Oct 13, 2025 | Change, Innovation, Leadership
If everyone in the room agrees, you are probably all wrong. Innovation does not come from consensus; it comes from the friction created by different ideas and perspectives.
If you listen to comedians, there is a common thread through everything they say. A friend of mine who does a bit of fun standup calls it the ‘1,2,5’ of conversation. The first statement sets the scene, the second reinforces the first, the next is entirely unexpected. It is not the obvious ‘3’, rather, it is oblique, often the opposite, and always a surprise. The laugh, or in my friends case, occasional quiet chuckle, comes from that unexpected punchline.
Consider the survival chances in a hostile environment of two groups of people.
One is a homogenous group, that automatically sees things in a similar way.
The second is a neurologically diverse group that sees things from different perspectives.
Which is the more likely to survive that hostile environment?
This leads to the obvious but often ignored idea that the way you make up the groups in your business requires some heretics, comedians, and philosophers.
Rather than randomly allocating people to a group tasked to undertake a specific challenge, would it not be better to ensure you have a neurologically diverse group undertake it, as they are way more likely to surface new, different ideas. Some of those ideas, even most, may be absolute crap, but it just takes one to deliver the idea that changes everything.
Nicholas Copernicus presented the idea that the earth was not the centre of the universe, using Galileo’s newly invented telescope. This led to him being excommunicated for heresy by the Catholic church. Later, he was proved right, which did not help him. In time however, it helped the rest of us as it completely changed the way we think.
Every new idea starts as a heresy noted 19th century philosopher Thomas Huxley.
If you want these ideas that are often extremely inconvenient, to emerge from your group, you need to work for them.
Header: The eyepiece of Galileo’s telescope
Sep 18, 2025 | Change, Innovation, Leadership
The secret isn’t glamorous. It’s not an app, a hack, or a shiny new framework.
It’s the part everyone pushes down the priority list as they break a problem into its component parts. The hardest bit. Break the problem into its pieces, then go straight at the hardest part first.
AI now helps us do the problem analysis faster. It can model options, run simulations, and point out blind spots. However, it cannot focus your attention on the hardest bit first, that requires you.
Failure is the toll on this road. Edison’s “I now know what doesn’t work” wasn’t optimism, it was realism. Most attempts will miss. Data won’t rescue you when you’re in uncharted territory. Only cycles of trial, error, and learning will.
And here’s where humans stumble. We hate failure, and often failure has consequences in corporate life, so we become risk averse. We look for shortcuts, silver bullets, or easy wins. AI makes the shortcuts more tempting because it gives us mountains of plausible-sounding answers in seconds. But plausible isn’t proven.
The real advantage belongs to people who can keep their “discovery tempo” steady, using AI as an accelerant while still accepting that most paths will be cul-de-sacs.
AI has changed the speed and nature of problem-solving. What hasn’t changed is the rule: robust innovation comes from persistence through failure. The cycle is now faster, but the psychology hasn’t shifted.
So, the winners will be those who combine two rare qualities: the resiliance and patience to face repeated failure, and the discipline to use AI not as a crutch, but as a lever to attack the hardest part of the problem first.
Jul 28, 2025 | Change, Strategy
My time is spent assisting SME’s to improve their performance. This covers their strategic, marketing, and operational performance. Deliberately, I initially try and downplay focus on financial performance as the primary measures, as they are outcomes of a host of other choices made throughout every business.
It is those choices around focus, and resource allocation that need to be examined.
Unfortunately, the financial outcomes are the easiest to measure, so dominate in every business I have ever seen.
When a business is profitable, even if that profit is less that the cost of capital, management is usually locked into current ways of thinking. Even when a business is marginal or even unprofitable, it is hard to drive change in the absence of a real catalyst, such as a creditor threatening to call in the receivers, or a keystone customer going elsewhere.
People are subject to their own experience and biases, and those they see and read about in others.
Convention in a wider context, status quo in their own environment.
Availability bias drives them to put undue weight in the familiar, while dismissing other and especially contrary information.
Confirmation bias makes us unconsciously seek information that confirms what we already believe, while obscuring the contrary.
Between them, these two forces of human psychology cements in the status quo, irrespective of how poor that may be.
Distinguishing between convention and principle is tough, as you need to dismiss these natural biases that exist in all of us. We must reduce everything back to first principles, incredibly hard, as we are not ‘wired’ that way.
The late Daniel Kahneman articulated these problems in his book ‘Thinking fast and Slow’ based on the data he gathered with colleague Amos Tversky in the seventies. This data interrogated the way we make decisions by experimentation, which enables others to quantitively test the conclusions, rather than relying on opinion.
That work opened a whole new field of research we now call ‘Behavioural Economics’ and won Kahneman the Nobel prize. Sadly however, while many have read and understand at a macro level these biases we all feel, it remains challenging to make that key distinction between convention, the way we do it, the way it has always been done, and the underlying principles that should drive the choices we make.
As Richard Feynman put it: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So, you have to be very careful about that.”
Jul 21, 2025 | Change, Governance
Few readers will have heard of Hyman Minsky. However, given the Australian parliament reconvenes in its post-election form tomorrow, it may be time.
Minsky was a prominent economist whose theories, labelled ‘Financial Instability Hypothesis’ were largely ignored until the financial crisis in 2008.
The dominating financial theory before the wake-up of 2008 was that financial markets were generally efficient, reflecting the best information available at any one time.
The financial crisis killed that idea.
