Category: Books

Book ideas for your summer reading …

Publication 8
8 Books for your summer holidays 2018
<div class="pub_block pb" style="padding-top: 15px; padding-bottom: 15px; margin: 0 1.6% 0 1.6%; 100;width: 96.8%; float: left; vertical-align: top;

Publication 8

8 Books for your summer holidays 2018

Packing for a summer getaway? Here’s 8 book ideas for you to consider…
Why are some countries rich and others poor? Why has progress been so uneven and power so concentrated? Climate, rainfall, rivers, mountains, land, distance, harbors, disease are just some of the explanations that Tim Marshall systematically walks through in this fascinating book.
“An engrossing tale that provides plenty of food for thought”, this playful, wise, and profoundly moving book tracks the beautifully complicated arc of a long-term romantic relationships and should be essential reading for anyone who has thought deeply and realistically about the nature of long term relationships.
Progress might be gradual, but it is happening all around us. Move beyond the out of date developed/emerging narrative of world development and be enlightened by this excellently researched and written book by the late Hans Rosling. This is the book that Bill Gates recently pledged to gift to every US college student
The disciplined pursuit of less. Feel over committed and under utilized? How the power of focusing and saying no can multiply your productivity and happiness
Not read this one yet, but BA Paris previous book was utterly terrifying, riveting and impossible to put down. Hoping for more
I’m picking up this very short but brilliantly insightful distillation of historical lessons for the second time this summer. Definitely worth a read. Makes it on many a list of all-time must reads (including Ray Dalio’s).
One of the most valuable skills in our economy is becoming increasingly rare. If you master this skill, you’ll achieve extraordinary results. Focused success in a distracted world.
I recently stumbled upon my notes from my first reading of this excellent book over a year ago. It contains some stunning insights into the mistakes we routinely make when imagining the future and remembering the past, and how that can both help and hinder us. When we imagine the future there is a whole lot missing. And the things that are missing, matter.
Ibiza has an intriguing history of hedonism going back to Carthaginian and Roman times. I love taking in a bit of history of the places we visit, unfortunately we’re not going to Ibiza this year so will have to make do with this interesting-looking history of the island from roman times right up to the present day instead!
Why particular moments in life stand out, matter, and endure much more than others (and how to create more that do). A brilliant book by the always-insightful Chip and Dan Heath. This has really changed the way I think, and helped me spot potential for moments that cry out to be elevated above the everyday.
created in Publicate

15 Things that changed my perspective so far this year

 

Wiser – how group decisions can let us down
50 years since the term “groupthink” was first coined it is still alive and well in the corridors of power in government, business, finance and elsewhere. This readable book by Cass Sunstein & Reid Hastie systematically unpicks the aspects of human nature that can lead groups to fail, and offers strategies to help.
Why are some countries rich and others poor? Why has progress been so uneven and power so concentrated? Climate, rainfall, rivers, mountains, land, distance, harbors, disease are just some of the explanations that Tim Marshall systematically walks through in this fascinating book.
Its hard to realistically evaluate our own performance in real time when doing a double-back somersault, but where are the video replays in professional life? Real insight & wisdom from Adam Grant’s podcasts and interviews with others including Ray Dalio.
“Skill is overrated,” says Jeff Bezos. These four things are not. It all comes down to standards. Standards are contagious, don’t transfer from one domain to another, must be recognised and require realistic expectations
Most (if not all) stories can map back to one of seven basic plots. See how your brand narrative aligns with them and what you could be doing to tell more engaging stories.
“An engrossing tale that provides plenty of food for thought”, this playful, wise, and profoundly moving book tracks the beautifully complicated arc of a long-term romantic relationships and should be essential reading for anyone who has thought deeply and realistically about the nature of long term relationships.
The structure of modern successful marriages is revealed in this inspiring and useful new perspective on the most important relationship. Finkel digs deeper with a sweeping historic overview showing that the primary function of marriage from 1776 to 1850 was food, shelter, and protection from violence. From 1850 to 1965, the purpose revolved around love and companionship. Nowadays, marriage is all about self-discovery, self-esteem, and personal growth.
Most leaders need to get better at it.
Why “Happy to help?” is literally true A  meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor
Do acts of kindness improve the well-being of the actor? Recent advances in the behavioural sciences have provided a number of explanations of human s…
You spend years trying to learn new stuff but then look back and realize that maybe like 10 big ideas truly changed how you think and drive most of what you believe. Brent Beshore recently listed the biggest ideas that changed his life. A few of mine: Everyone belongs to a tribe and underestimates…
The 40 elements of value sellers need to understand – they map to Maslow’s pyramid.
The new 2018 Global Digital suite of reports from We Are Social and Hootsuite reveals that there are now more than 4 billion people…
This podcast isn’t easy listening, but the honest, searing look at relationships and human nature is moving, insightful and quite brilliant.
The late Hans Rosling’s book provides a perspective-shifting insight into the things we commonly get wrong about how the world is today
This author thinks that a “deep work” untouchable day is worth 10x the productivity multiplier of a an interrupted, fragmented day. I’d agree.
created in Publicate

