowledgement, or perhaps warning for those with false expectations, a few of the things I've spotted so far...

  • Fear of failure: Once a startup is a few years in, and if it has experienced moderate success, experimenting can be hard - there is only so much money, time, other resources to play with, so experiments are often seen as too risky to try in the first place. Corporates see experiments/new innovations as either a waste of time or not significant enough (eg, will this make enough of an impact to be worth it), while startups see them as a drain on resources better used against what's already known.

    • LESSON: Build specific structures to encourage teams to research opportunities, design small experiments, and report back. Set aside a small budget each year for this, to signal support for new ideas.

  • Shiny object syndrome: Chasing innovation and competitors is done in short bursts, or halfheartedly, largely due to scarcity of resources. Resource scarcity is both because of small teams spread thin, and fear of failure/inability to experiment.

    • LESSON: Set a clear annual vision and strategies that are nimble enough to change with the market, but stay true to the company’s mission. As a leadership team, discuss if the ‘shiny object’ falls under the 1 year horizon strategies, and if not, analyze the risk of not pursuing.

  • Rallying towards a vision: Employees at corporates often feel disengaged and disconnected from the company mission - you show up, clock in, and clock out (at a previous employer, people practically sprinted for the door at 5). Once early startup employees start to cycle out, and the team begins to grow at a fast clip, it becomes increasingly harder to motivate newer and younger team members. Unless you are a high profile company or extremely cutting edge, it is my opinion/experience that people join for the sake of joining a startup vs. deeply caring about the mission or product. (I am somewhat guilty of this). Leadership is caught off guard because up until that point they could be more hands off on culture, they didn’t have to rally the troops - the energy was inherent. With growth and scale comes an intense need to renew that energy…which is hard to do.

    • LESSON: Hold regular small group, cross-team meetings/focus groups to discuss what the culture of the company should be, or how to amplify what’s already working. Build a robust onboarding process that gets new team members excited from the get-go. Share growth goals with everyone, and provide progress updates on a regular basis.

  • Living in PowerPoint: Turns out PPT is not just for consultants toiling away in hotel rooms at night. I also continue to live my life in slides, producing them for Sales collateral, board meetings, partnership reviews and reporting, even internal meetings. I'm not sure if I thought that would go away at startups, but I am surprised by how much it continues to be the main form of communication.

    • LESSON: PPT will likely continue to be a CEO favorite for a while, but you can get good at writing memos and leveraging strategic design talent to create more visual storytelling for external audiences.

  • Tech debt: Yes, it is possible to have technical debt even when you are only a few years old. Blame it on engineer churn, lack of technical leadership, or perhaps it's just inevitable. It's there.

    • LESSON: Hire well from the beginning. Hire a technical leader who is also a people person. Identify the ‘rockstars’ vs. ‘superstars’ in engineering and allocate work/opportunities accordingly. Keep the non-technical leadership apprised of the true nature of things - otherwise you’re trying to solve for the tech debt while keeping others in the dark about why things aren’t working the way they expected…

Women in Business Annual Conference: Alumni Keynote

Last weekend I was asked to come back to my alma mater, Indiana University, and give the closing keynote at their annual Women in Business Conference. The theme for this year was “The Thought Unknown” - which means that it is oftentimes so much easier to claim what we aren't good at or unable to do because claiming our strengths opens us up to vulnerability. The event aimed to cultivate conversations about claiming strengths and leading with empathy to develop professionally and personally.

Writing the speech ended up taking much longer than expected, as I went through iterations to distill down to a clear and impactful message. Looking back on my 11 years of experience post-IU, I found I had learned a lot about myself and had a lot to say for someone who is also an introvert. Below is the transcript I used, and which I should likely continue to read as a reminder that things often end up working out in the end.

————

I wanted to thank Olivia and the club for this opportunity to come speak at the WIB conference - I graduated from Kelley in 2009 and credit my experience and time spent here with launching my career and setting myself up for success.

As I was thinking about what I wanted to say today, I truthfully went through several iterations. And I spent a little bit of time looking into Meg Jay and her work, since I know that was an influence for you all.

In her book, Jay talks about "The Defining Decade" and how the choices you make during this decade are much more important than you ever thought. Jay says that instead of giving advice she likes to ask her 20 something clients questions like "what is it that you want?" and "where do you want to be in ten years?" - the problem is, that is an often insanely hard question to answer - ten years ago I could have never predicted where I am today, nor that I would be happy doing it. Looking back it feels unreasonable that I was stressed about it, and unfair that adults put so much pressure on that without much help to figure it out.

At the start of this decade you haven’t actually been out in the workforce to try things out, test out your hunches. So I believe that when you are 20 you won’t know what your strengths and interests will be when you’re 25. But by the time you get to 25, you’ll have a much better idea of what those strengths and interests will be when you’re 30.

Why do I think that happens?

When you are deliberate about taking risks and exploring, you build the confidence to know what you’re good at and what you like. That’s when you get in the flow.

