The SSP scenarios project physical changes - from temperature rises between 1°C and 2°C in the near term and 2°C to 5°C in the longer term, with consequences ranging from agricultural and ecological disasters occurring between 2 to 4 times more frequently1, to land loss due to sea rise2.

What is harder to quantify is how this will affect society. The world is a highly complex interconnected system3, where changes in ecology could have unpredictable effects on the economy and societal welfare.

As no man is an island, all will feel the impact.

Unfortunately, no man is an island also enables the tragedy of the commons. Shareholder primacy4 encourages costs to be commonised (to all of us) and profits to be privatised (to a select few). The current obligation is immediate profit for shareholders, as "someone else can fix the mess later".

The flip side of capitalism is that the consumer holds ultimate power - via the freedom to choose. What if we go beyond carbon attribution - to holding individual consumers accountable? Moving from comparing CO2eq between companies to illustrating the human cost:

• From: "…this phone caused 100kg of CO2eq."

• To: "…this phone will contribute to the flooding of 5m^2 over the next ten years and contribute to 0.25 cases of lung cancer (air pollution5)."

The topic of (systemic) structural versus (individual) behavioural change always pops up in sustainability discussions, with opinions falling into one of two buckets:

1. Structural Change
   For example: The government should step in and mandate change on the assumption that compliance is sufficient.

2. Behavioural Change
   For example: Empowering and relying on the individual to decide, on the assumption that most of humanity is inherently "good".

I believe that in western societies, structural change for sustainability will be met with insurmountable resistance. For structural change to work, we are effectively expecting liberal society to embrace a degree of communism - with the government controlling both means of production (how we create value sustainably) and individual consumption (how we consume value sustainably). Philosophical debates aside, it would be unrealistic to expect this approach to succeed.

How can we implement impact calculations?

We know the outcomes of current models, the processes that contribute to the outcomes, and the inputs - therefore we can understand how individual contributions (e.g. a mobile phone through Life Cycle Analysis6) can contribute to outcomes.

The objective is not to say "by buying this specific phone, you will cause flooding of this house on the Cornwall coast next month", but to illustrate how seemingly insignificant individual decisions compounds into very material, and human outcomes.

To implement the impact calculations, businesses will need Scope 3 data. From personal experience, at the time of writing, most businesses do not have this, however, the market is heading in the right direction.

“…it’s all well and good, but some still won’t care.”

They may not - and that is fine.

We do not need unanimous agreement to take advantage of positive tipping points.

Forcing those who are unwilling, or unable (particularly pertinent in context of the current rise in cost of living) to pay more will not yield the results we are looking for.

The best we can do in a liberal democracy is to inform and trust.

Let's reduce the risk of adopting new business models for businesses; by changing the market itself.

The correct version is online here:

Alembic

If in Doubt...

Occasionally we find ourselves facing a daunting challenge that forces us into uncharted territory and we are immobilised by apprehension. The established wisdom of “if in doubt, run it out” is as relevant to an organisation in crisis as it is to climbing…

Read more

4 years ago · Tian Zhang

In traditional ("trad") climbing, you place and clip into protection (e.g. bits of metal placed into the rock) with your rope - if you fall, then well-placed protection should prevent a ground-fall.

Occasionally, the climber will find themselves facing a long stretch of rock, with little option for protection (a “runout”) - the climber can either:

1. Press onwards, without protection;

2. Expend energy panicking, and then either end up attempting (1), or fall off due to fatigue. (Safe retreat may not be an option due to the same lack of protection to downclimb.)

The adage “if in doubt, run it out” holds some logic: when climbing, energy not spent progressing is energy wasted. No amount of panicking or wishful thinking will magic up protection when there is none - one needs to face the challenge, sooner or later.

The world of strategy and change share some similarities to climbing - it is infeasible to fully anticipate all risks and challenges1. A good leader must be able to progress past risks ("running it out") when required to do so.

A climbing allegory

Imagine if you have been tasked with climbing an industrial chimney. A route has been set up on the chimney, so it is objectively safe. However, if you are not a seasoned climber, you would understandably be apprehensive.

You hire an climbing guide to help you with the journey - one who has been up the route many times before. You explain that you understand the theory of the climbing and rope techniques from reading books; you even may have purchased the required rope and harness that others have recommended. However, each time you approach the chimney, you are paralysed with fear.

