Podcasts about disruptive conversations

Hello and welcome to a special episode!I am thrilled to introduce my two close friends and business partners, Dr. Rana Sabra and Asmaa Alkuwari. Together, we will be hosting a thought-provoking podcast that delves into the topic of women, focusing on women's entrepreneurship. We aim to bring a fresh perspective to the conversation and explore some of the disruptive ideas shaping this exciting field.Dr. Rana Sabra is a business strategist. She is the co-founder and CMO of global business women. As a woman who faced her share of testing upbringing conditions, and adversity on a number of fronts, and fueled by a desire to define her own success and corresponding priority list, Rana is constantly seeking channels and means to give and share. She is a university professor on 2 continents, has her own marketing agency, and is also a Transformative Business Advisor working with women on how to start, grow, and scale their businesses. Asmaa is the co-founder and CDO of the global business women. She is an Empowerment coach (From ICF) who's main purpose is to cater to empowering female leaders to be the best version of themselves. On top of being an empowerment coach, Asmaa is also an Embodiment Coach certified from the Somatic School in UK, she is also a digital humanist and a marketeer. You can connect with Rana here:Website: www.RanaSabra.com Instagram: @ranassabraYou can connect with Asmaa hereWebsite: www.asmaaconsultancy.orgInstagram: @coach_asmaaaLinkedin: Asmaa Saeed AlkuwariEmail: asmaa@asmaaconsultancy.orgDon't forget to subscribe, rate, and of course SHARE!And above all, reflect and enjoy!

Elizabeth Stokoe is a conversational analyst. This means she studies conversation in the wild. She looks at real-life conversations works to understand how talk works. Her work focuses on social interactions. What are people doing as they interact?Here are some of the highlights from our conversation.We build our world through social interactions.This may seem obvious, yet so few of us pay attention to the things we do and say daily. I have come to believe that the things we say and do build our future. In this conversation, Elizabeth and I tune into the conversations play in shaping our interactions.Revel in working with people who are better than you.When I asked Elizabeth about the best lesson, she ever learned she told a beautiful story about her dad. Her dad was a teacher. He taught woodwork. Elizabeth explained that he would revel in working with students who were or would one day be better than he was. I found this to be such a glorious insight. Her dad wanted his students to be better than he was. He wanted his students to pursue and treat woodwork in the same way they would treat traditional professions. Perhaps most insightful for me here is that we then get scared or intimidated by the competition. How would your life be different if you found really talented people and worked to support them?People show you what matter to them.We had a nerdy conversation about research, but I love that Elizabeth used a research lesson to demonstrate the impact of what she does. For example, she pointed out that people show you what they care about in the words they use. Someone might say, “oh, you know, there were three girls, sorry, women”. This self-policing demonstrates what people care about. Her research uses examples to show how gender is constructed and how our interactions build our gendered constructs.Communication science is likely the most important thing to understand in the 21st Century.I often refer to this as the debate between big data and thick data. Thick data is qualitative research that goes deep. Elizabeth’s work is a great example of how thick data can be so informative. She uses thick data to bust very compelling myths about conversation and communication. For example, there is an extensive belief that communication is largely done through our bodies. It is based on a study that did not actually find that. If however, that was true, we would not be able to communicate in the dark. We would not be able to talk on the phone. Researchers like Elizabeth helps understand the world just a little better so we can bust these very compelling myths.Conversations are organized and messy.In our conversation, Elizabeth also described talk as being full of idiosyncrasy, yet massively systematic. She gave a great metaphor for thinking about it. “Imagine you are in a helicopter or a hot air balloon high above a field. You can see from above what the path is. Now imagine that you’re looking down on that field and you can see a dog walker and their dog. The dog is on one of those long leads that extend and retracts. When you look down in one field, you see the dog walker and the dog. They’re basically moving across that field in a fairly predictable way along the path without much variation. They transverse the field. When you look down again, there’s another dog walker and their dog. This time the dog is absolutely all over the place and the dog walkers got to keep going back and get them out of the field and come off the path. But you also know from above that you can see where they’re going to end up because that’s kind of where everyone ends up.” This is what a conversation looks like. We often end up in a predictable place.What is effective communication?Effective communication is when you sort of get from one point to another. We hope we can minimize friction, misunderstandings, and having to do it again. We want to smooth out the journeyJust because you talk, it doesn’t mean you understand communication, scientifically.In our conversation, we talk about how people have strong feelings about conversations. People have conversations every day and as a result, feel they understand communication. Understanding communication scientifically is very different.We build our world conversation by conversation. Perhaps my favourite insight in my quest to understand conversations is that we build our world conversation by conversation. This quote sums up much of what I have been exploring when we think about organizations as conversations.Hope you enjoy this episode with Elizabeth Stokoe.You find her at https://www.carmtraining.org/ and on Twitter as @LizStokoe.Hope you enjoy this episode.

Surviving the challenges that 2020 threw our way, many of us came out feeling there were further levels of pain and wounds that require our attention and consequent healing efforts. To further identify, address, and possibly initiate the healing process, my co-hosts and I aimed to disrupt the notion of talking about and tackling inner child wounds, once and for all. We raised awareness on: how circumstance and nurture could have impacted us and initiated our triggers, how inner child wounds could be impacting our lives, how to overcome the subconscious saboteur that hijacks our minds with negative feelings, the mindset of a ‘victim' approach to life, and we gave recommendations on the first steps on the ‘healing' path.   Hosts: ·       Nehal El Guindy – Licensed Clinical Professional Counselor ·       Mahitab Marzouk – Certified Peace of Mind Leadership Coach, Pioneer Coach with ‘Positive Intelligence' ·       Dr. Hanan El Basha - Business & Mindset Coach, The Business Doctor Don't forget to subscribe, rate, and of course SHARE! And above all, reflect and enjoy!