Let’s think about this as a metaphor: let’s say you step into a river on a paddle board. You’ve got a specific destination in mind and know you just need to paddle and stay afloat to get there. You’ll start heading down river even if you’re just sitting on the paddleboard, because there’s a current. As you gain balance you’ll start paddling and building some of your own momentum. Then you’ll see something on one side of the river that catches your eye, and you paddle over to check it out. You take a look but then realize maybe it’s not that interesting, so you get back in the main current. Next you veer off center and get stuck in some weeds for a bit. So you struggle, and after a while break free and get back to the middle of the river. By now you’re a stronger paddler and moving with, if not faster than, the current. And you actually pass by that original destination because you’re feeling good and want to see where the river takes you. And though you may stay in the middle the rest of the way, you know you can perform any number of maneuvers and get back on track.

Today I’ll share some stories from my twenties about being on that river, making deliberate choices to explore new areas, and ultimately becoming stronger and more confident in heading down this winding river of a career path.

As I mentioned, when I graduated I had a pretty clear path. And for a long time I was following that path. It was traditional, recognizable and felt important. I was going to work at Deloitte Consulting for 3-4 years, then get sponsored to go to business school, go back to Deloitte for a few years, and then by the time I was 30 I’d be moving into a more senior role in “industry.” Oh, and I’d probably meet my future husband in business school and potentially be married by 30 so I could hit that fertility peak in my early 30’s and start having kids.

Looking back at that plan now that I’m 33, overall quite a bit of that actually happened at a high level.

But there were many things I did along the way that helped me gain the confidence to make some bigger deviations from that in the past two years, most recently joining a small startup in an industry where I had zero experience, signing the offer letter less than a week after meeting the CEO.

At the time I may not have been able to tell you I was doing little experiments to discover and test out my strengths and interest areas. In fact, I actually felt bad about myself for not fully pursuing those trips to the side of the river to check out something interesting. Why was I going back to the center of this big boring river?

When I was 24 I had two friends get diagnosed with cancer. I was simultaneously struck with panic and motivation to go immediately pursue my growing interests in design and innovation. I was not happy in management consulting and I saw this news as a sign that I was meant to get out. I started researching design masters programs and decided to apply to a school in London in late winter. When I got in I was ecstatic. But as it got closer to making a matriculation decision, I wasn’t making any moves. I hadn’t thought about financing the tuition, visas, nothing. Doubt was steadily creeping in that this wasn’t the right decision - what would be my career options after? Was it a useful degree?

I was scared, nervous, sad, embarrassed to admit to myself that I wasn’t going to be pursuing this opportunity to a) study and work in innovation, b) live in London, and c) set myself up for working in the creative industry in Europe. I was nervous this was the only opportunity I would have to do those things.

The tipping point came in early June when I had to tell Deloitte whether or not I was going to apply for MBA sponsorship. Applying for GSAP, as it’s known, feels a little bit like applying to college – everyone in your start class is expected to apply, it’s a very public process. So if I didn’t apply for sponsorship, it would become clear to the entire office that I wasn’t planning to be at Deloitte much longer.

With much wringing of hands, asking advice of trusted peers, introspection, and some tears, I came to the conclusion that pursuing a MBA would set me up for many more future options. It would provide me a strong network, I would get some of it paid for, as a woman I felt particularly drawn to the idea of having a MBA should I ever have to leave the workforce. In some ways it felt like an insurance policy. Which, maybe felt boring?

So a few months after getting that acceptance letter, I sent in my decline, and then turned around to hunker down and start studying for the GMAT

In the vein of this metaphor, I had pursued what could have been a tributary, something leading me away from my original destination. I had proven I could get to the start, and it looked inviting, but ultimately too much was unknown about what happened down the line and I went back to the main river, a little crestfallen.

Fast forward to business school, and I was thinking about what I wanted to do for my summer internship. Unlike in undergrad, where I knew sophomore year what career I was going to pursue, and had my internship (and thus FT job) locked in the spring of my junior year, I was making a conscious decision to do off campus recruiting and pursue something less traditional. In a months-long exercise of telling myself “you’re doing the right thing, all the most interesting internships come in the spring!” and “don’t worry, you can always go back to consulting!” I was able to avoid giving in and applying to jobs through the career center, for the sake of safety and having something, anything locked in for the summer. As a type A Kelley grad who was used to having all of my career decisions made well in advance, it was anxiety inducing.

Come April, I did in fact see three different internship offers roll in. Venture Capital – which I had been pursuing, an ecommerce startup, and a luxury ecommerce company in Milan. That Milan opportunity really felt like it was out of the blue – they had reached out to me despite the fact I had zero experience in retail or luxury. Though I always found it alluring, I had almost dismissed it as a career because I just assumed it didn’t pay enough. Why would I take an internship in something that had zero ties to my future plans?

For one of the first times in my life I took a chance on an opportunity to pursue something just because it was interesting and unique and perhaps once in a lifetime. I was able to put aside, or perhaps ignore, the fear and anxiety that this wasn’t going to serve as a stepping stone. There’s always a way to spin a resume, right? It also wasn’t permanent. Relax Kendall! Go spend the summer in Milan.

