Getting Out of The Building: Dragonflies, Dummies & Proctoids
“Given such strong defences against change, fresh ideas come from those who do more than think outside the box. They think outside the building.”― Rosabeth Moss Kanter
Rosabeth Moss Kanter challenges organisations to go beyond conventional thinking, suggesting that real innovation comes from those who “think outside the building.” This metaphorical leap is essential for escaping entrenched ways of thinking that can stifle creativity and innovation. Similarly, Steve Blank’s lean startup methodology promotes the mantra of “getting out of the building”. Blank advocates for direct customer engagement as a fundamental step in the entrepreneurial process. This approach is about validating business ideas not inside isolated boardrooms but in the real world where customer feedback can be directly assimilated and applied. It’s about learning from the ground up and pivoting according to real needs rather than assumptions.
Know Thy Tiger
“If you’re not in the jungle, you’re not going to know the tiger.” — David Kelley, IDEO
The pitfalls of making decisions or forming strategies based on untested assumptions or narrow viewpoints are legion. Too often, entities like educational institutions and businesses make critical decisions without adequately consulting those directly affected by them. This oversight can lead to outcomes that are not only ineffective but can propagate misconceptions and lead to flawed conclusions.
Our recent guest on the Innovation Show, author of “The Mindful Body”, ellen langer observes the diversity of human behaviour and motivations. While certain groups might appear similar, they might have fundamentally different reasons for their behaviour.
This point underscores the importance of a nuanced approach in research and decision-making processes, recognising that appearances can be misleading and that deep, genuine engagement and understanding are crucial for achieving meaningful and effective outcomes.
Crossing Corporate Cultures: The Innovative Impact of the Google-P&G Employee Swap
In 2008, an intriguing partnership between Google and Procter & Gamble (P&G) demonstrated the immense value of stepping outside conventional corporate environments to spur innovation. This collaboration involved an employee swap between the two companies, which are markedly different in their core operations and cultural atmospheres. P&G, a behemoth in consumer products, traditionally spent a significant portion of its $9 billion advertising budget in non-digital channels, whereas Google, the quintessential online search giant, derived its revenue primarily from online advertising.
The exchange program involved about two dozen human resource and marketing employees from each company who immersed themselves in the other’s domain, participating in training programs and strategic meetings. This setup provided participants with a first-hand look at differing business practices and philosophies. For instance, during a launch event for P&G’s Pampers line, Google employees were surprised to find that no mommy bloggers had been invited. Recognising a missed opportunity, they prompted P&G to leverage these influential online figures, leading to a subsequent event where bloggers toured P&G’s facilities and gained insights into diaper design, significantly amplifying the campaign’s reach.
This cross-industry exchange not only highlighted the potential for mutual learning but also underscored the benefits of integrating digital strategies with traditional marketing approaches. P&G’s exposure to Google’s digital-first mindset offered them insights into modern online marketing strategies, whereas Google gained a deeper understanding of traditional advertising and brand management at scale. The collaboration exemplifies how “getting out of the building” — both literally and figuratively — can lead to enhanced innovation and understanding across vastly different business landscapes.
Anchoring Outside
“To acquire knowledge, one must study. But to acquire wisdom, one must observe.” -Marilyn Vos Savant, American playwright
Marilyn Vos Savant once noted, “To acquire knowledge, one must study. But to acquire wisdom, one must observe.” This sentiment is echoed by authors Charles Conn and Robert McLean in their book, The Imperfectionists: Strategic Mindsets for Uncertain Times. They introduce the concept of “anchoring outside,” which involves taking a 360-degree view of a problem, as opposed to “anchoring inside,” which is limited to an internal company perspective. While the inside view might suffice under tight deadlines or limited choices, complex and uncertain scenarios demand a broader perspective.
Conn and McLean advocate for what they term the “Dragonfly Eye” approach, urging decision makers to consider multiple perspectives, including potentially disruptive external ones. This method is not just theoretical but is applied in real-world scenarios, such as the development of the Thermomix by the German conglomerate Vorwerk Group in the 1960s. Prior to designing this revolutionary kitchen appliance, Vorwerk’s managers “got out of the building to engage with French culinary artists to understand their cooking processes, particularly how they prepared thick soups. This interaction allowed the team to pinpoint the chefs’ major challenges, such as hand chopping, mincing, frequent stirring to prevent crusting, and pureeing.
These insights, viewed through the lens of the end users’ daily experiences, were instrumental in shaping the design of the Thermomix. As a result, Vorwerk created a multifunctional appliance that significantly reduces the time spent on various cooking tasks by up to 50%. The Thermomix exemplifies the successful application of an externally anchored approach to innovation. Today, it remains a staple in the kitchens of millions around the globe, demonstrating the profound impact of observing and engaging directly with users.