[Books] Wiser (part 2) – getting past groupthink to better outcomes

Authors Cass Sunstein and Reid Hastie have put together an excellent and readable taxonomy of the “bugs” that can afflict group decision making and cause groups to blunder in their book Wiser.

In the first part of this blog I discussed their dissection of the causes of group decision making failure.

How can we make groups function better?

The book carries a number of actionable insights into how to improve group decision making for the better:

Inquisitive and self-silencing leaders

Men out-talk women two to one in jury deliberations, the same happens in companies. Leaders and other high-status member of groups will exert a lot of influence, they can do the group a favour by remaining silent and indicating a willingness to hear all of the uniquely held information. That helps overcome one of the main issues identified with groupthink – self silencing which leads to a failure to share critical information.

Priming critical thinking

Rather than prizing consensus, give social reward to new and competing information.

The role of roles

Information aggregation becomes more likely with roles, as each member knows that the others have something to contribute, a division of labour in examining a problem will make hidden profiles less likely.

Shift perspectives:

“If a new CEO came in, what would they do?”

Does devil’s advocacy work?

It has become commonly thought that devil’s advocacy or can help get past groupthink influences. The authors are torn on this point. Devil’s advocacy as an idea is trying to formalize the commitment to expressing differing viewpoints (which is a good thing). Those assuming the devil’s advocate role are able to avoid the social pressure to agree. However the authors believe evidence is split on this – there is a difference between authentic dissent and a formal requirement for an assigned devil’s advocacy, who may be arbitrarily assigned and simply “acting out a role”. For this to work the devil’s advocate has to actually mean what they are saying.

An upgrade to devil’s advocacy, which has a greater chance of working is to get an entire team to work on a contrarian viewpoint, with the aim of defeating the primary team’s plan to execute a mission. so called, “red-teaming”.

The Delphi Method

This is a formal approach to aggregating individual views. It proceeds in a number of rounds. First round votes (or estimates) are taken, in complete anonymity. The second round estimates must all fall within the 25th – 75th percentile of the first round estimates. This process is repeated until the group converges on a single estimate. It’s an averaging process, but one that allows for a single stubborn (or convicted) group member to influence the final outcome a lot more than a simple average.

Separate Identification and selection.

The qualities that make a good identification process, particularly diverse and divergent thinking, are very different to a selection process which needs to favour convergent thinking. All too often these steps can be compressed together, making it difficult to juggle the requirements for both divergent and convergent thinking.

Harnessing experts

I found this section particularly interesting and relevant!

A few tips on how best to use experts:

 

  • Obtaining a statistical answer from a few of them, rather than relying on just one
  • Limit experts to domain areas where there is evidence that expertise gives an edge (eg how to combine asset classes to give a diversified portfolio as opposed to whether the stockmarket, or interest rates,  will go up or down tomorrow or next month)
  • Look for track records from experts (weight individual expert views by the track record)

 

Specifically for investment advice this points toward asking the questions

“What other strategies were considered, but ultimately didn’t quite make it into this advice?”

“Is this advice the work of one, or many, experts?

was this advice produced in an environment of challenge among experts, how were the different expert inputs incorporated and weighted (process)?

I for one will certainly be taking away a few of these insights and trying to apply them more consistently.

What do you think is the most helpful?

[Books] Wiser – how group decisions can let us down

I’m sure you can picture the scene. A group sits down to make a critically important decision. Much discussion follows. One person after another lays out their views, lots of points are made. There are some clear areas of agreement. Nods all round. The answer starts to become clear. With a few changes a consensus develops. The decision is made. Everyone feels good, confident. this is definitely the right decision. No doubt. We all agree.

But is it?

Many people will have experienced or heard about situations where things didn’t quite go to plan and it transpired the group blundered. The term groupthink has become relatively well know.