Did I end up realizing luxury fashion was my true calling and move to Europe after graduation? No, though I did get a FT offer. Did I end up learning Italian and being swept off my feet by a native Milenese? No. Was it an often lonely and frustrating experience? For sure. But I proved to myself that I could move somewhere without knowing anyone, the language, or the industry, and be fine

I learned that not every work, educational, or personal experience has to have a predetermined purpose. It's about building that "identity capital" as Jay puts it. Something that adds value to who you are. Even almost six years later I am able to draw on that experience in both personal (cool first date story) and professional (proving 'resilience' in job interviews) situations

I had taken a little side detour on a creek by myself, had some fun, but then willingly came back to the main river, and was much better for it.

When I went back to Deloitte after graduating from business school, I networked my way into a group called Doblin, which was a small innovation and design firm Deloitte had bought while I was away at school. They were founded in the early 80’s and were using design thinking – similar to what Jess was talking about earlier – to help companies become more innovative and build innovative new business lines.

Remember back to when I thought that by not going to London for grad school I was giving up my only opportunity to pursue innovation consulting? Well, here I was after all, three years later.

It turned out that innovation consulting sat at the intersection of what I liked and what I was good at. The people were great, and largely very different from the management consultants I was used to working with.

However, despite being happy and doing well, I never made the full jump to be formally a part of, aligned to, Doblin. Even though I wasn’t planning to spend my whole career at Deloitte, I was still nervous of closing off opportunities and relinquishing my identity as a “strategy consultant.” I kept one foot on the Deloitte traditional strategy side, and one foot on the Doblin innovation side.

It was as if I was paddling down the river, feeling strong, with the Doblin team on a cool pontoon party boat floating next to me. I was asked to join the party and knew I’d fit in, but ultimately ended up staying on my paddleboard, taking some of the artisan food and drink with me as I sped out ahead of them.

Right around the time I turned 30, I joined New York Life in their corporate venture capital team. I had recruited for VC in business school and had now again decided that this was an eventual goal. I was very deliberate in how I sought out the job – I wanted to do innovation or new product development, and I had seen from Doblin that companies in financial services were willing to spend money on innovation. Within financial services, I had done work in insurance and actually found it pretty interesting. So, I decided on corporate innovation or corporate venture capital teams within insurance – both of which seemed like a good opportunity to step out of consulting, flex the innovation muscle, and work with startups. All of this would surely set me up to get into traditional venture capital.

In the year that I spent at New York Life, I learned a few things: 1) corporate venture capital is not a stepping stone into traditional VC, 2) innovation within a big company is only as successful as the CEO wants it to be, and even then, is a real uphill battle, 3) I missed my consulting colleagues. Needless to say, I feel like I spent the year banging my head against the wall.

This was one of the first times it was as if I had paddled towards what was a surefire, perhaps shortcut, to my end goal and gotten stuck. It was like a combination of shallow rapids and weeds. And what made that even more frustrating was that I was now 31 – I was supposed to have figured this stuff out now! I had made a decision on what I wanted and made what I though the right choice was to pursue it as a stepping stone. Turns out that stepping stone was instead slightly submerged rock and just ended up blocking my way. Help came in the form of the CTO, who essentially pushed me out of the weeds and back into the main current.

Once I decided to leave New York life, I also decided to leave the corporate world. In talking with others, I knew it would only get harder to get into the startup world as I got more senior. I started interviewing for consumer startups, largely in the fitness and wellness world. Think Peloton, Mirror, Bombas. Cool names with cool products, and I was getting out of insurance.

One day I was contacted by a headhunter that I knew, and he suggested I go in and talk with this real estate / insurtech startup. I told him that I wasn’t really interested in insurance stuff, but he pushed me to consider it. At that point I didn’t have anything else seriously lined up, so I went in.

I thought this was just a “meet the CEO, see what they’re about” type of deal. Instead, I ended up staying for almost three hours, met with four different people, and realized I was actually in an interview for a job I hadn’t even realized existed.

I left the office and later that afternoon the CEO emailed me and asked if I wanted to come in next week to talk about an offer. I was shocked. But also excited. Did they feel that confident about me, after only meeting for a few hours? Was this just how startups worked?

The following week I went in and ended up signing the offer a few days later. I knew nothing about real estate, had barely any time to do due diligence on the company, and had an extremely light weight job description. But surprisingly, I felt very confident in taking this leap. I realized that I was excited at the opportunity to figure it out as I went, and truly wasn’t sure what my next step would be after – but I knew that it would open a whole host of doors I didn’t previously have access to, or knew existed.

It was as if I had a destination in mind, but had paddled right on by with the comfort in realizing the river was much longer and winding than originally expected, and there were many more port cities to be discovered.

A lot of people will tell you both in college and upon graduation that you have to lean into, state your interests and goals and go pursue that. But that can be hard to do! And interests change, especially throughout your twenties. So be kind to yourself – over time you will build up the awareness.

And sometimes you have to really consider when people take notice of you and tap you for something. It could an opportunity you hadn’t seen yourself, or that you hadn’t considered for yourself. Those don’t come often and can lead you to discover new paths.

Little by little, by deliberately taking these small experiments further each time, you create the confidence that you know who you are, you know what you’re good at, you know what interests you.

