Nike Considered: Simply Remarkable

Nike has just launched its new Considered family of shoes, designed from a Cradle-to-Cradle-ish Point of View.  To create the Considered line, Nike’s designers went back to first prinicples, questioning basic design traditions in order to get to a new and better product outcome which addresses the environmental footprint required to source, manufacture, and recycle shoes.  Here are some highlights:

  • Leather (a renewable resource) pieces are stiched in an overlapping fashion so as to produce smooth internal seams, obviating the need for comfort liners and reducing the shoes’s material mass.
  • All of those leather pieces are tanned using a vegetable-based process
  • Again, to save material mass, metal eyelets aren’t used
  • The two-piece outsole is designed to snap together, eliminating harmful adhesives and simplifying recyclability
  • No use of PVC
  • Where possible, materials are sourced locally to reduce transportation energy use

The result?  Considered shoes generate 63% less waste in manufacturing than a typical Nike design.  The use of solvents has been cut by 80%.  And a stunning 37% less energy is required to create a pair of shoes. 

Is Considered a perfect example of green design?  No, but when was the last time anyone did anything to perfection?  I’m just happy to see a big, public company like Nike — with everything to lose, and not so much to gain — take a leadership role in trying to forge a new market space for environmentally friendly, socially relevant products.  This is a wonderful first step.

The result is a new sub-brand of shoes whose differentiation is rooted not in the multi-million dollar marketing endorsement of a basketball player, but in the physical makeup and design of the offering itself.  That’s real, and I hope it’s for keeps.

Creating an Organization around Customers

A while ago I wondered what would happen to an organization whose CEO really understood its line of market offerings.  Then I asked what the ramifications would be if a CEO was able — and willing — to blog.  Now I think the biggest and best question is: what if your CEO were willing to create an org chart with the customer somewhere on the page?

What sparked this question was this interesting thought from Vincent Grimaldi I found while reading Interbrand’s 2004 User’s Choice Awards (top brand of the year?  Apple):

…conventional organization charts contribute to reinforcing the wrong
behaviors, as they show the CEO at the top and the receptionist at the
bottom. Notice that the customer is not part of this picture… When the
customer calls on the phone, it is the receptionist who picks up, not
the CEO. Who is the most important person in that scenario?

So, what would happen if you mapped out your own organization from a customer’s point of view?  You could start by asking these four simple questions:

  • What is the user experience of our organization like today?
  • What should the user experience actually be like?
  • Who in our org actually delivers that experience?
  • How can we better allocate resources to help those key brand representatives? 

Everything should be fair game in this exercise: from how customer support calls are handled, how incoming resumes are sorted and evaluated, how content gets created for the company blog (you do have one, don’t you?), how the FedEx guy gets treated each day, to how the corporate website is structured.  The results of this exercise should help your organization really "get" how to create wonderful
end-to-end customer experiences by becoming more aware of the human aspects of the brand impression your company makes in the world.

In essence, it’s about making your org chart a catalyst for fractal brand thinking.  At every point from the janitorial staff on down to The Office of the CEO.

Good brands are fractal

Definition of fractal, from Hyperdictionary

A fractal is a rough or fragmented geometric shape that can be
subdivided in parts, each of which is (at least approximately) a
smaller copy of the whole. Fractals are generally self-similar (bits
look like the whole) and independent of scale (they look similar, no
matter how close you zoom in)

Good brands are fractal.  Every interaction you have reflects the interaction you’ll have with every other piece of the whole, as well as the whole itself.  Since "brand" is shorthand for the total experience you get from buying, using, servicing, and disposing of a product, creating a great brand requires taking a fractal point of view to the process of designing total experiences where everything — large and small — is consistent and mutually self-reinforcing.