This situation is not dissimilar to Clients facing organisational change: the Client knows the task ahead is daunting, and although in theory safe, in practice is full of unknowns. In theory, organisational change is easy: (1) identify what is wrong, (2) evaluate options, and (3) action and repeat; in the same way that climbing the chimney would be easy: (1) move feet, (2) move arms, and (3) clip into protection and repeat.

Purpose as the key to action

Similar to runouts, change will entail irreducible, unmitigable risk. In such situations, hearing the same advice from the guide may not inspire confidence beyond a certain point.

Client: I'm still apprehensive about this chimney - it seems high.

Guide: No worries, climbing is simple! Move your feet, then arms, and repeat until you get to the top!

Client: I get that...

Guide: There is no need to worry - remember: feet, hands, clip and repeat!

At this point and from experience, those of an engineering mindset will typically request more detail:

Client: So how safe are carabiners?

Guide: Sure - everything is rated2 to 20kN, and typical climbing falls only generate 4kN. To be honest you would break your spine, or the bolt attached to the chimney before breaking a carabiner or rope. This is all in tolerance.

Some Clients may also ask for market comparisons:

Client: So who else has done this? Do you have examples of our competitors who have tried this?

Guide: Sure - John, Jessie and Jane have all tried this. Jane managed to get to the top.

The point is that the above can only help to a limited degree, and does not always address the crux of the matter - the irrational fear. We do things that could have grave consequences every day; we cross busy roads and drive cars on motorways without being immobilised by fear. For those who are afraid of heights, the fear is not grounded in logic and therefore cannot be effectively be dispelled by logic.

I actually believe irrational fear cannot be completely dispelled via any means. The best one can do is to find compelling reasons to accept the irrational fear. It will not be be easy, but at least there is a slim chance that one might be inspired to go full out and maximise the chance of progressing onwards.

The best climbers are not fearless - they are the ones who find purpose to manage their fear. Purpose does not make the fear disappear, and this is a good thing; fear can help us focus, and drives us to do our best.

Touching the Void

In a moment of crisis, the only wrong decision is indecision.

Joe Simpson3: You gotta make decisions. You gotta keep making decisions, even if they're wrong decisions, you know. If you don't make decisions, you're stuffed.

Every moment spent deliberating is an opportunity lost forever; every conversation that does not progress the challenge is wasted energy. Very rarely do problems resolve on their own - unaddressed they often get worse, and the situation becomes more dire.

Knowledge, expertise, competitive positioning are all perishable goods4:

What you know about your industry is worth less right now than it was when you began reading this…

To those who are facing this now, seek an expert who can help you uncover and crystallise your purpose, as well as provide advice on theory and techniques.

As with many things, "mental state” is material. If you approach a challenge with apprehension and act indecisively, you risk tiring yourself and dramatically diminish your chances of success. The greatest gift in a crisis is one that helps you discover your purpose - reasons for taking on the challenge and enabling you to go full out - however this purpose cannot be provided to you, it can only be discovered by yourself.

The ability to extrapolate is an important benefit of building models. Those of us who have played with, and burnt by fire as a child, will know from first-hand experience that flames are hot. When we encounter a different flame - say a Bunsen Burner at school for the first time - we will be instinctively hesitant, even if we have not touched that particular type of flame before.

It is worth noting that all models are simplifications of something, and therefore must omit some information about the thing it is modelling. Good models omit information that is less likely to be material; however it is always possible that some edge cases will occur which will depend on the information that has been omitted.

Furthermore, as the world is always changing, any model built from a point in time will become less useful over time.

A model, for models

Here is a hypothesis for individuals form models:

1. Tabula rasa
   We are all born with a very limited amount of knowledge - a newborn knows very little about the world, as a newborn has very little experience of the world.

2. Establish
   Over time, and individually, we create models to help us make sense of the observations. When we encounter a new situation, we use our past experiences to bet on what we should do.

3. Exploit
   Those of us with models that predict more accurately, or offer some unique insight that others do not have, get ahead.

4. Rot
   The world is continually changing. Those who become more successful focus on exploiting their model, and do not always notice divergence of their model from reality.

5. Collapse
   At some point, an important decision is called for, one with material outcomes. The individual is either is not aware of the divergence, or is left unable to make sense of the situation.

A common consulting challenge

A while back, on a transformational programme, I walked into a meeting room in midst of a heated exchange between a Client and the team:

Client: "You consultants are all the same. You don't understand our domain, yet you come in, and give us advice that doesn't work for us. Why should I listen to you?"

