Risk Model Inversion

Over the last few years I have had several discussions with colleagues, co-workers and friends around turning their mental models of risk management upside down (at least as far as it applies to taking risks within a particular job or consulting engagement).

Way back in 2003 I had just accepted a new job at a fortune 500 company and did "the unexpected". I took a big risk in my first project. Coming from the outside, I was surprised to learn that my employer at that time had not been using conventional UX practices or deliverables in their projects. I went to both my teammates and to my leadership and told them that the best way for my project to be successful was to create wireframes and perform a paper-prototype test on the interface (neither of which had they ever seen before). I did this knowing one basic truth:

Starting at day 1 in any job or engagement, your ability to try new things or to get change-oriented requests approved decreases over time. Stated another way: People don't like to crush the spirit of the new guy/gal.

The enthusiasm and energy of the new recruit is a cherished asset that will erode over time. Most clients, managers and co-workers, in my experience, unconsciously seek to extend that honeymoon period of rose-colored glasses by allowing the new teammate to demonstrate their capabilities (i.e., "give them enough rope to hang themselves").

Many people I personally know have tended to go the opposite direction and follow their instincts in choosing to "play it safe and establish themselves" in their new role before "shaking things up". In my experience, this rarely works and in fact works less the further/higher you go in your career. Case in point: a colleague who opined that one of his friends, who was the president of his firm, was unable to make the changes he thought were necessary to increase the overall chances of success within his shop. This was very curious to me as I sometimes have a hard time understanding why autonomy is not pushed down along with responsibility within organizations. In response to my question he summed it up thusly:

"He has been in his job 2 years and has not been able to meet the one part of the established success criteria. Given his perceived shortcomings, why would the owner/board take the risk now?"

Most leaders put someone in a position to fill some gap. Whether it's solving a problem or taking advantage of an opportunity, the wishful-thinking perception of the leader (especially the higher you go) is that the new resource will be "fire and forget" (i.e., give basic direction and then hear the good news at the end of the project or the engagement).

The dynamics in the large organizations I have worked with, tend toward rewarding those who perform without flaw rather than those who exhibit a presence of strength. This bias leads to any flaw becoming magnified and being used as the catch-all reason to not moving into unfamiliar territory (because most humans and animals alike correlate unfamiliar with uncomfortable). This discomfort with the unfamiliar tends to be smaller in magnitude than the discomfort of crushing the spirit of the new guy, but depressingly is larger in magnitude than the discomfort of saying no to the established person even if the established person has a good track record (see chart below).

The point where the two discomforts become close enough to flip the bias of the decision maker tends to happen somewhere between 90 and 180 days. I believe this is specifically because most of these types of decisions are made based upon qualitative relationship dynamics. The better you get to know a person, the more comfortable you become in pushing back. In other words familiarity breeds contempt where contempt equals comfort in being the source of disillusionment or disappointment.

I'm not sure I know how to solve this, in fact I am sure that I don't know. I only claim to have a method to identify a time to take risks when the tolerance for change is greatest.

Rating Time:

Playing it safe at the beginning: Garbage

Taking timely risks intelligently: Like it

"Remember that postcard Grandpa sent us from Florida of that Alligator biting that woman's bottom? That's right, we all thought it was hilarious. But, it turns out we were wrong. That alligator was sexually harrassing that woman." - Homer Simpson

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Inconceivable!

No not in that way...

While this blog does often talk about the elusive nature and meaning of words and it sometimes plays with them, I am not going to talk about the meaning of "inconceivable". Rather, what I find to be inconceivable is that so many people do not understand the meaning of the word "sorry".... hmmmmm, no that's not it. I do think they understand it, I just don't believe that they grasp what it means to actually mean it.

So many people use it as an attempt to claim compassion or empathy. While in reality what they actually mean is that they are uncomfortable with the current situation and either:

• don't know what to say
• want your absolution of any wrong-doing
• want to be acknowledged as permitted to end the current portion of the conversation

While I find myself on the "being sorry" end of the first example when confronted with someone else's tragedy, I more frequently find myself on the other end in business contexts - which strangely enough also leaves me as "being sorry" - as in a sorry state of affairs.

In business contexts - a retail or service employee will say "I'm sorry" or "I apologize" or something else with a similar supposed meaning. What I find offensive is that they believe I should accept it at it's face value when they are un-willing to back up said sorrow with any action or any actual attempt to make amends. The lack of any willingness to make amends robs the supposed empathy of any sincerity or meaning.