Dr Larry Richard is a former Lawyer, who now works to understand what makes Lawyers tick. In our conversation, he shares his findings from his work with lawyers. His major insight is that skills and tools that make Lawyers good at law do not necessarily make them good leaders. In analyzing a variety of personality assessment tools, he found that Lawyers tend to be overrepresented in various traits. For example, when you analyze a population using the Caliper tool, you usually get most people scoring around 50 on each trait. With Lawyers, you get seven traits where the majority score outside of the middle range, usually 40-60Scepticism being the most dominant. The challenge is that although these traits help with performance as a lawyer, they are often less helpful in things like Leadership. In today’s world, for Lawyers to be successful, they also need to develop skills for which a larger portion do not score well.Here are some of the other insights that stood out for me.Leadership is about admitting you do not know the way forward.Having worked with many Leaders, very few are willing to admit that they do not know. Richard commented, “leadership demands that you ask your constituents to trust you as a way of getting them to follow you.” For him, “Leadership isn’t necessary when things are stable. Leadership only needs to emerge when things are changing and uncertain. So leaders can never say, I guarantee this is the right path, which means they always have to say to their constituents, I think this is the right path. Follow me, please trust me.” His point is that because Lawyers are so high in scepticism, it is difficult for them to trust others and ask for trust. Lawyers then are immediately in a dilemma. Asking for and gaining trust from a group of people predisposed to be, and trained to be sceptics, is hard at the best of times. Additionally, in my experience, most people think leaders need to know it all.When should you choose emotion over logic?When you are trying to get people to do teamwork, logic can be helpful. Emotions, however, can get you there faster and easier. Logic is a great tool for finding solutions. When it comes to implementing solutions, however, we need to leverage emotions.Bringing out the best in others is not a logical endeavor.People are multifaceted. In our conversation, we talk about how, for some people, their talents may not be valuable, until a particular context arises. People are complex and multifaceted. Bringing out the best in others is not a logical endeavour.Boost performance by helping people find satisfaction and productivity. In our conversation, we share some of our insights on workplace performance. One conversation that stood out for me is that insight that productivity and satisfaction feed each other. This really resonated with me. Effectively doing things with less friction and better results can be the holy grail of many people’s performance. Workplace engagement has a satisfaction component and an engagement component. When you can connect the two, you increase performance.Avoiding the hedonic treadmill.For so many of us, we spend our lives chasing the next goal. In our conversation, we talk about how lawyers are prone to get stuck on the hedonic treadmill. They chase the next thing. I will be happy when I become a partner. I will be happy when I get that new house. When we met those goals, we set new ones. This is the hedonic treadmill. In my own work, we help people work from a lens of consciousness. We help people be intentional about how they spend their time. Doing things today that give them what they want in the future.Sometimes people are their own worst enemy.We have a conversation about we often get in our own way. When we look at the things we want to achieve, often the biggest barrier is ourselves. Predictive tools vs. Heuristic ToolsIn our conversation, we talk about how we should think about psychometrics tools. The distinction we discuss is that some of these tools are better predictive tools, (help us predict the future) while others should be thought of as heuristic tools (help us think about and imagine the future). This distinction is important in several additional domains. For example, strategic planning is often thought of as a predictive exercise. The truth is close to it being a heuristic tool.Quote:I loved the quote Dr. Richard shared.Absence diminished mediocre passions and increases great ones, as the wind extinguishes candles and kindles fire. – Francois de La RochefoucauldFor more information, about Dr. Richard visit: https://www.lawyerbrain.com/

In this conversation with Daniel, you hear from two people who are really fascinated with understanding conversations. We take a practical and philosophical journey thinking about and exploring our current thoughts on conversations.Here are some of the things that stood out for me in this conversation.We are designing conversations all the time.If you have ever asked a friend to read an email, you are about to send. If you thought to yourself “how should I say this?” If you have ever done anything similar to that, you were designing a conversation. We design conversations all the time. The challenge is that we are not often intentional about designing our conversations. In this conversation, Daniel gives some great tips on how you should approach designing conversations. In his words, “We’re all designed in conversations to try and titrate and clarify our intent in hopes of achieving our goals.” You should also visit his website: The Conversation Factory to read his book and download some great material. We have conversations all the time, yet we spend very little time thinking about them.Daniel spends a lot of time thinking about and designing conversations. We communicate every day, yet very few of us thinking about this action we take that builds our future. One of the ways to design a conversation is to be as specific as possible.Conversations have structure.Spaces influence the conversations we have. This space can be physical, or it can be the space between words. All our conversations have a structure. Most of the times, we are not aware of the structure. Space is just one example of the elements that influence our conversations. In his book, Daniel outlines what he calls the Nine Elements of the Conversation Operation System. The elements are:PeopleInvitationPowerTurn-TakingInterfaceCadenceThreadingGoalsError and Repair.I strongly suggest reading his book. It is both a great introduction to conversations and an excellent summary of help frameworks for designing conversations.What are you tuning into in a conversation?In conversation, we tune into things. Sometimes we are intentional about what we tune into. However, most of the time, we are unintentional. There is considerable value in paying attention to what you are attending to in your conversations.Design your conversationsWe set up our spaces to have conversations. The spaces in which we have conversation speak to the kinds of conversations we can have. One of the things that Daniel has helped me do is to double down on my belief that people should be designing their conversations. He helps people do it for a living. In the same way that we work on other skills, we should strive to have better conversations.Designing the conversations starts before the conversation.In the podcast, we talk about designing conversations within a facilitation setting. This principle, however, is one that I believe should apply to any important conversation. If you have a conversation that matters, try designing it before you enter the conversation.There is value in silence.One of the easiest ways to design your conversations is by leveraging silence. There is, however, a caveat, most of us respond after about two hundred milliseconds. In conversations, if we take longer than that to respond, our brains interpret that as trouble ahead. So ask permission to think for a bit. Having said that, silence can give you tremendous control in conversations. Use it wisely. Before we segue off of this point, here is something to think about. We can think at 4000 words per minute, yet we speak at 125 words per minute. What does this mean? It mainly means that you are getting only a small portion of what they are thinking when someone is speaking. Silence can transform conversations.What do we mean by design?In my view, design usually starts with a question. In the best cases, it is focusing question. In our conversation, four conversational design questions stood out for me:Daniel talked about how design asks you to notice the choices that you are making. What are the implications of the choices that you are making? What if versus what is? Are you thinking about who is attached to which question? Are you thinking about who has a vested interest in exploring one question over the other?Are we having the same conversation?How adaptable are you? A question inspired by the Tendayi Viki who appeared on episode 61.I am going to continue to think about these questions.Midwifery and Palliative careFor regular listeners, you may notice that theme of Palliative care and Midwifery has appeared again. Daniel talks about it within the context of grief and that people need to grieve the loss of whatever is changing. There are three parts in all change contexts: what is being midwifed into existence, what needs palliative care, and the bridge between the two. It is also important to think about or visit the Berkner to Loop model which Daniel also references in his bookAre we having the same conversation?Daniel used a nice metaphor to talk about what designed conversation does. From our perspectives, designed conversations give us more clarity and focus. They help ensure we are having the same conversation and not speaking past each other. Take some time and imagine you were to open a door and I am trying to close the door from the other side. What happens to the door? Whoever is stronger gets their way. If, however, we’re both trying to open the door together or close the door together, then we’re going to be working together. The door will open or close with more force, with more acceleration. I love this metaphor, and it reminds me of my conversation with John Robinson and his sailboat approach to change and disruption Check out episode 69 here.Speed and cocreation are more durable.This notion is something that really resonated with me. I cannot count the number of times people have not had the patience for co-creation, yet cocreation produces much better results. If we are going to have something owned by everyone, it is going to take more time. We are addicted to the expert, and although Daniel does not say this, I think it has to do with our perceived notion that an expert can get us there faster and our addiction to silver bullets.Light touches make it hard to demonstrate your value.Something I often struggle with is as a coach, is that I believe that when you are doing your best work, the client feels like they did it themselves. This always poses a question to the value you bring, but it is an important way to continue working.To learn more about Daniel Stillman visit:The Conversation Factory: https://theconversationfactory.com/