This excellent book written by Cass Sunstein and Reid Hastie starts with a simple observation and a simple question: In many fields we endow groups of people with the authority or responsibility to make key decisions.

Do groups usually correct individual mistakes?

 

The simple answer is that they do not, and they can even amplify mistakes. This basic insight has great relevant to pension funds, investment committees and all sorts of other groups tasked with making meaningful decisions in complex domains.

In this highly readable book the authors take us through a quick tour of the taxonomy of “bugs” within group decision making, however their approach is balanced – also laying out the ways in which groups might be thought to do better than individuals, and the circumstances in which they can.

Understanding how and why groups blunder is not staggeringly complex, but requires a focused and methodical examination of human nature and biases, with social influences playing a big role throughout. Unpacking some of the sources of group failure in this way starts to yield immediately actionable insights on how to correct for these issues. The authors also helpfully guide readers through a number of real-life experiments that support the points they make.

 

Individual and Group judgements

 

We as individuals use judgement heuristics (rules of thumb), and have biases. We can be overconfident and place too much weight on our own experience and opinions. These behavioural traits are well known on an individual level. When we get together to debate and make decisions in a group sense these can result in “garbage in garbage out”.

Individual confidence tends to increase after a group deliberation. Deliberative groups (those that deliberate before arriving at a view) can be overconfident and wrong, this can have serious consequences in government policy, corporate strategy and for institutional investors including pension funds (tasked with making the investment decisions for large pools of invested assets).

In Defence of Groups – Wise Crowds?

Surely groups ought to be:

  • At least as good as the most informed member: if that individual can make their case persuasively or clearly, others will realise their own errors and get behind the better informed viewpoint – eg “why are all manhole covers round?”
  • Groups ought to be able to aggregate information effectively to get a fuller picture than held by any individual – particularly if they contain no experts but a range of dispersed information
  • Synergy: the give-and-take of group discussion might lead the group to sift information in a way that uncovers insight that the individuals would not have reached by themselves.

Is there evidence that these dynamics function in practice?

In practice there are four key reasons why groups fail, and this is really the central insight of the whole book

 

  1. Groups fail to successfully aggregate info shared by members, then focus on information that is widely shared by the members rather than that known by only one or two members

  2. Groups become polarized: adopt a more extreme position than the average of the members pre-deliberation

  3. Groups fall victim to decision making cascades. Whereby early opinions excessively influence direction of decision

  4. Groups amplify the individual biases of group members

 

Let’s draw a distinction between different types of group and different types of problem:

 

Statistical v deliberative groups: statistical groups each independently contribute a point estimate of an unknown variable (eg, the temperature of a room). Deliberative groups discuss the answer to a particular problem. Most of the issues with groups occur with deliberative groups.

 

“Eureka” problems are ones where the true answer, once voiced is immediately obvious to the rest of the group (“why are manhole covers round?”). Problems with an outcome which is certain and measurable (eg the temperature of a room) are different to those where outcomes are uncertain and not immediately measurable (eg investment decisions).

 

It is clear that the decisions taken by investment committees and trustees frequently fall into the toughest category where group failures are most likely!

 

Information Sharing – the Common Knowledge Trap

Groups often risk falling into the common knowledge trap – common information that is held by multiple group members is given more weight than it ought to be, and significant information held by only one or two members can be ignored.

 

Self-silencing is a big threat to effective group decision making.

There can often be social pressure or subtle penalties to speaking out, especially if what the individual has to say is jarring or disruptive. In practice this effect can depend on the self-confidence, and subtly on the status of the individual involved meaning that men, women, minorities and certain occupations will all experience this differently

 

Polarization

Like minded groups, post deliberation can often get into a more extreme position than any of them started in pre-deliberation. This is most clearly visibile with respect to politiical affiliation. The authors cite interesting studies that show that groups of left-of-centre or right-of-centre individuals will tend to adopt more extreme positions post-deliberation than their average pre-deliberation, and will tend toward greater consensus in the more extreme position. Why does this happen?

Individual opinions can turn more extreme when corroborated by others, and confidence can also increase once an individual learns their view is shared by others. Social pressures/forces will cause members to adjust, at least slightly, to the dominant position.

Polarization doesn’t always lead away from the right answer of course, if the members of the group are individually leaning toward the right answer then the group polarization is likely to produce a decisive swing to the correct view. However groups badly blunder when they polarize toward an incorrect answer, becoming more confident in the incorrect answer in the process.

Cascades.