Professed empathy without sincerity makes "sorry" a platitude - a trite remark uttered as if it has actual meaning.

The crux of the matter is this - If a service employee says "I'm sorry" in the above fashion without any actual sincerity but as a means to end a topic of contention, then they are essentially assuming:

• that I should believe that they actually have empathy for me
• that saying "I'm sorry" is sufficient to make amends
• that I should belive that saying "I'm sorry" is sufficient to make amends

And while a small apology is appropriate in small circumstances, many organizations use it as if it were an panacea to any deficiency in any product or service. Stop insulting the intelligence of customers and consumers. If you are going to express remorse, empower people to back it up with an attempt to make amends - It doesn't have to be a grand gesture, It just has to demonstrate some level of sincerity. This sincerity is what will lead to authentic brand relationships and brand loyalty. A great example of a sincere apology is flickr's coloring contest - The site went down for a brief period of time and as a sincere apology to its users, flickr made a simple coloring contest and gave away a "pro" account. The cool thing here is that flickr goofed and in its sincere apology capitalized on goof in a way to strengthen their brand, user loyalty and raise their awareness profile!

Why? Because in the world of falseness - people crave authenticity! Smart customers don't judge the character of your company when things go right, they judge it by your conduct when things go wrong.

Insincere platitudes - crap.
Authentic responses - like them.

BAD Retailer!!

There are many types of bad retail experiences. And today I'll talk about the ones with a poor mental model.

For those people not in the design community a mental model is an imaginative construct a person makes in their head to try to understand how something works - e.g., many e-commerce websites give us a mental model of a "shopping cart" to illustrate how one component of the shopping process works.

Many people in the design community use the concept of mental models to ensure that what they are designing, be it a product or a interactive experience, is comprehensible by the intended audience. Well, maybe it is time that executives of certain physical retail establishments tried to use this concept in regards to the physical shopping experience in their stores.

Why do I say this - as usual, because I am gosh darn angry! What mega-moron came up with the concept that a store should try to change the way humans think and behave to fit into a non-intuitive logistical model.

I don't remember if Circuit City or Service Merchandise came first with the whole "get a ticket, pay, and walk out of the store to a loading area" model. But I hate them both equally for the setting a horrible trend that other stores have followed.

First off, the whole concept is flawed - The process is designed around a concept where a store is trying to save the cost of holding inventory and using a warehouse like layout "in the back" to minimize the space needed while still maintaining an aesthetic store environment. NEWS FLASH - PEOPLE WHO SHOP AT LOW OR MODERATELY PRICED STORES ARE MORE CONCERNED WITH PRICE AND CONVENIENCE THAN HAVING A LINOLEUM FLOOR! Just ask any successful big-box retailer like Home Depot, Lowes, Best Buy, Sam's Club, etc. - Not that these companies don't have their issues, but that's a blog for another day. My point here is open up the back room you dolts! You can have your savings on the footprint required for inventory and have even more savings by removing your "tastefully decorated" store.

Secondly, who goes to a store with the idea of buying a ticket which represents a piece of merchandise? Nobody does. Enough said.

Lastly, every time I go to one of these establishments there is always some problem at the loading area. I wish I could avoid this whole part of the process and pick what I want from a shelf, put it on a cart, pay for it and GET OUT OF YOUR STORE WITHOUT TALKING TO ANOTHER SOUL!!! I don't come to Brandsmart to make friends, I come because I want to buy something at a reasonable price as quickly and pain free as possible.

Threadless - Immersive, Expressive & Transparent

I Love Threadless!

www.threadless.com that is. If you haven't seen it, go check it out. It fits the model of long term staying power in web 2.0 land. And what is that model?

Immersive - You can get lost on threadless for hours looking at and commenting on all the designs, blogs, photos, etc.

Expressive - Threadless allows members of it's devoted community to express themselves in all sorts of ways. Designers can upload their designs, have them voted on, commented on and produced (if enough people vote for them). Consumers can grade designs, comment or suggest improvements, create blogs, or even get into the act themselves by submitting slogans for "Type Tees". You can also get credit for uploading photos of yourself in threadless shirts.

Transparent - working with or purchasing on threadless is a seamless process that is hassle free.

When online businesses come into existence that bring immersive, expressive and transparent experiences to consumers, success is sure to follow.