Dan Doty describes himself as a father, husband, entrepreneur and outdoorsman. He is the co-founder of Everyman. A global organization that brings men together to learn and practice emotional skill sets. Men too can learn to be in touch with the vulnerable parts of life. They can learn to express as fully as possible.This conversation with Dan was an inspiring one. Here are a few of the things that stood out for me.It stops with me.Perhaps the most powerful thing I took away from this conversation is that more and more men are saying no. They are saying that no exploring the full spectrum of masculinity stops with me. This is a powerful statement and undercurrent to notice. I love this as a potential movement that we may see in the world.Society has gap in it defines and prescribe masculinity.The make experience ought not to be defined or prescribed too narrowly. Masculinity should explore the full spectrum of human emotions. What does it mean to be a man? Although there seem to be many groups grappling with this question. Dan’s work seems to be one of gaining significant traction. We explore how so few men had fathers who were present during their childhood. We talk about what it means to be a good husband. The time has come for men to explore the full spectrum of the human experience. Talk about ‘girly’ stuff. To broaden the definition of what it means to be a man.A different way is possible.In this episode, Dan tells the story of attending his first men’s group. Past podcast guests have described similar experiences of being introduced into another world. It makes me wonder about the role of experience in our journey. How not knowing there was another way limits the choices we make. I love that he and I explore this question throughout the episode.Meditation and outdoorsWhen I asked Dan about the best lessons he ever learned, he talked about mediation and being outdoors. I could not help be see the obvious connection. Using being outdoors as a time to do active mediation. As someone sceptical about the role of meditation. It leaves me with questions. For example, what is the value of intentionally allowing your mind to rest?We can find sanctuary wherever we are.Dan describes how finding the men’s group gave him a similar experience to being outdoors. The idea that he did not have to get outdoors to find sanctuary. This is powerful. It reminds us that we can use the resources we have access to. This may sound like a simple insight, but it is profound.What does it mean to be married to a mother?Since becoming a father, the question, “What does it mean to be married to a mother?”, has sat with me. In response, a friend asked, “What is like for your wife to be married to a father?” The mirror question had not crossed my mind. So, “What does it mean to be married to a father?” In one action, my identify changed, and so too did my wife’s. I had been so focused on supporting my family. I had not thought about how my needs. How have my needs changed since becoming a father? What does this new me want? What are his hopes, dreams, and desires? These are all new questions for me to sit with and explore.What would we notice if masculinity was healthier?Dan pointed out to me that men who had supportive families are rare. He also noticed that perhaps adults who had parents who were happily married are also rare. So what would it be like to live in a world where neither of these was rare? I loved this question as a place to land in my conversation with Dan. I have no answers. I do enjoy that I get to sit with these questions.

In this episode of Disruptive Conversations, we hear from Liz Elam, founder of the largest coworking conference in the world know as the Global Coworking Unconference Conference (GCUC). There are a number of great takeaways.Here are a few of the insights I found helpful.To change your life, you have to change something you do every day.Later in the episode, Liz shares that it took her some time to come to terms with the word alcoholic. She is now 11 years sober. When she said, “to change your life, you need to change something you do every day,” she was talking about things like exercise habits or losing weight. Later in the episode when she talked about AA meetings, it put this comment into perspective. It seems simple, yet it is so profound. She changed something she was regularly doing, and it changed her life. What is something you can change today that will change your life tomorrow?Where work needs to be design for wellness.A major theme in this episode is that work environments are not often designed for people to thrive. Take air quality as an example. Do you know how good the air in your building is? Is your physical work environment designed to help you thrive daily? Chances are it is not. Yet, we spend a lot of our time working in unhealthy spaces. This idea again seems simple but is so disruptive.Work is also about community.Loneliness is an epidemic in our society. One of the ways we can combat loneliness is by building communities in the workplace. Coworking offers a great avenue for addresses workplaces needs and community needs. It could be how we begin to address the epidemic of loneliness.People have choices or should have choices.COVID-19 has demonstrated that we can work differently. People can have choices. For example, some people may prefer to have to visit regularly. Others may prefer to work at home. Still, others might prefer to work in a coworking space. The future of work will likely include choices and companies who able to offer their employees choices will likely thrive in the long-term.Mr CEO, your biggest changes are going to be talent attraction and retention.To attract and retain the best people, companies are going to have to think about the environments in which their best people work. One way to both attract and retain the best talent is to give them a choice in how they work. In today’s world, this is not a difficult proposition. The future of work will likely include choices for companies who manage to attract and retain the most talented.There are many other insights in this episode. To dive deeper into this episode, take a listen below. Also visit:Global Coworking Unconference Conference (GCUC) https://gcuc.co/