The human being is at root a social animal, language may well be the most subtle and engaging social mechanism in the animal kingdom – and we are wired to synchronise with other humans from birth. Hence what others do or say will influence what we do or say. What can easily happen is that subsequent speakers may defer to the opinion of earlier ones, and later speakers, hearing two or more people state the same belief may assume these beliefs were arrived at independently (and therefore have higher reliability). The authors describe an interesting experiment where subjects consistently make obviously false statistical judgements, being influenced by what earlier subjects stated.

If consensus is prized, and known to be prized, then self silencing is more likely.

Amplification

Groups often amplify natural human biases such as availability (if something can be easily called to mind, it is considered more likely), representativeness (if someone superficially appears to fit a particular mould, we are likely to judge them as being more suitable) , framing and egocentric bias. The planning fallacy, overconfidence bias.

Why? Informational influences and social pressures are again at work.

Having understood the ways in which groups blunder, the authors guide us through ways we can make groups function better – I discuss this in part 2 here.

Top 2017 Reads: Blogs, Articles, Books & Podcasts that changed my perspective in 2017

Why a Focus on Personality Matters 
Why a Focus on Personality Matters
Fascinating insights from Deloitte and Harvard Business Review helped me understand the role of personality in workplace interactions, and allowed me to re-interpret my relationships with colleagues and peers more productively
Ray Dalio`s Principles
Ray Dalio’s Principles
Embrace reality and deal with it. Fail well. Understand that tension is key to great relationships. Invest time getting in sync. Ring the Bell Provide constant feedback, feedback accurately not kindly. Brilliantly laid-out wisdom from Ray Dalio. But I found an unexpected and deeper truth in Dalio’s work beyond the expected focus on transparency, honesty and feedback.
Simplify podcast, 6 episodes with powerful and simple ways to change your life, brought to you by Blinkist
Simplify is for anybody who’s taken a close look at their habits, their happiness, their relationships, or their health and thought “There’s got to be a better way to do this.”
The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature
Humans spent >99% of our evolutionary history in natural environments. But in the modern world we can interact with nature surprisingly little, yet science shows some surprising benefits from simple things such as “grounding” (walking barefoot on ground).
The Surprising Cognitive Benefits Of Small Talk At Work
Building empathy and connection are key to engagement, satisfaction and can also improve functioning of teams (through increased feeling of “psychological safety”). Ring the bell and celebrate key milestones.
Your Brain Can Only Take So Much Focus
Research has shed light on the power of focus and its role as a hidden driver of success. Yet as helpful as focus can be, research also shows there’s a downside to it:…
The 5 Shared Traits of Successful Teams via Google
The 5 Shared Traits of Successful Teams via Google
Who is on a team matters less than how the team members interact, structure their work, and view their contributions
What Facebook Did to American Democracy
And why it was so hard to see it coming In the media world, as in so many other realms, there is a sharp discontinuity in the timeline: before the 2016 election, and after.
6 Things You Need to Recover From Every Day - via Thrive Global
6 Things You Need to Recover From Every Day – via Thrive Global
Being busy and being productive are not the same thing. Most people try and do too much. True personal growth is sustainable – to do so means making an effort to recover from the following each day: work, people, fitness, technology food and being awake.
Why Deep Work Matters in a Distracted World
From the moment we wake in the morning, we’re tempted.Reach for the phone. Check texts. Read email. Scroll through social feeds. Even though mobile devices have increased our access to information and ability to communicate with others, they’ve also introduced barriers that could negatively impact our work. By understanding how to distance ourselves from distractions and improve time management, we have a better chance to dive deeper into our thinking and reach new heights of productivity.
Work Rules!: a new book of insights from Google`s Laszlo Bock that will transform how you live and lead
Laszlo Bock (ex-SVP of people management at Google) lifts the lid unexpectedly candidly on the real stories behind some of the people management innovations that have made google such a success. It’s a must for anyone who has ever thought hard about how to motivate high performing teams.
Four fundamentals of workplace automation
McKinsey believe that one should focus on activities not occupations when it comes to the impact of automation. They reckon that 45% of the activities in the US economy could be automated with currently proven technology …
Making Messages Stick
Why do some messages stick around for thousands of years (“The boy who cried wolf”) but others barely register? If we know how to make messages stick, can we make worthy messages “stickier”? Great insights here from the brothers Chip & Dan Heath.
To Motivate Your Employees, Draw from Your Own Experience
It’s not always easy to get the most from your employees. If you’re struggling to inspire the people on your team, look to your past. Think about your own experience and what motivated you…
The Overcommitted Organization
Multi-teaming (assigning people to a number of teams) has become ubiquitous, in response to the need to solve complex problems and manage resources efficiently. Particularly in knowledge work. But it has a dark side
created in Publicate

Five unexpected learnings from Ray Dalio’s Principles

Sure, Ray Dalio is well known for his approach to “radical transparency” and the uncompromising way he has implemented that (as well as the extraordinary investment success of his firm, Bridgewater), but his recent book Principles held learnings for me in a number of unexpected areas including: mistakes and failure , the art of disagreement and what might be described as “soft skills”.