Awkward silence ensues.

Variation of the above seems to crop up every now and then. Client recognises a problem, and even sometimes that they lack the capabilities to resolve the problem without outside help. External help is brought in and after the initial analysis, the recommendation is not what the Client had in mind - sometimes, it is the diametric opposite!

Me: "You are where you are, because of the choices you have taken, and the perspectives you have adopted. If you want to be somewhere different, you will need to choose differently."

My response carries risk, but one I would happily take. Consultants are hired in to solve a problem, and the measure of success should be on overcoming/getting around the challenge, not saying agreeable things. The above response (and variations of) has not always had the desired effect, however exiting for the right reasons is preferable to sticking around for the wrong ones.

Overcoming model rot

Validation - the action of checking our modelled outcomes against real-life observations, and adjusting where necessarily - is just as important as the ability to distil an advantageous model in the first place.

Here are three tactics to help us overcome the emotional attachment to a trusted model; to realise that a model is only as good as the predictions it is about to make, not past predictions it has made:

1. Welcome disagreement
   Disagreements (at least ones in good faith) and differing points of view are potential hints of model rot. I now actively excuse myself from conversations where there is unanimous agreement - in such situations, I have nothing to contribute, or gain - except for risk creating a false sense of security.

2. Continuously validate
   Test models for divergence frequently, when there is little cost of getting things wrong. Small surprises are often easier to deal with than a single insurmountable one.

3. Question the model
   When faced with an important decision, we should recognise that any simplification, by definition cannot account for all situations. The key questions are "what is the reasoning for this extrapolation?" and "what are the material differences?".

Where technology is involved, models tend to go out of sync with reality at alarming rates. Fifteen years ago, if you told me that large scale data processing (e.g. data science) will be done in an interpreted language (python), I would have laughed at you, yet here we are. Hard-earned experience of optimising C++ code (e.g. when to inline functions, intricate knowledge of STL structures and algorithms) are no longer relevant topics of the domain.

It is not that models go wrong sometimes; when technology is involved, model divergence compounds and accelerates over time.

The issue is not with having a flawed model - models are simplifications, and therefore limited in some way or the other. Models are necessary for us to apply our principles learned from past experiences to new situations. Issues arise when we fail to continuously validate our models against reality - and let what we believe the "world should be" override over what reality is.

Photo by Javier Allegue Barros on Unsplash

When it comes to mobilising change, a clear and compelling vision is inadequate.

Imagine that you are on “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?”. You have just expended your last lifeline getting to the 10th question, and are left with two possible answers on the screen. Answering correctly means going home with £500k, answering incorrectly will mean going home with the “safety-net” winning of £50k.

With no idea of what the right answer is, do you:

1. “Bank!” and go home with a guaranteed £250k, or

2. Hope to double your winnings by picking an answer at random?

By a long shot, option (1) is the popular answer amongst my friends and family. The possibility of going home with £50k, rather than the £250k is just too painful - after all, a bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

Option (1) is actually the “wrong” (non-optimal) choice. Having reached the safety-net, we are guaranteed to be £50k richer, so the actual value of the choice is for:

1. 100% × £200k = £200k

2. 50% of picking the right answer × £450k = £225k

In spite of the irrefutable logic above, I would still be reluctant to pick option (2). This is the same reluctance that stakeholders feel when faced with a transformational proposition, even ones with clear benefits. The reluctance is not about further “clarifying the vision” - i.e. option (2) is better by precisely £25k. So what is the reluctance really about?

Motivation

Much of the literature on the topic of change focus on articulating and championing motivation, be it by creating urgency1, painting the big opportunity2 or through a greater, unifying purpose such as a strategic intent3. Despite this established wisdom, too many initiatives still seem to rush to solutioning and implementation before establishing clear motivation.

All too often, the motivation (why change?), objective (what are we building?) and approach (how are we going to build it?) are fatally conflated. Think back to the transformation programmes you have been involved in, for how many could you confidently describe the objective and approach? What about the purpose/reason for urgent change?

Change requires commitment across the organisation; however, not everyone will understand the importance of master data management or integrated sales and operations (both are examples of objectives), and that is ok. Stakeholders can understand how change can affect the business - the impacts/benefits of being able to trust reports so critical decisions can be made with confidence, and matching demand with supply to mitigate overstocking/stockouts (example of motivations).