What’s the implication for creating cool stuff?  I haven’t fully thought this one out, but I think it all boils down to leadership.  Behind every great product is someone who had a vision of the end thing in mind and was able to say "yes" and "no" to help the development team understand that vision.  In a way, great products require a kind of fractal leadership able to recognize the right texture for a button, the right message for the box, the right approach to customer support and service.

What do you think?

Cool Books of 2004

Another list.  Here are my favorite reads of 2004. No claims to comprehensiveness or consistency, and not all were published in the past year; just a list of books that made me think different in 2004:

On Intelligence, by Jeff Hawkins:  an elegant book on the nature of intelligence and how the brain works.  The good news for metacool readers is that "real intelligence" is the way that designers think.

The System of the World, by Neil Stephenson: third in the baroque triology, capable of stimulating latent nerdism, and a helluva of a long book, it continues Stephenson’s fascinating journey through the origins of modern finance and computing.  I loved every page of it.  Not for everyone, which is refreshing.

The Innovator’s Solution, by Clayton Christensen: forget the hype, the content is outstanding.  Clay tested the ideas in this book on my class at Harvard Business School, and yet I still find something fresh and interesting each time I go back to its pages.  The chapters on need-based market segmentation strategies are excellent.

Porsche: Excellence was Expected, by Karl Ludvigsen:  perhaps the best business book of 2004, unfortunately Excellence is marketed as a car book, which will keep it out of the mainstream.  In a world where marketing-led "brand building" is an oxymoron, Ludvigsen shows how Porsche built a brand with deep integrity piece by piece, slowly evolving it over time.  His discussion of the genesis of the Porsche Cayenne SUV also shows how quickly a brand can be diluted and maimed by managers out to make a quick buck.

Orbiting the Giant Hairball, by Gordon MacKenzie:  any book recommended by both Richard Tait and Bob Sutton (both proponents of humane business practices, and really good guys themselves) has to be good, and Hairball delivers.  Look, any organization will have its problems, and those problems can seem particularly nasty when seen from the inside.  The real question is: do you care enough about those problems do something about them?  Hairball is a guide to engaging with an organization to help solve its problems without losing your soul.  It also contains some great advice about dealing with nasty behaviors in the workplace, including teasing, which has run rampant in every org I’ve ever worked in.

Emotional Design, by Donald Norman:  if you haven’t noticed, I’m
quite taken by this wonderful piece of thinking.  His
Visceral-Behavioral-Reflective model of human cognition is a powerful
way to understand slippery concepts like brand and meaning, making this
one of the most important books on marketing (where marketing is the process of understanding human needs and creating offerings to meet those needs) to come out in years.  His
message about beautiful things working better is important, too.  Read
this one.

Collins on Drucker

"His generosity of spirit explains much of Drucker’s immense
influence. I reflected back on his work, The Effective Executive, and
his admonition to replace the quest for success with the quest for
contribution. The critical question is not, “How can I achieve?” but
What can I contribute?

Drucker’s primary contribution is not a single idea, but rather an
entire body of work that has one gigantic advantage: nearly all of it
is essentially right."

Jim Collins

Alex Zanardi on Courage and Passion

In life… when you find something that you love so much, as much as I did love motor racing, and as I still love motor racing, you will find in yourself the determination to go out and really bring the best out of yourself.”
– Alessandro Zanardi

[In 2001 champion race driver Alex Zanardi’s legs were cut off above the knee in a horrific racing accident.  Zanardi battled back from the brink of death to once again carry his baby son on his shoulders… and in 2004 to race a BMW in the Italian touring car series (that’s him in the car above).  Intrinsically motivated to race and win… stubborn, courageous, and passionate to the core of his being, Zanardi is proof positive that racers make great role models. Forza Zanardi!

A lesson in avoiding assholes, from Sir Richard Branson

I just caught the premier episode of The Rebel Billionaire, Sir Richard Branson’s answer to Donald Trump.  I had three takeaways from the show, two trivial, one deep.