Underneath what might seem on the surface – to some-  a set of stark, tough, emotionless dictats I found something a little different – there is a deeper truth – Dalio is asking people to have a sense of introspection and humility, to sincerely believe that they might be wrong and open themselves to other viewpoints and critiques, and to reflect hard on their mistakes as this is where the best learnings are to be found.

And the reason for writing and sharing the principles? It all started with a meeting between Dalio and some of his key partners in the early 1990’s where they presented him with a candid – and stark – picture of the negative effects that his focus and determination had on others in the organisation – that they felt belittled, unnecessary, incompetent and overwhemled. In addressing this, Dalio decided it was important to set out the principles he was operating by, in a way to try and get in sync with his employees so that they could see where he was coming from more easily. Which could mean they would be more understanding of his approach, and less likely to be affected in negative ways.

The big question reading Principles is of course what valuable read-across can one take into other organisations. I would argue plenty, but even for those that disagree surely setting out principles and spending time getting in sync on them is universally a good thing for meaningful work and meaningful relationships.

Here are my top 5 least-expected takeaways from Principles:

 

  • Making mistakes & learning from failure. At the heart of the book is Dalio’s own story and evolution. He shares a story from the early days of Bridgewater –  he took too much risk betting on the bond market in the early 1980’s that the firm imploded and he lost almost everything he had built (he had to let go all the people working for him at the time). In reflecting on that he developed some clear thinking about how to respond to failure, and he is convinced that we can learn a lot more from our failures than our successes (self evident perhaps, but worth lingering on as it can be all too easily overlooked or forgotten). Treat the pain of failure -and yes, you need to feel pain- as a trigger. A trigger to reflect deeply, reflect objectively from a higher level. Reflect both on the proximate cause of the “case-at-hand” but also at the “machine design” level (that is, the organisational, workflow or systems design construct that generated the mistake). To evolve successfully one must first correctly perceive and diagnose the problem (objectively), identify a better design, and push through on implementation. Experience creates an internalized learning that book learning can’t replace, so in that sense mistakes and failure should be treated as valuable opportunities to create powerful learnings.

 

  • The art of thoughtful disagreement. Open-mindedness is clearly pretty key to Dalio’s worldview and is behind, in his view, the extraordinary success that Bridgewater has had over the years. He talks at length about the principles behind ensuring that disagreement is fostered, and this I think is the key bit – is handled and resolved in efficient and amicable ways that move everyone forward. There are a handful of principles that get at this – including sincerely believing that you might be wrong, treating a disagreement as an “open exploration of what is true”, rather than an “I win you lose” clash of ideas (which happens all too easily, in my experience), doing everything you can to understand how others come by their opinions, and focus on being “open minded and assertive” (the idea being, it’s easy to be assertive when you are pushing a point of view, but more helpful to be assertive but neutral, to explore what’s true). At the end of the day what matters is moving forward, and his ideas around a “believability weighted” meritocracy are compelling. Dalio’s view is that two of the biggest barriers to progress are our individual egos (and the dogged attachment to our own ideas that generates) and our un-awareness of our own blindspots. This insight is well worth reflecting on and I for one know I could strive to do better on both of these fronts (both un-attaching myself from my views and ego, and working harder to understand blindspots).

 

  • Invest as much time as possible “getting in sync”. In an unexpected nod to what might be described as “softer skills” Dalio talks at length of the need to invest in getting in sync with others (colleagues, peers etc) mainly to compare your principles against those of others and check where there is disalignment. Being clear on principles is, key to moving efficiently from disagreement to decision, hence “getting in sync” on one another’s principles and knowing what you have in common sets up the systems for resolving future conflict and disagreement. In the long run it increases efficiency, but you need to prioritise because of time constraints. Priority should be important issues with the most believable and relevant parties. Again you could argue this is good sense rather than revelatory, but probably all too easily forgotten or missed out in the whirl of the day-to-day and the temptation to focus on the new, the urgent or the interesting. I have certainly resolved to to spend more time focusing on this.