Motivation comes down to distilling the irrefutable statement that necessitates change. For those who are doing the change, this distillation can be surprisingly elusive. The distinction of composition versus aggregation (in the context of UML modelling) is just as foreign to a business sponsor as is that of core competence (in the context of strategic architecture) for a technical architect. Yet, it is often up to the programme team to justify the motivation.

Even though irrefutable motivation is absolutely necessary, it is still only one side of the coin in mobilising change.

Risk

The harsh reality is: change entails risk - if there is no appetite for risk, there cannot be change. However, it is often possible to quantify and materially reduce the risk. A good thing too - unless stakeholders are comfortable with the proposal, they cannot be committed to the gamble.

Think back again to the transformational programmes you have been involved with. What proportion of time was spent on clarifying the vision and designing the solution, versus time on figuring out ways to minimise risk and disruption?

The reality is that people, in general, are loss-averse. The reluctance illustrated in the opening “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” example shows that the “correct” (optimal) answer is not always the most comfortable one. Prospect Theory offers a precise formulation4:

• Losses are perceived to be much more painful than the equivalent gain. In the “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?”, avoiding the possibility of loss is worth at least £25k.

• Humans are generally bad at evaluating very low and very high probabilities - e.g. that we tend to equate 1% and 5%; and similarly 95% and 99%.

PT is a model, and cannot be expected to describe every interaction. The purpose is to illustrate that a risk mitigated is possibly, perhaps even often, worth more than the equivalent benefit gained. Despite this, current doctrine places disproportionate focus on the potential benefits.

Framing

Accepting that (in general) we value losses more than gains opens up the question of framing5 - that how we describe a gamble could influence the choice.

An intuitive example from Wikipedia6 - which do you find more compelling?

Change is more likely to succeed when stakeholders are committed, not just compliant. Commitment comes from the confidence of arriving at a conclusion objectively - having fully understood the pertinent available information.

Those who bear the risk must be truly comfortable with the gamble, not persuaded or argued into submission.

Three questions

Here are three questions that test the foundations for change.

1. Is the motivation clear?
   Motivation is the reason that necessitates change and justifies the risk.
   
   Motivation is different from objective and approach. Avoid the trap of believing that what and how can be replacements for compelling why.
   

2. Are stakeholders convinced that no safer routes exist?
   Risk cannot be an afterthought.
   
   Unless convincing mitigation is part of your proposal, you may find it difficult to get the initiative going; or worse still: doom the initiative by mobilising without the right stakeholders on board.
   

3. Are you persuading, or informing?
   Motivations and risks should not be biased towards a particular frame. Inform by providing multiple frames to help stakeholders see the wider picture.
   
   Picking a frame for the purpose of influencing a particular outcome could result in fickle commitment.

For change to happen, those who bear the risks must be genuinely comfortable with the gamble. Comfort comes from an informed conclusion that the risk is both minimised and necessary.

When deciding whether to proceed with a business idea (e.g. “should we…?”), the leading question inevitably is “…will it make money?”.

Do not jump to profitability. Lead with “…why?” instead. If the purpose is truly valuable to customers and collaborators, save for poor execution, profit will follow.

I am big on purpose.

Without purpose, we have no identity. Without identity, we are undifferentiated, replaceable commodities. The same applies to businesses, the effects of which may have been amplified over the last two years.

The way we evaluate business ideas need to reflect the increasingly digital world. Businesses, especially traditional ones, cannot prioritise short-term profit and hope to retrofit purpose later.

I am no longer physically visiting Waitrose, Tescos or Aldi; instead, we order weekly online for deliveries with the majority of the items on repeat order. Shopping now boils down to functional attributes with minimal interaction - I’ll go with whoever offers the functionality I need, at the lowest price and with the least fuss. Chances to win back customers are becoming increasingly rare as interactions become increasingly digital.

Redefining Viability

Starting with purpose, here are three related views useful for determining the viability of an idea:

• What is the idea really about? What needs gap is it looking to fill?

• No business exists in isolation. What value is being created for collaborators, not just customers and the business?

• How will we deliver a uniquely better product/service; how will we maintain our identity over time?

Readers may recognise the above as elements from marketing, economics and strategy.

Marketing: What is the idea really about?