In this episode of Disruptive Conversations, I interview Isobel Stevenson, Director of Organizational Learning at the Connecticut Center for School Change. The Center is a nonprofit based in Hartford, Connecticut. In this conversation, we discuss a range of topics that span areas like coaching, leadership, evaluation, and even the role of gaming the system. You will need to listen to the episode to understand the last one. Some of the things that stood out for me in this interview were: How and where should leadership meet coaching? I am of the view that in today’s world leadership should adopt more of a coaching approach than what is traditionally thought of as leadership. In my view, leaders should be having more coaching-like conversations. In our conversation, Isobel and I discuss the idea that leaders need to develop the skill of challenging peoples thinking through conversations. In my view, we use conversations as the mechanism by which we get people to gain insight and a new perspective. Evaluations are pretty much worthless. I have always questioned the value of evaluations. Isobel, on the other hand, goes as far as saying they are worthless and gives some clear example of how they lack utility. Particular concerning their stated purpose. One way I understood the conversation was that they are useful but just not in the way they were intended or how we purport to find utility in them. What Isobel argues, and I happen to agree, is that evaluations are the best way to get people to become defensive. It is the best way to stunt their growth. We put them in a defensive frame which is not a place of growth. Show up and focus on the process. When I asked Isobel about the best lesson she ever learned, she talks about interviewing a very experienced coach who said show up. For her, this simple prompt got her to think about showing up for people and being of service to them. It moved her away from focusing on the end. Instead, it got her to focus on how she showed up for people. What I got from this is that it is vital to show up and be present for the people you serve. In short, focus on process and not the outcome. What is the focus?In our conversation, we talked about the tendency for people to focus on feeling better or feeling good. Isobel says in our conversation, she is not convinced that is the goal. Instead, let us think for a moment where people gain a sense of identity, pride or dignity. For many, it comes from feeling a sense of competence. Things have changed. Suddenly we are no longer feel that sense of competence. So not only are we feeling less competent. We are also managing loss and change. That is a lot to handle. One question that came up for me was, instead of working to feel good or better. What if the focus was on regaining a sense of power and control? Problematizing the tendency to be positive. We have a tendency, that is as far as I can tell, finds its roots in self-help books. We are obsessed with putting things in the affirmative or the positive. Here Isobel and I dive into this a little. For example, if one thinks of good as going smoothly or well, then we need to have a conversation about what that means. The goal could be things like learning. In my language, we instead ask people to notice the progress they have been making. Often, we need to reframe how we think about the goal because if we only wish to frame things in the positive, then we may be focusing on the wrong things. We have a very dive deeper into this conversation in the episode. Robust Discrepancies I love this framing. What are the robust discrepancies that we are noticing? I was delighted to be reminded to pay attention to the robust discrepancies that occur in systems. For Isobel, as an educator, they are opportunity, experience and outcomes among student groups. We all exist in systems that produce robust discrepancies, and two things came up for me. Firstly, how then do we notice these discrepancies? Secondly, how do we address these discrepancies? Take for example, as Isobel points out, “if we are looking at a situation where the students who identify as white are outperforming the students who identify as Black or Latino. If the white students are outperforming students of color by, in some cases 20 plus percentage points, that’s a pretty big discrepancy. And it’s not just about the test that they take that reveals that discrepancy. It’s also about what classes those students have the opportunity to enrol in while they are in school. And what you know, what that experience looks like.” I think it is so important to pay attention to these robust discrepancies. We are all affected by the optimism bias. This conversation reminded me of the planning fallacy, which is the that people tend to underestimate how long it will take them to accomplish or complete a task. This bias is deeply connected to another common bias known as the optimism bias. This is important because it disrupts people at the individual and organizational or group level. If we tend to underestimate how long things will take then when things take longer it affects us at several levels. The quote that I think should not be missed is that “the plan itself does not produce the outcome we desire.” For Isobel, many leaders attain their roles because they focus on potential and not problems. This means that they are sometimes blind to problems and have an optimism bias. They too can miss the issues. Changing beliefs without changing people’s capacityI enjoyed this quote. It is something I have struggled with on many occasions. In my work, I have contemplated the ethics of changing beliefs without providing people with the capacity to enact or respond to those new beliefs. I enjoyed this part of the conversation with Isobel. Doing evaluation better. One of my favorite questions in thinking about organizations is, are we doing what claim to be doing? Isobel’s provocation, as I understand it is that “we should probably stop claiming that evaluation is a mechanism by which people get better.” The idea is that an evaluation will improve people is unfounded. Rank Introduces a level of scepticismIsobel makes the point that there is a phenomenon where people who have less power have a bias towards scepticism for people with power. If leaders understood this, it could change how they approach conversations with the people they serve. People are less willing to give the benefit of the doubt. As a result, leaders need to think about communicating better.