 

  • Be clear & honest on personality and attribute dimensions. Understanding that people are wired very differently (for example: task vs goal oriented, an aptitude for concepts vs plans, an intuitive vs sensing approach and whether detail or big-picture focused. ) and that for an organisation to functionally optimally you need the right design of skill and capability comb’s in the right roles. Be honest about the suitability of individuals for roles by focusing on capability dimensions ( in practice probably too often overlooked in light of someone’s likability, social skills or similarity to the decision maker/interviewer). I would be grateful to see what the underlying personality dimensions are behind the tools that Dalio refers to (eg Baseball cards and Dot Collector). He mentioned these may be released soon in a “Principles app”, so i look forward to that.

 

  • In meetings, ensure levels are navigated effectively and synthesis is achieved. We’ve all been there – that meeting that gets dragged “into the weeds”, (that is to say a granular debate on points several levels below that of the real question at hand), possibly never to be recovered. “Reality exists at different levels and each of them gives you different but valuable perspectives”. Synthesis refers to the mental combining/processing of data points across levels in forming an overall picture (and coming to a decision). So the key to an effective meeting, is an exchange that can achieve synthesis by successfully navigating levels effectively, that is lower levels might be explored to degrees of various depth to gain insight along the way, but the main level is returned to, and progress made along that level. Another area of insight into “soft skills” that I was not expecting – but really resonated. This picture from the book sums it up well –


My favourite Dalio quotes:

 

 

 

Making Messages Stick

Do you remember the last powerpoint presentation you looked through?

Thought not.

There’s an urban legend …

A man goes to bar, is chatted up by pretty girl, who buys him a drink, next thing he wakes up in a bath of ice with a sick feeling, the note says don’t move, call 911. The operator answers “don’t move, someone has stolen your kidney. we’ve had a spate of these recently”.

A powerful and memorable story isn’t it? But none of it true. It’s an urban legend that has been circulating since 1991 and online since 1997.

Why do some ideas stick around for millenia (eg. aesop’s fables: “boy who cried wolf”) and others barely register?

Unworthy or false ideas can often be made sticky, can we make worthy ideas more sticky?

That’s the premise of the excellent Made to Stick written by Chip & Dan Heath (it’s over a decade old, but in the era of fake news remains as relevant as ever.

There are predictable components to a sticky idea, these can help to spot potentially sticky ideas, or to refine messages to make them more sticky.
What are they?

1. Simple . An effective simple messages needs to be “core” and “compact”, ie it needs to be short enough to be conveyed quickly and snappily, and needs to encapsulate the core message. A useful technique is to make use of a “schema” (mental model) that we already have for something else by employing analogy to simplify a message. This simplifies the absorption of a new message by employing a shortcut. The boy who cried wolf is sticky because it compactly captures a fundamental insight on human nature.
2. Unexpected – so far so obvious, but things get sticky when we move from common to uncommon sense, we break the schema. People sit up and take notice.
3. Credible – make it believable through authority or “antiauthority”
4. Concrete – make it real, tangible, something the audience can relate to or easily imagine. try and avoid the abstract, avoid large statistics
5. Emotional – make the audience feel something, connect with the idea
6. Story – above all people remember stories. from birth it’s the way we learn and make sense of the world and studies show that stories tend to stick in the mind far more than statements. in the corporate world particularly so, it can be easily (through the curse of knowledge) to omit the story and focus on the moral. Indeed both story and moral are important but given a choice go for the story not the moral.

there are effectively three types of story narrative
Challenge narrative – David & Goliath, appeal to our perseverance and hard work. inspire us to work harder, take on new challenges and overcome obstacles.
Connection narrative – the good samaritan, Romeo & Juliet, Titanic. they inspire us in social ways. make us want to help and be more tolerant of others. the story of a relationship that bridges a divide
Creativity narrative – The apple on Newton’s head, a story of great genius. It appeals to our desire for a human moment of genius that can create something out of nothing.

There are three killers of sticky ideas
The curse of knowledge – if you know too much you talk in the abstract and jump straight to the morals (omitting the story) and this kills the stickiness of the idea – focus on the concrete and the story.
Decision paralysis – too many options, uncertainty, even irrelevant uncertainty can paralyze us.
Bury the lead – natural tendency to lead with factual information but bury the real kernel
Here’s to worthy & sticky ideas …

p>