Fixating on productivity (achieving more output for less input) does not always lead to good places. Productivity inevitably comes down to cutting or operational excellence (OE). As one cannot grow by cutting1 - no matter how much you cut, growth in profit will in the long-term, be constrained by how much you grow. On the other hand, gains from OE are also available to your competitors, so any resulting advantage is at best transient. Running a tight ship is necessary, but insufficient to staying ahead.

Ultimately, the success of a business is what it offers to the market. This is a matter of purpose: why does A exist, how is it different from B and C?

1. What needs will the idea address, for who?
   Before attempting to design a product/service, it is worth understanding the need that is being targeted. For a given need, there could be many ways to satisfy it. The need to communicate can be met by handwritten letters, 11pm video calls, or for the particularly grievous mistakes, there is always Marks and Spencer’s Next Day Flower (and chocolate) service.
   

2. What are the gaps in the market today?
   A wise colleague once reminded me that “the biggest competitor to Mini Cooper is not another car. It’s a new kitchen”!
   
   The standard definition of “market” (buyers and sellers of a specific product) may be too narrow. We should instead broaden the definition to buyers and businesses that target a specific need.
   

3. What is unique about our idea?
   Given that there either already is, or could be alternative ways to meet the target need, why will a customer choose you? The answer may evolve over time, however, a lack of a clear response foreshadows the race to cost-leadership.

Economics: What value is being exchanged?

It is insufficient to view value proposition as something solely between your business and your customers2. Success for a non-vertically integrated business also depends on its relationships with your collaborators (e.g. other businesses on which your business depends).

1. What is the customer/business value proposition?
   Value (perceived worth) is different to utility (usefulness); price is a function of value, not utility. A diamond engagement ring has little utility, however, the value attributed is still measured in “months of salary”3. It is the value that counts, not utility.
   

2. What are the existing value propositions within the ecosystem?
   The optimal value proposition should create value for all parties in the ecosystem. If the business fails to cultivate enduring relationships with collaborators, success could be inconsistent and short-lived.
   

3. How will the idea affect the stability of the market?
   Perhaps stability is overrated; nevertheless, volatility is something to be prepared for and more importantly, an opportunity to be exploited.

Strategy: How to stay unique?

The term sustained competitive advantage implies uniqueness that endures.

1. What is your business uniquely good at?
   Strength is not what you have (e.g. intellectual property, or even market share), but what you are able to do4. Understanding the strength of a business allows you to gauge the ability of a business to exploit new opportunities and resist threats.
   

2. What external factors are there, how could they change?
   External forces can profoundly affect businesses when it challenges foundational assumptions that a strategy is premised on.
   
   AMD (processor and graphics card company, competitor to Intel) appears to have made the right decision to divest its semiconductor manufacturing business in 2008. The divestment allowed them to take advantage of the 7nm fabrication processes from TSMC - an advantage that Intel has struggled to match5. At the time of writing, AMD dominates performance6 and has 40% of the processor market share7.
   
   The strategy to divest fabrication could also prove to be a liability - multiple factors, ranging from COVID, competing demands (from Apple, which also uses TSMC), drought to geopolitics has meant that AMD is now struggling to fulfil demand8.
   

3. How fierce could the competition be?
   Wisdom from antiquity: always leave an out - do not press a desperate enemy9. Otherwise, if you must strike, then strike swiftly and conclusively.
   
   For the businesses targeting the same need, it is worth understanding whose lunch you will be eating and if they have other options. Desperation can lead to irrational, and sometimes ingenious actions.

The ability to create superior value for customers and collaborators comes from purpose - which must be the starting question for every business idea. Although long-term profitability is the principal outcome for any business, it is an outcome and should not drive the means.

Why is change needed? How can we determine which ones to back? Perhaps most importantly, what are the telltale signs of when it might be essential?

Although change often fails to bear fruit, a sure sign of a dud is when it is being sold. Be sceptical of those who claim to be able to conjure up visions and change on-demand, risk-free, all without the need for commitment.

Successful change is something to be discovered or clarified but rarely manufactured.

Why is change needed anyway?

Businesses initially succeed when they discover a consistent way (business model) to generate profit from creating a want (the product/service) to meet a need. Over time, competitors enter to address the same need by imitating existing models/wants or creating new ones. Eventually, all markets mature as better models/wants thrive, and weaker ones die out, leaving a handful that has stood the test of time.