Suddenly Minsky’s theory was that markets are driven not by just the available information, but by cycles of greed, fear, and the pursuit of power. (I feel certain that Daniel Kahneman would have agreed)
I wondered if the same cycle could be applied to the Australian body politic and economy.
It seemed an appropriate time for such thoughts, heading as we are into a term of government where the incumbent has a huge majority, and no effective opposition.
So how appropriate is the Minsky cycle to the current political and economic environment the Albanese government faces?
In the aftermath of the election, aware sentiment can change quickly, the Government surprises, and turns risk averse. After all, they now believe they have several terms to ‘get stuff done’, and do not control the Senate. This starts to create frustration in the electorate, as it seems obvious that genuine change is more possible now than for the last 30 years. Only vocal interest groups are scaring the government into inaction. The presence of such hoarding of political capital provides the catalyst for a renewed opposition to effectively attack the inaction on pressing issues.
The cynic in me assumes that none of the challenges we face as a country will be adequately addressed. Politics has devolved into a Ponzi scheme of elaborate lies, misdirects, and inaction. The focus is on gaining and keeping political power for the sake of the power, not for the long-term betterment of the country.
The optimist in me is tempted to listen to the practiced rhetoric of the two leading Labor figures and think: ‘perhaps this time’.
The header is my adaptation of the Minsky cycle reproduced below.
With apologies to Hyman Minsky.HET: Hyman P. Minsky
Jun 20, 2025 | Change, Governance, Innovation
Australia’s governments over time have, rightly, believed that the commercialisation of innovation is the key to long term prosperity.
As a result, governments of all persuasions and at all levels dole out billions each year in all sorts of grants, subsidies, and parallel programs.
Then, on a regular basis we have enquiries by well meaning and usually highly qualified people that come up with similar conclusions that the previous few and often very expensive enquiries have delivered: we are crap at it.
In successive weeks, the PM and Treasurer presented their view of the challenges facing us at the National Press Club. Both were very impressive performances, and in particular the treasurer hooked his agenda firmly onto the ‘Productivity’ challenge.
The Treasurer outlined the principles of his agenda. However, he did not get into the weeds of the sources of the failure to date that see us struggling with productivity in the economy, the problem to be solved. He did however acknowledge that hard to measure services are increasingly dominating, and we are all getting older, making the productivity challenge that much greater.
Sensibly after repeating the same mistake numerous times, and ending up where we are now, we should be asking ourselves ‘Why’.
My take on ‘Why’.
Bureaucracies have two conflicting, irreconcilable imperatives:
- On the one hand, they want to be fair and treat everyone the same. This makes commercial in confidence often challenging. (perhaps I overemphasise this as a result of a very nasty incident in my commercial past that will never be forgotten)
- On the other hand, they want to exercise discretion and take account of individual circumstances and technical advances made by program participants engaged in the various programs.
There’s no way to easily optimise these conflicting objectives at the same time.
On top of those two drivers of bureaucratic fossilisation, you have two further impediments in the Australian context:
- The impact of personal ambition, turf protection, and management of public sector KPI’s that have nothing to do with outputs, but everything to do with inputs that hobbles public sector engagement.
- Our federated system drives fragmentation.
Published today is an excellent analysis of the way forward by John Howard (not that one) from the Action Institute that I hope is widely read and deeply considered by those who will be involved in the treasurers productivity roundtable in August.
Jun 17, 2025 | Change, Leadership
“They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.”
That phrase echoes around footy grounds when a team, cruising to a win, suddenly collapses. The hunger fades. The cohesion cracks. The urgency evaporates.
Winners who stay winners do so because they never switch off. They stomp on a throat when they have the chance. And when they’re behind, they still believe they can come back.
Sporting analogies make great business metaphors. They’re colourful, visceral, and most of all, familiar.
Skype is a prime example of dropping the ball over the line.
Microsoft has been a cash machine for decades. Dominant, deep-pocketed, and ruthless when it suits. In short, they know how to win. But last month, they quietly walked off the field and took their former champion with them.
Skype was officially euthanised on May 5, 2025.
The original disruptor. The upstart that reinvented digital voice communication. The king of the mountain. Gone.
Skype began in 2003, the brainchild of two Estonians who wanted to reduce the cost of voice calls by using peer-to-peer protocols. The product exploded. eBay snapped it up in 2005 for $2.6 billion. Then in 2011, Microsoft bought it for $8.5 billion. It should have been a match made in heaven.
But inexplicably to me at the time, Microsoft launched Teams in 2017, and from then on, Skype looked like yesterday’s hero. Despite a global user base, a household brand, and a treasure trove of usage data, Skype was left to wither.
Why? Only insiders can say for sure, but from the outside, it looks like the classic case of a team where the halfback and five-eighth couldn’t agree on the game plan. Maybe one group wanted to modernise Skype. Another pushed all-in on Teams. The result? Strategic paralysis.
Then came COVID, and video conferencing exploded. Zoom turned from a quirky tool into a verb, others rushed to grab a piece of the expanding pie, and Skype appeared to be disinterested in even playing.
Microsoft had every advantage: distribution, brand, cash, data, development talent and loyal users by the millions, but they didn’t press the advantage. They coasted, and the game moved on.
So the final whistle has blown. Skype, once the dominant player, was taken off the field not by a better team, but by its own coach.
Small business owners: don’t assume past success guarantees future wins. Stay hungry. Stay alert. Don’t let a lazy midfield cost you the match.