In this episode of Disruptive Conversations, I interview Isobel Stevenson, Director of Organizational Learning at the Connecticut Center for School Change. The Center is a nonprofit based in Hartford, Connecticut. In this conversation, we discuss a range of topics that span areas like coaching, leadership, evaluation, and even the role of gaming the system. You will need to listen to the episode to understand the last one. Some of the things that stood out for me in this interview were: How and where should leadership meet coaching? I am of the view that in today’s world leadership should adopt more of a coaching approach than what is traditionally thought of as leadership. In my view, leaders should be having more coaching-like conversations. In our conversation, Isobel and I discuss the idea that leaders need to develop the skill of challenging peoples thinking through conversations. In my view, we use conversations as the mechanism by which we get people to gain insight and a new perspective. Evaluations are pretty much worthless. I have always questioned the value of evaluations. Isobel, on the other hand, goes as far as saying they are worthless and gives some clear example of how they lack utility. Particular concerning their stated purpose. One way I understood the conversation was that they are useful but just not in the way they were intended or how we purport to find utility in them. What Isobel argues, and I happen to agree, is that evaluations are the best way to get people to become defensive. It is the best way to stunt their growth. We put them in a defensive frame which is not a place of growth. Show up and focus on the process. When I asked Isobel about the best lesson she ever learned, she talks about interviewing a very experienced coach who said show up. For her, this simple prompt got her to think about showing up for people and being of service to them. It moved her away from focusing on the end. Instead, it got her to focus on how she showed up for people. What I got from this is that it is vital to show up and be present for the people you serve. In short, focus on process and not the outcome. What is the focus?In our conversation, we talked about the tendency for people to focus on feeling better or feeling good. Isobel says in our conversation, she is not convinced that is the goal. Instead, let us think for a moment where people gain a sense of identity, pride or dignity. For many, it comes from feeling a sense of competence. Things have changed. Suddenly we are no longer feel that sense of competence. So not only are we feeling less competent. We are also managing loss and change. That is a lot to handle. One question that came up for me was, instead of working to feel good or better. What if the focus was on regaining a sense of power and control? Problematizing the tendency to be positive. We have a tendency, that is as far as I can tell, finds its roots in self-help books. We are obsessed with putting things in the affirmative or the positive. Here Isobel and I dive into this a little. For example, if one thinks of good as going smoothly or well, then we need to have a conversation about what that means. The goal could be things like learning. In my language, we instead ask people to notice the progress they have been making. Often, we need to reframe how we think about the goal because if we only wish to frame things in the positive, then we may be focusing on the wrong things. We have a very dive deeper into this conversation in the episode. Robust Discrepancies I love this framing. What are the robust discrepancies that we are noticing? I was delighted to be reminded to pay attention to the robust discrepancies that occur in systems. For Isobel, as an educator, they are opportunity, experience and outcomes among student groups. We all exist in systems that produce robust discrepancies, and two things came up for me. Firstly, how then do we notice these discrepancies? Secondly, how do we address these discrepancies? Take for example, as Isobel points out, “if we are looking at a situation where the students who identify as white are outperforming the students who identify as Black or Latino. If the white students are outperforming students of color by, in some cases 20 plus percentage points, that’s a pretty big discrepancy. And it’s not just about the test that they take that reveals that discrepancy. It’s also about what classes those students have the opportunity to enrol in while they are in school. And what you know, what that experience looks like.” I think it is so important to pay attention to these robust discrepancies. We are all affected by the optimism bias. This conversation reminded me of the planning fallacy, which is the that people tend to underestimate how long it will take them to accomplish or complete a task. This bias is deeply connected to another common bias known as the optimism bias. This is important because it disrupts people at the individual and organizational or group level. If we tend to underestimate how long things will take then when things take longer it affects us at several levels. The quote that I think should not be missed is that “the plan itself does not produce the outcome we desire.” For Isobel, many leaders attain their roles because they focus on potential and not problems. This means that they are sometimes blind to problems and have an optimism bias. They too can miss the issues. Changing beliefs without changing people’s capacityI enjoyed this quote. It is something I have struggled with on many occasions. In my work, I have contemplated the ethics of changing beliefs without providing people with the capacity to enact or respond to those new beliefs. I enjoyed this part of the conversation with Isobel. Doing evaluation better. One of my favorite questions in thinking about organizations is, are we doing what claim to be doing? Isobel’s provocation, as I understand it is that “we should probably stop claiming that evaluation is a mechanism by which people get better.” The idea is that an evaluation will improve people is unfounded. Rank Introduces a level of scepticismIsobel makes the point that there is a phenomenon where people who have less power have a bias towards scepticism for people with power. If leaders understood this, it could change how they approach conversations with the people they serve. People are less willing to give the benefit of the doubt. As a result, leaders need to think about communicating better.

Considering that mental issues will be the #1 cause of illness by 2030 and cost more than cancer, diabetes and respiratory diseases combined, we aimed to raise awareness of how to advocate and cater for mental health within the work environments, whether it is within what used to be, the re-emerging WFH context, or transitioning into a ‘new normal.'  You can connect with us here: Susanna Harkonen - Psychological Counselor & Workplace Mental Wellness Expert, Inner Work https://www.linkedin.com/in/susanna-harkonen/ (https://www.linkedin.com/in/susanna-harkonen/) Nermine Fawzy - Senior Partner, FosterEdge https://www.linkedin.com/in/nfawzy/ (https://www.linkedin.com/in/nfawzy/) Jocelyne Elias - Applied Neuroscience & Brain Health Specialist, Mindset Rewire https://www.linkedin.com/in/jocelyneelias/ (https://www.linkedin.com/in/jocelyneelias/) Dr. Hanan El Basha - Business & Mindset Coach, The Business Doctor https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-hanan-el-basha-dba-asmec-inhc-2451a717/ (https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-hanan-el-basha-dba-asmec-inhc-2451a717/) Don't forget to subscribe, rate, and of course SHARE! And above all, reflect and enjoy!