The “defining decade” sounds intimidating, but I’m excited for you all and know you’ll be able to look back on it with recognition it all turned out in the end.

 

 

 

 

IU conf 2.jpg

The trappings of a successful startup team

The following HBR article focuses on what makes a successful startup team, but I would say this is true of teams outside the startup world as well. Having worked in consulting, corporate venture capital, and now at a startup, I think the importance of soft skills in addition to hard skills or industry experience cannot be underestimated. The study notes that “shared entrepreneurial passion and shared strategic vision are required to get to superior team performance,” where performance is measured by venture capital investors.

It is my experience that many in the corporate world overlook this fact when seeking out innovation from their teams. To identify new opportunities, or dream up innovative products or services, teams need to have entrepreneurial passion - whether that is inherent or fostered, oftentimes just by being given the permission to do so. At the same time, a shared vision is critical - if a team doesn’t agree on, or more often doesn’t know, the strategy of their department or the company, they run the risk of focusing on the wrong thing, never putting the full weight behind a good idea, or losing momentum because they can’t see what they are working towards. Not to mention lack of leadership buy-in because their innovation pursuits aren’t supporting broader sales/growth goals, and thus won’t be given needed/more funding.

It is very hard for anyone not at a startup to truly act like one. But that doesn’t mean certain operating principles and goals cannot be adopted. Staffing for aligned strategic visions and a shared passion can be step one.

HBR: What Makes a Successful Startup Team

Imagine it Forward with Beth Comstock

Not known for ever fully finishing business nonfiction books, I am proud to say I did finally complete Beth Comstock's book, "Imagine It Forward." And it is FABULOUS. As a young woman trying to drive innovation within a large, old, company, it was so relatable in so many ways, I found myself underlining something on almost every page. Not to mention the fact that she grew up in Winchester, Virginia, which is where my paternal grandmother - another firecracker - spent most of her youth (continuing to call it "home" after spending 60+ years in Florida).

In reading this I am also reminded of how lucky I have been in recent years, meeting people and making connections in ways often made possible by Columbia Business School. For instance, she talks about her time working with Steve Liguori (whom I had as a professor and reconnected with while at NYL), David Kidder and Eric Ries (who both guest lectured in Steve's class; David also founded Bionic, which I almost hired for work at NYL), Ben Kaufman (I attended a Quirky product pitch/vote night while in school), and Bre Pettis (I visited Makerbot's offices and sat in Bre's Delorean).

There are many great nuggets of wisdom throughout the book, but here were a few of my big takeaways, or things that most resonated:

  • "The pace of change is never going to be slower than today"

  • "Real innovators can be disagreeable; they don't require the social approval of their peers to move ahead with disruptive ideas"

  • "Developing a habit of self-permission will instill in you the belief that you are in control of your career and your life, regardless of what is going on around you"

  • "Living deep on the inside is too dark - 'what might be' is incapacitated by what's already worked. Living on the outside, however you have no influence. It is on the edge between the inside and outside where you can get things done"

The paradoxical nature of innovative cultures

In my role as the lead for a newly formed "Innovation Services" team, I have gone back and forth over the past year on understanding what can best drive innovation at a big company - culture change that bubbles up new ways of working, or building new products/services/businesses that are innovative themselves. In some ways it can feel like a chicken or egg question - can you really do one without the other? Especially in a place where there is very little executive support (vocal or explicit) for innovation, I have come to believe that as a very small team we might make a bigger impact by creating new things and then using those as proof points to show the company that it is possible to achieve interesting, better things when testing, learning, and taking risks.

In my argument I often reference an interview with Larry Keeley, co-founder of Doblin (where I formerly worked), where he notes that culture is like a cloud - if you squeeze it too hard it floats away and you've lost the ability to influence. He advocates for building innovation as a capability or competence, and that a culture will be built on the heels of that success.

To figure out how to drive the greatest impact, my team is attempting a bottoms-up and top-down strategy, focusing on both enabling employees and engaging leadership (taking our own medicine in testing and learning what works and what doesn’t in building culture and new products). A recent HBR article, "The Hard Truth About Innovative Cultures," highlights so many of the conversations, revelations, and frustrations I've experienced in the past year. An innovation culture in a corporate environment is full of paradoxes. It’s a challenge, but a rewarding one when it works out.

A few things in particular that stood out (and which may seem no-nonsense, but that makes them all the harder to implement):

  1. A tolerance for failure requires having extremely competent people

  2. Being more disciplined about killing losing projects makes it less risky to try new things

  3. If people are afraid to criticize, openly challenge superiors’ views, debate the ideas of others, and raise counterperspectives, innovation can be crushed

    1. ("To challenge too strongly is to risk looking like you’re not a team player" -> I have many times felt this way! But still continue to challenge)

  4. Innovation systems need to be able to take in information and input from a diverse set of contributors, and then do something with that data; accountability and collaboration can be complementary, and accountability can drive collaboration

  5. You need structural and cultural flatness so that people feel empowered to take actions, make decisions, and voice their opinions

    1. This requires strong leadership that can communicate goals and articulate key operating principles

Harvard Business Review: “The Hard Truth About Innovative Cultures”