First, the trivial:

  • If you want to get on a reality TV show, you must dye your hair blonde, or for bonus points, burn it extra crispy white.
  • And/or: do something strange with that hair.  Shave it.  Grow a jazz dot.  Stick it up with glue. If all else fails, dump a dorky hat over it. 

Perhaps this is Branson’s way of poking fun at Trump – “Look mate, I can gather a load of people with hair at least as silly as yours.”  However, as with the extreme sports activities which make up the bulk of the show, hair has very little to do with business acumen or success.  As I said, these are trivial points.

Assholes, on the other hand, are not (for those of you not paying attention, this is the “deep” takeaway).  Organizational behavior expert Robert Sutton has written extensively on the effect that assholes have on coworkers.  We’ve all been there: you’re sitting in a staff meeting, trying to act like an adult, and then someone in the room has a hissy fit.  Or think about the low-level teasing that inevitably accompanies someone wearing what they want to wear to work.  And then there are the folks who, plainly put, treat people below them (such as janitors and exec assistants) like shit.  All the work of assholes, and all bad news; as Sutton points out, “…there is substantial evidence that anger and hostility are contagious, so if I am nasty to someone, they will be nasty to me, and a destructive cycle will commence.”  Sound familiar?

What if you could have an asshole-free workplace?  I worked in one such place, and it was the best four years of my professional career.  Sure, we had a few total jerk-offs here and there, but in general our hiring process was all about establishing a shock-proof, bullet-resistant asshole detector, and it worked.  Here’s how:

  1. We generally only accepted interviews from candidates referred via word of mouth.  In Seth Godin speak, we looked for Purple Cows.  Resumes were a bad thing… piles of references were golden!
  2. We phone screened for technical competence before you walked in the door.  It’s one thing to be an asshole, it’s quite another to be an incompetent asshole, or even worse, an incompetent nice person.
  3. Once in the door, you spoke to at least 12 people.  You had lunch with them.  You walked around.  You talked.  You answered questions.
  4. Any hire candidate got interviewed by people in the org who would be above, below, or to the side of them, status-wise.  And by people in totally unrelated disciplines.  That way, if you did get hired, you felt that the entire company wanted you, not just one specific high-status manager, who by the way, might or might not be a total asshole herself.  This method also keeps assholes in a hiring position from replicating.  Assholes tend to stick together, and once stuck are not easily separated.
  5. We took you to lunch.  Decisions you made at the restaurant mattered.  A lot.

I know this isn’t the norm out in industry.  Not many HR professionals are ready to cede so much power over the hiring process to the rest of the organization.  This is too bad.  As Sutton writes:

For starters, I am surprised by how few senior managers act to avoid hiring jerks in the first place, or to stop abusive employees in their tracks once they reveal their true colors. The key is to make explicit to everyone involved in hiring decisions that candidates who have strong skills but who show signs they will belittle and disrespect others, cannot be hired under any circumstances.

Sir Branson took an innovative approach to the asshole problem by donning Scooby-Doo-ish makeup and mask before picking up would-be contestants from the airport in a London taxi cab.  Disguised as an arthritic old cabbie, Branson was able to observe these would-be Trumps interacting with a “little” person, a situation which is to an asshole what buried truffles are to a pig – an invitation to root around and generally make a boor of one’s self.  Not surprisingly, three contestants showed their true colors in short order, and Branson kicked two of them off.  A strong cultural statement, eh?

On Branson’s show, the jerks – wait, by willingly going on a reality TV show they’re all grade-A assholes, right? – okay, the really, really big jerks get kicked off first.  But that doesn’t happen in real life workplaces, at least not quickly enough to matter in most situations.  What to do?  Sutton advises that there “… are times when the answer is indifference, when the wisest course is to go through the motions, learn not to care, and just get through the day until something changes on your job, or something better comes along… I am starting to believe that, as a management professor, part of my job is to teach people when indifference is more useful than passion.”  I tend to agree with him.