In this episode of Disruptive Conversations, I speak with Sarah Kaplan (PhD). Sarah is an innovation scholar at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management. She has recently written the book The 360˚ Corporation. Today, Sarah works to explore how ideas from innovation can be applied in a way that helps to create a world of social and economic justice. Although much of her work focuses on gender equality, it is clear Sarah takes an intersectional approach to her work.Here are some of my many takeaways from this conversations.Transformation is not something you can do on the side.For many years Sarah thought of her innovation/academic work was her day job while her concerns for gender equity and other social issues was something she did on the side. One day she woke up and realized she had been told the story that the Women’s Liberation Movement had fixed everything. Women would not face barriers brought about by patriarchy. Yet, when she looked around the world, her students and women around her were still facing the same issues that the Women’s Liberation Movement was supposed to have addressed. She realized that 30 years later, the conversation had not changed. It was in this “ah moment” she decided that her two worlds needed to collide. Her transformational work was no longer something she could do part-time. Words echoed by Zaid Hassan a past guest on the podcast you can listen to him in episode 34, The Tragedy of Strategic Planning.Change the conversation.The thesis for this podcast has always been, if we are to transform organizations, we need to change the conversation. It is always wonderful to hear your guest make similar comments. For Sarah, the conversation about gender equity has focused on approaches like unconscious bias training. These approaches focus on the individual and not the systems that maintain the status quo. For example, many of the dominant approaches focus notions like women do not negotiate or do not negotiate well. These ideas ignore that women who negotiate are often thought to be selfish, unreasonable or generally unpleasant. People do not receive negotiations from men in the same way they receive them from women. To change the status quo, we need to transform the conversations. As a result, Sarah’s work focuses not on changing the individual, but on changing the context.We ignore the social wake companies create.It is always interesting to me to learn my guest’s point of entry into the work they do. As a business and innovation scholar who has also been interested in the rise and fall of empires, it is not surprising that she came to the conclusion that we are not going to change the world if we do not transform business. For Sarah, if we are to create a fair and equitable world, we need to transform businesses from within. In this episode, we had an insightful discussion on the idea that we shouldn’t need a term like social entrepreneur. All businesses are social or create social outcomes. What we tend to do is ignore the social wake that companies create. Sarah’s book, The 360˚ Corporation, explores the tradeoffs companies make. In the book, she makes a compelling case for how companies need to approach these tradeoffs. The point that stood out for me is that companies often need to change their business model if they are going to reduce the wake they create in the world. This is not an easy proposition, yet Sarah’s does make a compelling argument by juxtaposing two very different companies, Walmart and Nike. One of the surprising things about her book is the way in which she is able to help the reader understand the tensions these companies face and how their business models can often constrain their choices. Focusing on the individual has a recoil effect.I recently had a conversation with a very senior executive who wanted to implement mandatory anti-blackness training. In this episode, Sarah highlights what the research says about these types of mandatory programs and how they tend to have a recoil or backlash effect. For example, when people are mandated to attend these programs, they tend to harden or double down on their views. Additionally, these kinds of programs can also make people hyper-aware of marginalized groups. Often their response can be to tokenize or other the very groups we are trying to help. These approaches although well-intentioned can have ill effects when not well thought out.Two tangible ideas from the episode:Stop focusing on the individual if your goal is to create change. Get rid of the mindset that we have to fix individuals.Identify the social structures and systems that create the outcomes you wish to change.Transformation is about changing ourselves and the environment.So much of the self-help literature focuses on changing yourself. Ralph Stacey, one of my favorite scholars in writing about transformation, says “entities are forming patterns of interactions and at the same time, that they are being formed by these patterns of interactions”. When we focus on the individual, we focus on the first part of his quote and ignore that “entities are being formed by these patterns of interactions”. Much of the dominant discourse focuses too much on the individual and ignores the structures. Perhaps if you take anything from this episode, it is that although there are times when paying attention to the individual can make a difference, it is perhaps my fruitful to pay attention to the structures and systems in which that individual resides. Regardless of how much the individual changes, the change will not happen until the context in which they reside also changes. For more similar ideas listen to Episode 70 with Kate Sutherland, Dismantling the myth of the lone wolf.For more information about Sarah Kaplan’s (PhD) work you can visit the sites below:GATE website: www.gendereconomy.orgGATE explainers: https://www.gendereconomy.org/explainers/Sarah Kaplan’s website: https://sarahkaplan.info

In this episode of Disruptive Conversations, I speak with Sarah Kaplan (PhD). Sarah is an innovation scholar at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management. She has recently written the book The 360˚ Corporation. Today, Sarah works to explore how ideas from innovation can be applied in a way that helps to create a world of social and economic justice. Although much of her work focuses on gender equality, it is clear Sarah takes an intersectional approach to her work.Here are some of my many takeaways from this conversations.Transformation is not something you can do on the side.For many years Sarah thought of her innovation/academic work was her day job while her concerns for gender equity and other social issues was something she did on the side. One day she woke up and realized she had been told the story that the Women’s Liberation Movement had fixed everything. Women would not face barriers brought about by patriarchy. Yet, when she looked around the world, her students and women around her were still facing the same issues that the Women’s Liberation Movement was supposed to have addressed. She realized that 30 years later, the conversation had not changed. It was in this “ah moment” she decided that her two worlds needed to collide. Her transformational work was no longer something she could do part-time. Words echoed by Zaid Hassan a past guest on the podcast you can listen to him in episode 34, The Tragedy of Strategic Planning.Change the conversation.The thesis for this podcast has always been, if we are to transform organizations, we need to change the conversation. It is always wonderful to hear your guest make similar comments. For Sarah, the conversation about gender equity has focused on approaches like unconscious bias training. These approaches focus on the individual and not the systems that maintain the status quo. For example, many of the dominant approaches focus notions like women do not negotiate or do not negotiate well. These ideas ignore that women who negotiate are often thought to be selfish, unreasonable or generally unpleasant. People do not receive negotiations from men in the same way they receive them from women. To change the status quo, we need to transform the conversations. As a result, Sarah’s work focuses not on changing the individual, but on changing the context.We ignore the social wake companies create.It is always interesting to me to learn my guest’s point of entry into the work they do. As a business and innovation scholar who has also been interested in the rise and fall of empires, it is not surprising that she came to the conclusion that we are not going to change the world if we do not transform business. For Sarah, if we are to create a fair and equitable world, we need to transform businesses from within. In this episode, we had an insightful discussion on the idea that we shouldn’t need a term like social entrepreneur. All businesses are social or create social outcomes. What we tend to do is ignore the social wake that companies create. Sarah’s book, The 360˚ Corporation, explores the tradeoffs companies make. In the book, she makes a compelling case for how companies need to approach these tradeoffs. The point that stood out for me is that companies often need to change their business model if they are going to reduce the wake they create in the world. This is not an easy proposition, yet Sarah’s does make a compelling argument by juxtaposing two very different companies, Walmart and Nike. One of the surprising things about her book is the way in which she is able to help the reader understand the tensions these companies face and how their business models can often constrain their choices. Focusing on the individual has a recoil effect.I recently had a conversation with a very senior executive who wanted to implement mandatory anti-blackness training. In this episode, Sarah highlights what the research says about these types of mandatory programs and how they tend to have a recoil or backlash effect. For example, when people are mandated to attend these programs, they tend to harden or double down on their views. Additionally, these kinds of programs can also make people hyper-aware of marginalized groups. Often their response can be to tokenize or other the very groups we are trying to help. These approaches although well-intentioned can have ill effects when not well thought out.Two tangible ideas from the episode:Stop focusing on the individual if your goal is to create change. Get rid of the mindset that we have to fix individuals.Identify the social structures and systems that create the outcomes you wish to change.Transformation is about changing ourselves and the environment.So much of the self-help literature focuses on changing yourself. Ralph Stacey, one of my favorite scholars in writing about transformation, says “entities are forming patterns of interactions and at the same time, that they are being formed by these patterns of interactions”. When we focus on the individual, we focus on the first part of his quote and ignore that “entities are being formed by these patterns of interactions”. Much of the dominant discourse focuses too much on the individual and ignores the structures. Perhaps if you take anything from this episode, it is that although there are times when paying attention to the individual can make a difference, it is perhaps my fruitful to pay attention to the structures and systems in which that individual resides. Regardless of how much the individual changes, the change will not happen until the context in which they reside also changes. For more similar ideas listen to Episode 70 with Kate Sutherland, Dismantling the myth of the lone wolf.For more information about Sarah Kaplan’s (PhD) work you can visit the sites below:GATE website: www.gendereconomy.orgGATE explainers: https://www.gendereconomy.org/explainers/Sarah Kaplan’s website: https://sarahkaplan.info