The Physical Dangers of an Inside (Only) View
In the realm of safety and health, historical practices reveal significant biases that have shaped design and testing processes, often to the detriment of diverse groups. A poignant example is found in the automotive industry’s early use of crash test dummies. Initially, these dummies were modeled after the average male body, which guided the design and safety features of vehicles for years. This male-centric model provided data that was less applicable to women, particularly in terms of seatbelt safety, leading to higher injury rates in accidents for women compared to men.
This issue is not isolated to automotive safety. In the pharmaceutical industry, a similar pattern emerged where clinical trials predominantly involved young male volunteers. This approach generated robust data on drug efficacy and safety for this demographic but often did not account for physiological differences in others, especially older women. It became evident that women metabolized some medications differently, leading to longer retention times in the body and, consequently, a higher propensity for side effects and adverse reactions.
Recognising such disparities has led to significant changes in both fields. These examples underscore the importance of considering the full spectrum of human diversity in design and testing. They remind us that many health and safety standards were set during times with less understanding of our differences and before many medical and technological advancements. As our society becomes more aware of these differences, it’s crucial to continually adapt and refine our approaches to ensure they meet the needs of all individuals, not just a subset. (The recognition of these disparities becomes even more important in a world of algorithmic decision making and drug production).
Thinking Outside The (Proctoid) Box: Work It, Live It, Connect It, Develop It.
One of the many benefits of cultivating in-house talent is the greater sense of familiarity and trust that develops, fostering close collaboration. However, a strong “inside-only” culture can blind an organisation to changes in the business environment. To counteract this insularity, high-performing companies expose employees to the wider world, as Procter & Gamble (P&G) did with Google.
In Jumping the S-Curve, Paul Nunes discusses how P&G addressed the dangers of excessive insularity. When Durk Jager became CEO in late 1998, he aimed to transform the company’s inward-looking culture. “At P&G, we tend to put people into a P&G box, a ‘Proctoid’ box, where certain behaviours and institutionalised ways of acting are accepted,” Jager explained. “We need diversity in style and content and must move away from institutionalising certain dogmas.” Despite his efforts, Jager’s aggressive initiatives met with overwhelming resistance, leading to his departure in June 2000 after only seventeen months. His successor, A. G. Lafley, was equally committed to broadening P&G’s perspective but adopted a more nuanced approach.
Under Lafley’s leadership, P&G implemented several programmes to integrate external insights into the company’s innovation processes. The “Living It” programme placed employees in consumers’ homes for several days to observe their daily lives and challenges. The “Working It” programme assigned employees to work behind retail counters to directly observe customer buying behaviours. Additionally, the “Connect and Develop” initiative actively sought new ideas from outside sources, aiming to ensure that half of P&G’s future innovations involved external partners. This initiative successfully combated the company’s “not invented here” syndrome, leading P&G to even partner with competitors like The Clorox Company to bring new technologies to market.
To date, we have explored how an organisation collaborates and engages with the outside world. It is a real shame that sometimes (even often), colleagues prefer to work with outsiders rather than their own colleagues. This is often driven by a scarcity mentality. Unfortunately, many colleagues who “should be” on the same team spend more time and effort plotting battles within the company and miss real outside threats. A stellar example of the success of such cross-company collaboration and “anchoring outside” comes from P&G’s development of the Swiffer.
In 1994, Procter & Gamble was looking to grow through innovation. Craig Wynett, Director of Corporate New Ventures, observed his wife cleaning their kitchen and thought, “There has got to be a better way to clean a floor.” He assembled a team from P&G’s Corporate New Ventures group, the design firm Continuum, the advertising agency Nothlich Stolley, and experts from P&G’s hard-surface cleaning and paper divisions to find a solution.
P&G already had significant knowledge in floor cleaning with the Mr. Clean line, but the team decided to re-evaluate floor cleaning through the eyes of consumers. They conducted ethnographic research by visiting 18 homes in Cincinnati and Boston, watching how people cleaned their kitchen floors. This research revealed several insights: the cleaning process was laborious, combining sweeping and mopping, and required frequent cleaning of the mop itself.
Back in the studio, the team reviewed the videos and realised half the steps involved cleaning the mop rather than the floor. They concluded that a new design was needed: a disposable sheet that could be attached to a handle, which would attract dirt and be thrown away after use. This concept, initially dubbed “a diaper wipe on a stick,” evolved into the Swiffer. It addressed all identified needs: it worked for both sweeping and mopping, did not require cleaning the mop, was clean to use, and encouraged more frequent cleaning. The Swiffer exemplifies how external collaboration and customer-centric design can lead to groundbreaking products that resonate with consumers and drive market success.
Thanks for Reading
To find out from one of the Proctor Team on the Swiffer, join us on the latest episode of “The Corporate Explorer” series with George Glackin
The Other episodes mentioned in this post:
https://youtu.be/2ZE-X5kmqIY?si=MLpFftzXHOJg_OIP
https://youtu.be/8Usjc0VmhJ4?si=foa34KWeXbbCn0vH
Ellen Langer