Evangelizing innovation within a large company

Roughly nine months ago I started a new job, and have remarked (to myself and to others) about the ah-ha learning moments, both good and bad. In my first real foray outside of consulting, they are plentiful. One thing that has stood out is the difference in the sense of ownership at a corporation vs. professional services firm. And that is two-fold. First - in a corporate setting people feel more protective of their work and less open about sharing insights and learnings and goals. That is a broad stroke and generalization, but I come from a workplace where everyone was so busy that they were generally grateful to have others take interest and offer a helping hand in order to learn about a new subject, area, etc. I am lucky in that many at my new company have been very open to my inquiries of interest, but the culture of coffee chats and informational interviews isn't as well-ingrained in a place where you have your job laid out for the next year, compared to consulting where you are constantly interviewing for your next project.

 Second - my last role in consulting was in a small innovation and design firm that was allowed to operate somewhat autonomously within the larger mothership. We took pride in being the innovative ones, and as consultants we really saw ourselves as being the purveyors of innovation - you had to hire us to get the creative solutions. When I left, the firm was only just beginning to experiment with co-working models with client teams. Now in my new job (can it still be new nine months in?) I'm trying to tell and show employees that everyone and anyone can be innovative - it should be part of everyone's job, not just this "innovation services" team that sits off in the corporate venture arm. My team doesn't own innovation. If that were the case, there's little chance we would be able to make a scalable and lasting impact.

 So as part of this innovation evangelizing, I write a ~monthly "innovation tips and tools" blog post that is shared internally on the company intranet. I try to sneak in some more provocative things when possible, as I figure if not me, then who? Below is my most recent post, highlighting a new Freakonomics podcast series about creativity. More to come as the series progresses!

——————————————————-

In my last post, I wrote about the importance of seeking experiences and interests outside of work in order to spark new ideas and come at problems from a different angle. In the human-centered design training bootcamps my team has been running with the Customer Experience team, seeking out "creative analogies" is one of the main tactics that we offer to serve as kindling for innovation. And in my past life as an innovation consultant, we would often plan specific activities and "field trips" for clients to get out of the office and see how things work in different industries or contexts. Yet these are just a few ways of sparking creativity or innovation - how do you actually become creative?

This is a question central to a new Freakonomics series on creativity. The following quote from the first episode in the series really stood out to me because we as a company are still learning how to best think and talk about innovation within the context of NYL:

 "Creativity is possible in all realms of human activity. If we define creativity as doing something novel that works, that is valuable in some way, it’s absolutely possible in everything that humans do." - Harvard Business School professor and psychologist Teresa Amabile

Though creativity and innovation are different concepts, here I want to use them somewhat interchangeably to show that innovation can happen in small ways, in any role. You don't have to be an Artist, with a capital A, to be creative. In the same way, you don't have to be in R&D or at a startup to be innovative. Sheila Davidson mentioned this in her recent innovation interview, noting that "for employees, acting on small ideas is innovation. If a person can think of a way to do their job better or solve a problem, they should raise it with their manager." Of course, innovation in marketing will look different than innovation in accounting (where some will point to Enron and say that innovation and creativity should play no role). Even still, just last week I got an email from CB Insights highlighting seven startups that are automating accounting and helping small businesses in particular manage their businesses more efficiently and effectively. Creativity will find its way to every nook and cranny of businesses.

The actor John Hodgman draws a line between interpretive arts (following a script as an actor, or a recipe as a chef), and creative arts, which he believes occupies a higher realm. Think stand-up comics, or chefs like Ferran Adrià, who are responsible either alone or in collaboration for creating something completely new out of nothing. On the El Bulli website, where Adrià gives a history of the famous restaurant, he notes that a major turning point for his team was being told "creativity means not copying." They realized that they needed to use major cook books less, and try to find an identity of their own using both traditional and new techniques.

Here I would argue that there is and should be a place for both interpretive innovation and creative innovation at New York Life. We need to find ways to do something better while still operating within the confines of a project plan. Yet there is also a big opportunity to try something completely new - and for 2019 we encourage you to find small ways in which you can create and innovate in ways that aren't merely an interpretation of a script. Take advantage of down time towards the end of the year (hopefully you have some) and let the creative juices flow!

 Freakonomics Podcast: How to Be Creative

Post-hackathon reflections

A month ago my team held the fourth annual employee hackathon, bringing together 40 teams of almost 200 employees to solve one of three challenges posed by our new CMO, the CEO of our investments business, and the head of Ventures. The teams had 24 hours to create their solution, and then a half day of two rounds of pitches to present to judges. Coming from a non-technical company, I was impressed by the concepts the teams developed - I really had no idea what might come out of it, and I think each team showed up in force.

 However, now comes the hard part. The part where we actually do something with the concepts. Generating and sourcing creative and innovative ideas is kind of the easy part for companies. Many of our peers/competitors have talked about running idea challenges, hackathons, shark tanks, etc., which are all things we're either currently running or evaluating as part of our strategy. USAA notes that over 10,000 ideas were submitted to their Innovation Community for Enterprise in 2016, and many other companies run external-facing hackathons inviting the public to create better solutions for old problems. But what comes of those ideas, where do they go? Even a friend at Snap has complained about the lack of momentum after winning the startup's internal hackathon.