Can we change the way people have dialogue? Can we make their interactions better?This is the simple premise of Haesun’s work. Admittedly, we share similar perspectives on the role conversations play and their potential to help people thrive.So often, we blame other people for not communicating well. When we are in fact not listening. Conversations, although we have them every day, are complex. If we are to improve our conversations, we need to be more intentional in how we enter dialogue. Haesun asks us to pause and be intentional about our interactions.We create patterns.Many of us can think of someone with whom we would like to have a better conversation. For many of us, it is probably a sibling or an ex. Instead of living with these terrible conversations, what if we asked, what would we like to be different about our conversation? Rarely do we ask questions like this. It has probably never occurred to us to ask what do wish our conversation were like? We are too often caught in the existing pattern or are emotional about the conversation in which are involved.Haesun has developed a framework for helping us identify when we are in an unhealthy conversation so can work toward what we hope to get out of the conversation. It is a way of breaking patterns so our conversations could be just a little bit better.Conditions of possibilityThe idea of creating the conditions of possibility is one of my favorite ideas. Using Haesun’s Dialogic Orientation Quadrant can help us open get closer to cocreating conditions of possibility. In this podcast, she tells a story of how her mother always encouraged her to dream. Encouraged her to believe that anything was possible. I hope that most of us know that anything is not possible but the culture of creating a sense of hope is one that we can all probably benefit from.For so many of us, we focus on faults. What is not going well, what did not go well, and why things will not work. In this conversation with Haesun she provides, at least in my eyes, a sense of pragmatic hope. A hope that draws on the future you wish to bring forth and the times in the past where you have done well at using the resources to overcome challenges.Where you orient your attention that is where you move towards.I have played sports all my life. Over and over, I have been taught, the ball will go in the direction you are looking. If you look down, the ball will go down. If you look up, the ball will go up. In a race, keep your eyes on the finish line. Do not look left or right, ever! Run your race.In life, it is very easy to pay attention to all the things that are not going well and not look at the things you want more of. The conversation with Haesun is a reminder that we all need a nudge to orient ourselves to things we want more of.Change is visible. Change is audible.I have taken classes with Haesun and she often encourages her learners to record their conversations. Look at what you do does. A simple provocation with profound implications. I see it as an invitation to be reflective. We all have a habit of mouth and a habit of mind. The way connect the two can be very intentional should we choose to do so. How do we improve our habits so our conversations are better?There is a lot of cover in this episode. Including a story about dying with dignity but to learn more, I encourage you to listen to the episode.Links in the podcast:To follow Haesun’s work visit: https://www.briefcoaching.ca/To learn more about her quadrant follow this link: https://www.briefcoaching.ca/blog/dialogic-orientation-quadrant

In this conversation with Jon Shell, we talk about the a range of topics loosely connected to Impact Investing. Jon, throughout this episode, problematized a lot of the language people use. For example, instead of talking about the Future of Work, he talks about the Present of work. I really enjoyed this conversation and some of the take ways I have got from it were: Focus your energy on changing one small thing.I almost missed this insight, but it is the one that stood out the most for me. Jon and his team, at the time of the recording, were focusing on one thing that they change. I think it is such a good insight and reminds me of setting priorities. If you have one priority it is hard to get distracted. It is hard to suffer from mission drift. One encounter can change the course of your life. Jon tells the story of how he met Bill Young, the founder of Social Capital Partners. He went to that meeting for one thing and at the end of the meeting Bill offered him a job. That one meeting changed what he was doing from that day forward. There is no future of work it is already here. Jon and I talk about how work has been changing for many years. The conversations about the future of work and the role of automation are already happening to people in all parts of the workforce. What Jon is most interested in, at the moment, is getting people to talk about how our systems are designed around permanent work. As a result, people are self-employed have to do things that that other people do not have to do. It should not take a self-employed person three times as long to file taxes. Yet, our system is designed with the assumption that most people are permanent employees. Jon is trying to change that narrative. We should check our assumptions. Be smarter than a pigeon. You going to need to listen to the episode to get this one, but so many systems are built on a set of assumptions and the assumptions are never revisited. If you put a pigeon in a cage with two feeders and only put food in one feeder, the bird will periodically check to see if there is food in the second feeder. The pigeon has an ingrained system to check assumption but the systems we build do not. There are levels of complexity in any system you are trying to change. Jon highlight three levels of complexity that I reframe as follows: 1.Equality of opportunity. 2.The system usually has successful examples in it. 3.We need to be intentional about the platforms we build and not take the ones that presented to us by the most powerful players in the system. I hope you enjoy this episode. You can learn more about Jon and his work at: http://socialcapitalpartners.ca/