The problem with having only a handful of models/wants is that it encourages competition in the same way:1

1. Each product cycle becomes progressively expensive as technology is pushed past the point of diminishing returns. E.g. My current phone is now more powerful than my laptop but does not do anything new - I still use it for the same things, in the same way as my last five phones.
   

2. Customers become accustomed to equating “better” with the factors that define the market. E.g. Obviously, a 3,000 nit TV has got to be better (more valuable) than a 2,000 nit one! (Are those nits really needed? A typical laptop display is around 500nits - will there be a moment of reckoning when the perceived value falls short of actual utility?)
   

3. Increasingly sophisticated methods are employed to optimise, which introduces fragility. E.g. What happens to a fine-tuned supply chain when delivery of raw materials suddenly becomes unpredictable?

Imagine a world where all businesses in the automobile market operate under the same model/cars, with everyone pursuing the same opportunities and suffering the same vulnerabilities. Would there be autonomous electrical vehicles or just better petrol/diesel cars? What then would happen when we finally decide that fossil fuels are no longer an option?

Change introduces diversity that is lost through market maturation. Alas diversity is resilience.

Why are we geared to grind?

Two mechanisms also drive market maturity from within the organisation:

• The conflation of leadership with management
  A leader is responsible for setting direction, whereas the manager is responsible for effective execution. One is focused on taking calculated risks, whereas the other is on minimising them. Both are distinct and equally necessary.
  

• “What you measure is what you get”2
  Key performance indicators (KPIs) focus on management - e.g. high consistency, efficiency or output. KPIs are rarely implemented to encourage the opposite. Furthermore, not all essential factors to success can be easily quantified (e.g. purpose, cohesion, drive). KPIs contributes to but should not be the complete definition of success.

Does modern-day capitalism encourage the correct reward structure?

How to discern change?

Not all seeds sprout or bear fruit - how do we weed out the duds?

1. Is the reason for change an organisational or a “change agent” thing?

Meaningful change is greater than an individual. Human commitment, no matter how well-intended, is finite and frequently overestimated; however, change necessitated by external factors are independent of individual interests.

bp is undergoing an ambitious transformation (starting in February 2020), beginning with a redefinition of its business model from the traditional “upstream-downstream” to one that focuses on energy transition.

I am optimistic about the success of this particular initiative - not because of proclamations by public relations (yes, I have read the articles too!), but because of the external consensus around EVs. This particular transition feels like an inescapable transform or die situation. Of course, only time will tell.

2. What is everyone competing on?

A ubiquitous set of factors that define your market can be a sign of market maturation. However, the type of factor may also play a role. Brand laddering suggests that there are different types of factors, ranked by levels of abstraction:

• Societal - How does it change society?
  I buy Patagonia mountaineering gear because I am helping the planet (through their outreach and second-hand market programmes).
  

• Emotional - How does it make me feel?
  I buy Patagonia mountaineering gear because they are a solid brand I can trust when climbing up a mountainside.
  

• Benefit - What does it do for me?
  I buy Patagonia mountaineering gear because they keep me warm and dry.
  

• Attributes - What has it got?
  I buy Patagonia mountaineering gear because they use GORE-TEX fabric.

The challenge with lower-level values (e.g. attributes) is that it invites direct competition, whereas the more abstract factors are usually much more difficult to substitute. If you offer a laptop with 16GB of memory, I can always offer one with 32GB. However, competing on societal values (e.g. repairability and reducing e-waste) requires changing engineering competencies, not just more of the same engineering.

Businesses that find themselves competing primarily on material factors need to think very carefully about their value proposition, particularly how sustainable it is.

3. Are you comfortable with all your eggs in one proposition basket?

Both yes, and no could be sensible answers:

• No change: Yes, and that is fine.
  Rolex has a single proposition - luxury timekeeping. The business has a singular focus, consistently resisting opportunities for diversification. The decision is a calculated risk, but one that the business seems completely aligned to3, and deeply comfortable with.
  

• Change: No, and we are actively diversifying
  Garmin quickly realised that smartphones better address the need to navigate. Google/Apple Maps is always up to date, shows real-time public transport information, even helps locate friends and family - all great features that dedicated devices cannot provide. Unlike TomTom, Garmin (devices) has actively and arguably successfully diversified into “devices for activities and sports” - the proposition is no longer just navigation but also health monitoring.

Here, the only wrong decision is to hesitate.