 To really start to shift the culture from what can feel (too) conservative or complacent, into one that is thirsty for change and innovation, we need to really start building things. To bring employees along on this journey and show the whole company that we can think and work and deliver in new and different ways, it's not enough to just ask them for new ideas. We should do something with those ideas, make them real. Much of the feedback we've gotten from past hackathon participants is that they loved the experience, but then felt like all the work they contributed was almost ignored as existing roadmaps and budget items took precedence over their new ideas. Which is understandable in the context of a large company that is still structured to focus on "horizon 1" priorities. And that is hopefully where my team comes in.

 One rarely reads about the details of what companies do to put innovative ideas into action, and as a former consultant we were often out of the picture after delivering our new concept recommendations. So to a certain extent, I feel like there's an opportunity to pave the path while driving down it. Do we create an internal incubation function? Is it an entrepreneur-in-residence model? How much external help will we need? It's exciting but also sometimes nerve-wracking to try to figure out what might work best in a company culture that does feel more unique.

A quick look at the hackathon experience: NYL Hack 2018

Attending SAP iO's Foundry Demo Day

Yesterday I went to a female founder demo day hosted by SAP iO's NYC-based foundry, a program that provides access to SAP APIs, technologies, and opportunities for exposure to SAP customers. The first cohort was comprised of women-led B2B enterprise startups who spent the last four months working part time in a space at SAP's Hudson Yards office.

Attending as a fellow corporate venturer, and one who is trying to expand our own incubation efforts and events programming, I was impressed by the turnout and pitches. A few things in particular struck me:

  1. Even though it was very explicitly billed as a female founder demo day, the room was still essentially a 50/50 split, male/female. I feel like in years past many might have assumed this type of event and founder base was meant only for a female audience
  2. At the end of their pitches, the founders went beyond asking for something, and told the audience what they wanted, e.g., "if you can open doors for us or want to invest, come talk to us afterwards, space is running out"
  3. The role of a corporate venture relationship is more about partners than customers. The right enterprise partnership can provide more validation and open more doors than the right customers are able to do

And then a few questions came to mind as well:

  1. Is a corporate VC more appealing when it is a technology-based company, because startups in their portfolio/foundry/ecosystem gain access to both the tech tools and the CVC customers? For instance, the startups in this cohort gained access to otherwise expensive SAP tech, while also getting exclusive access and introductions to SAP's corporate customers…how can my company as a life insurer (that is in great need of digital transformation, innovation, etc.) provide an equal value prop?
  2. Blockchain has a lot of hype, and executives talking about it, but I really wonder how older incumbents are going to embrace the technology when its premise is in distributed authority/information/ownership, and from what I have seen with older enterprises is that they are inherently more siloed and territorial?

Looking forward to the next cohort which will be, amongst other things, wellness-focused.

 

The Wimbledon challenge - changing everything in order to remain the same

Reading through a recent Financial Times "Business School" newsletter, one article in particular stood out, about Wimbledon's efforts to reproduce the (traditional) customer experience year after year even as things like technology and the rules of the game change. Andrew Hill, the FT's management editor, posed a challenge for ideas from other older, traditional, venerable organizations who are having to change everything in order to remain the same. I thought it an interesting question for insurance in particular, and sent my response below:

Though much of the insurtech disruption and players have been in property and casualty to date, life insurance will see more of that in due time. What’s interesting to me in your question of ‘what should they do to ensure continuity for existing customers, even as they update everything behind the scenes?’ is that it assumes there is enough to continue from a (good) CX perspective. Insurance I think is being forced to evaluate and update/change both the front end experience and back end operations simultaneously, and many are not doing it well. Which is what had originally attracted me to make the move from innovation consulting, to working in an innovation role within a client – there’s a lot to be done!

The main thing that carriers with agents (or at least captive agents) are doing to maintain continuity is to keep relying on the importance and influence of the agents in the sales process. Little by little there is effort to better digitally enable agents, recognizing that target customers have more information at their fingertips and will be doing more research on their own, coming in to a meeting with an agent with at least some semblance of what they want, or with more detailed questions. Agents can’t only operate at the top of the funnel, they need to be able to plug in to wherever the customer is in their research and education process.

What this type of digital enablement looks like, I don’t think anyone has fully figured out. Is it providing agents an iPad tool to plug in information as they talk to customers that then spits out a “customers like you” profile, to further guide the discussion? Is it a voice assistant app that agents can talk to in their office to pull up information – or that customers can use from their home to connect to an agent remotely? There are discussions happening here at my company and I’m sure at other carriers, but it remains to be seen how quickly anyone can move on it. In the meantime, smaller players are figuring out how to plug the gaps left open by agents/carriers who rely on agents - and though they likely won't be seen as real competitors by incumbents, customers are taking note.

FT: Wimbledon's antidote to the cult of disruption

How the NBA helped England compete in the World Cup

In many of the human-centered design trainings, workshops, and projects we run, I am often introducing the concept of creative analogies (or precursors as my old firm called them). It has been surprisingly hard to do, or rather, surprisingly hard to make the concept stick. I suppose I sometimes saw this with my consulting clients, but I also wasn't operating at the scale or breadth of reach as I am now, being on the inside of the client.

As with many large corporates, there has been prolonged historical success that has come from doing what you do best, keeping your head down and working, and to a certain extent acting as a fast follower, versus sticking your head out in the market. In my role as an innovation execution lead, part of my job is getting employees to look beyond our four walls to both be aware of the change happening around us, and to be inspired to drive change here.

The concept of creative analogies has been one way to start to open up the dialogue - how have others facing analogous challenges found innovative and impactful solutions? Yet making that leap to examples beyond insurance or financial services has been harder, and I am always looking for new examples to use.

"England's Soccer Team Needed Help So They Stole From the NBA" - WSJ

This article highlights a great example of how seemingly disparate "industries" can provide inspiration to each other. For Gareth Southgate, this meant looking to the NBA and borrowing their set plays, adapting strategies for corner kicks in particular. He likely framed the question as "how might we create space for our players to execute on a goal?" starting with a broader question like "how might we win more games?" and continuing to ask "how" until getting to a design challenge that was constrained but still open enough to allow multiple solutions.

Philadelphia 76ers vice president Daniel Medina summed it up as, “he used to look at not only basketball, but other sports like handball and indoor football,” Medina said. “Similar collective ideas with different constraints can lead to different solutions.”

England has performed surprisingly well in this World Cup, set for a match today against Colombia. Even if they don't advance, it will be interesting to watch Southgate's continued use of multi-sport applications, and see if other coaches follow in suit.

Designing for voice in a systematic way

Last night I went to an event that featured five women leading AI startups (RAIN, Convrg, The Difference) and AI-focused teams within larger companies (Google, NPR), where they led a discussion on the need for inclusive design in AI. We questioned why so many digital assistants have feminine names, and discussed how you can better design usability testing for voice assistants to account for bias - which, as it turns out, can be really hard because you lose the traditional richness of ethnographic research where you can see the contradictions of saying one thing and doing another.

At one point the CEO of RAIN noted there are some experiences that just aren't right for voice, but that it's easy to get lost in the hype and excitement around the channel/medium. One thing that brands can do to design the right opportunity for voice, is to recognize that the capability or goal for that experience should be built within a system, and not as a standalone solution. It's about creating a holistic, omni-platform journey in order to optimize for what voice can do. For instance, even ensuring that if I order an Uber through my Alexa as I'm getting ready to leave, the mobile app is already updated once I get in the car. Or if I order a pizza through the Domino's app, I can later ask Alexa for a status update on delivery time.

This got me thinking about the implications for insurers and how we (as New York Life) might use voice in the future. Where does voice make sense for us? And how do we ensure that it fits within a systematic offering for customers, or how might we leverage voice within the omni-platform environment to place the agent at the center of the customer's financial wellness?

And finally, as the traditional brand voice in marketing truly becomes a 'voice' it puts a greater burden to really ensure the right attributes and personality comes through. Which makes you wonder, what is the right voice that captures our brand trust and reliability, with hopefully some friendliness as well? Why and when would customers want or need to talk to their life insurer? 

Designing for all drives real business impact

Several weeks ago I heard the Chief Design Officer for Ellevest give a talk about their "design origin story" and someone in the crowd asked how the company's business model and design strategy resonated with men. In her response, CDO Melissa Cullens said that it's funny, "when you design for women, men end up loving it too."

That got me to thinking about inclusive design, and wondering where else there might be missed opportunities with real business implications. For instance, the algorithm that many office buildings use to regulate temperature was designed in 1964 for a 154 pound male. Women, who typically have less muscle mass and are not wearing full suits, feel colder. And being colder could impact worker productivity - a 2004 Cornell study found “that when ambient office temperature [was] increased from 68 degrees to 77 degrees Fahrenheit, typing errors fell by 44 percent and typing productivity increased by 150%”

Coming back to the financial services world, the insurer Northwestern Mutual recently hired their first CMO, Aditi Gokhale. She started digging in to the data and saw, likely not surprisingly, that women are generally the main decision makers in big life decisions and are the daily money managers for the household. Yet NW Mutual's advisers were largely targeting men. When they did a study, 71% of women said, “Financial firms are not in touch with my real needs or concerns. They’re not connecting with me emotionally and rationally.” Seventy-one percent!

Through a website redesign, new marketing efforts, and smarter matching of advisors to potential clients, the company has seen 400%+ more leads. It would be interesting to dive into all of the work they did, and what else is in store. I hope to hear more from Gokhale in the future.

WSJ: Northwestern Mutual Gets Results from Ads That Talk to Women

That's Interesting

I am a huge fan of Adam Grant, an organizational psychologist, Wharton professor, TED speaker, and NYT best-selling author. As if he wasn't busy enough, he recently launched a podcast called WorkLife that addresses the fact that although we spend a large chunk of our lives at work, we devote too little time to thinking about how to make it better. In the podcast he profiles "unconventional" workplaces, highlighting what works well there, and thinking about how others can take back learnings, tips, and tricks to their own jobs.