Change is supposed to be painful, but when it is needed, the alternative is much, much worse.

Why do audiences fail to "get it", and why are attempts to provide further clarification, once those fated words are uttered, always futile? What the heck is narrative? For those of your who know your Minto SCQAs, why do communications with well-constructed narratives still, sometimes spectacularly fail to land?

Why do we communicate?

The obvious but incomplete answer might be: because we want to share information, be it a fact or a particular way of looking at something (perspective) that we believe to be of value to the audience. However, effective communication must be something more.

Me: "There's a good chance you're going to crash our car tomorrow!"

My Wife: "No I'm not!"

The above exchange may be factually correct, certainly important, and direct enough to have been interpreted without ambiguity. Made with the best of intentions, somehow the interaction is nevertheless heading towards confrontation.

Me: "Are you planning to drive to work tomorrow? It's raining and its going to be -5C tonight - so the roads will be icy. I'm worried about you. Even if you are ok, there's good chance you'll be held up in traffic."

My wife: "What do you suggest I do?"

Me: "Take the train - I checked just now and it's running ok."

There is a difference between being provided truths ("Good chance of crashing tomorrow!"), and accepting truths as knowledge (affecting action). Consider this model of "knowledge" from philosophy:

Effective communications cannot just be about sharing of truths. For communication to have an effect, there must be an element of belief as well. Those dreaded words "...I don't get it" does not necessarily mean "I lack the faculties to understand your facts", but could also often mean "I don't see the significance of your what you are saying, therefore I am not going to invest in applying my faculties".

Effective communication, that is communications that has an effect, has two considerations: (a) structuring the communication to require the least effort to consume; and (b) establish belief.

Narrative devices

There is a lot out there on persuasion, ranging from traditional consulting literature centred on achieving clarity, to power games (yours truly chooses to avoid such games, but believe it wise to know the rules). Popular frames for constructing narratives include:

• The Pyramid Principle1
  On most professional service's reading list, containing examples of different narrative structures, e.g. situation, complication, question and answer (SQCA). In SCQA, Minto suggests starting by stating the situation (context), before stating the complication (necessitating the change from status quo), present the question (problem that has manifested as the result of the complication) before concluding with the answer.
  

• Toulmin Model2
  A framework for argumentation that can be adapted for sense checking an idea. It can be difficult to see the bigger picture when we have been deep in thought; however, unless we do, we risk being blind-sided. What is the argument, how is it justified, and what might the pushback be?
  

• Rhetorical Triangle
  Perhaps more art than a framework - Aristotle (384~322 BC) suggested that compelling speeches (rhetoric) can appeal to pathos (emotion and values), ethos (credibility) and logos (sound/cogent argument). What is your audience likely to be receptive to, and are you striking the right balance?

The above are just tools and having the best tools does not make a craftsperson.

...Why are they still not "getting it"?

Assuming that one is proficient in wielding the tools or at least reads and understands the manual, I have noticed three traps that technical presenters frequently fall into.

1. Writing for yourself, not your audience
   All communication is two-way, including written materials such as reports and emails. It is not just "what you want to say", but equally also "what the audience is open to receiving". In every exchange, there are unspoken questions on both sides that need to be discovered and fulfilled. What does your audience want to get from the communication, what feedback do you want?

   Have confidence in the value that you bring. Resist the urge to "dive in and get there first".
   

2. Adding more detail, not context
   Avoid always defaulting to logos - as someone with a technical background, when someone says "I don't get it", my immediate reaction is "more detail!" (thinking: "I can totally win this - my logic is flawless!").

   Keep in mind that your audience might not be a great (in this instance, precise) communicator. Are they really questioning your logic and asking for the next level of detail? What is it they are not voicing?
   

3. Failure to read the audience
   Be mindful of what you are trying to communicate and the context in which it is received. The crack of dawn on Monday morning might not be the best time to suggest a risky endeavour, or maybe it is - you need to be able to accurately read the situation.

   Sometimes it is preferable to retreat gracefully than push on in the face of inevitable defeat. Rarely will you be provided with a second chance.

"Winning the argument" does not always equate to "winning people over". Knowledge is more than just facts - for something to be actionable, it must also be believed. Effective communication is not just about efficient sharing of facts through a well-constructed narrative, it must also entail establishing of beliefs as well.

Welcome to Alembic, a newsletter on the exploration of organisational change, strategy, and consulting skills.

Subscribe now