While I would obviously recommend subscribing (most episodes are about 30 minutes, perfect for a commute), I wanted to note the most recent episode which featured an interview with Malcolm Gladwell at the 92nd Y.

I'm part of a new team within NYL Ventures, focused specifically on creating the capabilities and conditions to drive innovation across the company. Part of that is training, part is running human-centered design projects. Throughout our work we're helping employees to ideate on problems…thinking of things in new ways, taking a new lens to an old issue. A quote from this episode stood out, and also addresses another tactic I've tried to use - that of orthodoxies, and challenging industry, company, and customer long-held beliefs.

Adam references a paper by Murray Davis called "That's Interesting," saying that "ideas survive not because they're true, but because they're interesting…what makes an idea interesting is when it departs from conventional wisdom." There's some surprise to it. And that people need to understand that "an interesting idea is one that challenges your weakly held assumptions. Whereas if you challenge someone's strongly held assumptions" they don't respond well and will label the idea uninteresting, or worse.

I would take this one step further in thinking about corporate innovation - the ideas that become innovative concepts and create impact are those that are both interesting and useful. Depart from conventional wisdom to be interesting, and challenge assumptions to be useful in a new way. But of course, easier said than done! And hence the work is just starting for our team.

 

Corporate innovation - don't hit it and quit it

Two recent LinkedIn pieces came out regarding corporate innovation and innovation labs. Eric Ries shared an excerpt from his book The Startup Way that discusses how the lean startup method of constant iteration and experimentation more often than not runs into the corporate inertia of execution vs. experimentation. But this is a good thing and not always an occasion to lament - entrepreneurial management should give way to general management in order to help an internal startup take root within a business unit and thrive off the resources that come with execution activities.

Another piece entitled "Innovation Labs Don't Work" actually focuses on the tenants of successful corporate innovation rather than debunking innovation labs. I agree that more often than not, innovation labs (and maybe corporate venture arms?) are not set up to succeed - but I do think that having a separate arm/division/group that has the space and freedom to focus on new problems, processes, and players, can be a beneficial way to bring innovation into a corporation. But work has to be done to integrate innovation and not keep it as a standalone prize. And for that the principles of the right team (though not always an external hire), commercial intent (though it's hard to project exact numbers for a truly innovative business), structure, external collaboration (I am a consultant, after all), and consumer insight (consumer needs should always be first) are keys to success. Add to that market timing and things get exciting. 

Every Company (Should Be) a Design Company

I am often asked the role that designers play on my teams, and what makes a "design and innovation" consulting engagement different from other consulting work. Here I think Nelson Kunkel, Chief Design Officer for Deloitte Digital and whom I recently met while doing digital customer experience design for a luxury client, explains the role of design very well. In the future I hope that not only do more companies see the value in design and elevate its role in the organization, but that more and more employees are trained in design (and design thinking) as well.

"Design is fundamentally the discipline of making thoughtful decisions that create better outcomes for people... When businesses see design as merely the craft of making things look nice, they leave value on the table. The more lucrative role of design is in identifying a better set of problems and finding ways to create better outcomes for individuals and, thus, businesses."

Ad Age: Every Company Is a Design Company

FastCoDesign: Design jobs of the future (or not)

As a professional newbie to the design world, I do have to agree with some of the career-path predictions made in Fast Company's article, 5 Design Jobs That Won't Exist in the Future. And yet, I don't think the future is as dire as the title or tweets make it seem - though it will require some repurposing of one's own design toolbox. 

Some predictions seem more near-term than others. For instance, design researchers won't exist, as ethnographic research skills should be a key part of every design project (agreed). Others seem a bit more wishful thinking, i.e., Tim Brown's suggestion that "CEOs will need to be designers in order to be successful." 

The second half of the article goes on to point out which design jobs will grow in the future. Having spent the last few years moving into the design strategy space, it was interesting to see this role held up as one for that potential future growth:

Design researchers may find fewer opportunities in the next 15 years, but Artefact's John Rousseau thinks design strategists will be indispensable. "The importance of design strategy will grow," he says. "Future design strategists will need the ability to understand and model increasingly complex systems"—for example, social media networks or supply chains—"and will design new products and services in a volatile environment characterized by continuous disruption and a high degree of uncertainty." In other words, a future defined by political, social, business, and tech disruption that can happen overnight. In such a future, Rousseau says, design strategists will be like ballerinas, dancing their companies in and out of trouble. "It will be more of a dance, and less of a march." 

Quartz: A Life on the Road

Recently I was contacted on LinkedIn to be part of a story series on Quartz about business travel. Sponsored by Delta (whom I love), the focus would be on the technology used while on the road and how it helps you get your job done, stay connected, and simultaneously disconnect. After speaking with the interviewer, I was concerned that I had made either myself or consulting sound boring, but I think in the end it provided an interesting view into my "routine" while traveling - with the caveat that nothing is routine in consulting. 

Thank you Quartz (which I also love) for the opportunity!

Quartz: How this NYC consultant manages 40 weeks a year on the road