In this conversation with Jon Shell, we talk about the a range of topics loosely connected to Impact Investing. Jon, throughout this episode, problematized a lot of the language people use. For example, instead of talking about the Future of Work, he talks about the Present of work. I really enjoyed this conversation and some of the take ways I have got from it were: Focus your energy on changing one small thing.I almost missed this insight, but it is the one that stood out the most for me. Jon and his team, at the time of the recording, were focusing on one thing that they change. I think it is such a good insight and reminds me of setting priorities. If you have one priority it is hard to get distracted. It is hard to suffer from mission drift. One encounter can change the course of your life. Jon tells the story of how he met Bill Young, the founder of Social Capital Partners. He went to that meeting for one thing and at the end of the meeting Bill offered him a job. That one meeting changed what he was doing from that day forward. There is no future of work it is already here. Jon and I talk about how work has been changing for many years. The conversations about the future of work and the role of automation are already happening to people in all parts of the workforce. What Jon is most interested in, at the moment, is getting people to talk about how our systems are designed around permanent work. As a result, people are self-employed have to do things that that other people do not have to do. It should not take a self-employed person three times as long to file taxes. Yet, our system is designed with the assumption that most people are permanent employees. Jon is trying to change that narrative. We should check our assumptions. Be smarter than a pigeon. You going to need to listen to the episode to get this one, but so many systems are built on a set of assumptions and the assumptions are never revisited. If you put a pigeon in a cage with two feeders and only put food in one feeder, the bird will periodically check to see if there is food in the second feeder. The pigeon has an ingrained system to check assumption but the systems we build do not. There are levels of complexity in any system you are trying to change. Jon highlight three levels of complexity that I reframe as follows: 1.Equality of opportunity. 2.The system usually has successful examples in it. 3.We need to be intentional about the platforms we build and not take the ones that presented to us by the most powerful players in the system. I hope you enjoy this episode. You can learn more about Jon and his work at: http://socialcapitalpartners.ca/

In this conversation, Ashley Proctor and I we talk about the difference between the coworking industry and the coworking movement. There are a number of things that stood out for me in this episode. Build something for community larger than you. Build something for people. Ashley points out that she is driven to build things for people. Essentially, that is the difference between coworking the industry and coworking the movement. The industry focuses on the Real Estate play while the movement focus on the people. For the movement, it is not about the space, it about the people. What drives Ashley is building something bigger than herself and building something for people. Building something for a larger community. Work towards dismantling loneliness, accelerating serendipity, and making meaningful human connections. For Ashley, Coworking firstly a verb. It is a shared office space for people who work independently or remotely. It is about having the freedom to choose where and when you working. Ashley gets a lot of meaning from her work because its not about subdividing space, it is about people. Focus on the mission or purpose of what you are doing, and it will help you build great things. She things of building spaces like planting a flag where people can meet connect and build the future. Surround yourself with people who care about you have your success in mind. At the heart of building coworking spaces is building a community where you surround yourself with people want you do well, people want you to be the best, they want you to be strong. Instead of saying no, show people what you are building. I asked Ashley about how they say no, when curating communities. Ashley pointed out that sometimes you do not need to say no. Let people self-select. Show them the space, explain what you are trying to build and if it works for them, they will opt-in. You build big things one tiny step at a time. When you are trying to build something that people think is impossible you do it one step at time. Focus on putting one tiny piece after another and rally more people together. Bring people together to build the future with you. When bad things happen to you separate what happened from your identity. An event or misfortune does not thing does not define you. I found this to be a very profound reminder and I have seen many people struggle to not let bad things define them. It is a very privileged things to say but it is important that we not let misfortune consume us and define who we are. You can reach Ashley and learn more about all of her projects (including COHIP and GCUC Canada) by visiting her website www.CreativeBlueprint.caYou can learn more about the 312 Main project by visiting www.312Main.ca

In this conversation, Ashley Proctor and I we talk about the difference between the coworking industry and the coworking movement. There are a number of things that stood out for me in this episode. Build something for community larger than you. Build something for people. Ashley points out that she is driven to build things for people. Essentially, that is the difference between coworking the industry and coworking the movement. The industry focuses on the Real Estate play while the movement focus on the people. For the movement, it is not about the space, it about the people. What drives Ashley is building something bigger than herself and building something for people. Building something for a larger community. Work towards dismantling loneliness, accelerating serendipity, and making meaningful human connections. For Ashley, Coworking firstly a verb. It is a shared office space for people who work independently or remotely. It is about having the freedom to choose where and when you working. Ashley gets a lot of meaning from her work because its not about subdividing space, it is about people. Focus on the mission or purpose of what you are doing, and it will help you build great things. She things of building spaces like planting a flag where people can meet connect and build the future. Surround yourself with people who care about you have your success in mind. At the heart of building coworking spaces is building a community where you surround yourself with people want you do well, people want you to be the best, they want you to be strong. Instead of saying no, show people what you are building. I asked Ashley about how they say no, when curating communities. Ashley pointed out that sometimes you do not need to say no. Let people self-select. Show them the space, explain what you are trying to build and if it works for them, they will opt-in. You build big things one tiny step at a time. When you are trying to build something that people think is impossible you do it one step at time. Focus on putting one tiny piece after another and rally more people together. Bring people together to build the future with you. When bad things happen to you separate what happened from your identity. An event or misfortune does not thing does not define you. I found this to be a very profound reminder and I have seen many people struggle to not let bad things define them. It is a very privileged things to say but it is important that we not let misfortune consume us and define who we are. You can reach Ashley and learn more about all of her projects (including COHIP and GCUC Canada) by visiting her website www.CreativeBlueprint.caYou can learn more about the 312 Main project by visiting www.312Main.ca

The man behind TEDxPortOfSpain. Keita Demming helps companies identify and implement plausible innovation opportunities. In his line of work, he transforms companies into places and spaces that are idea-driven and people-centered. These companies foster cultures that embrace design, accountability, foresight, strategy, and innovation. High performing organizations have highly engaged and effective employees. They are wonderful places to work, play, and belong. Keita is also a Partner and Head of Innovation and Development at The Covenant Group (TCG); Keita also founded the Disruptive Conversations podcast, where he unpacks how people who are working to disrupt a sector or system think. In this episode, we discuss: - Challenging the Status Quo;- The Road-map to Identifying and Catalyzing Plausible Innovation Opportunities; and- 2 Things Fundamental to Success in Innovation.

This interview with Kofi Hope was thought-provoking on many levels. In this episode, we explored his work as an activist and an academic. Hope you enjoy the many insights we uncover in this episode. Here are some of the things that stood out for me.The most important journey we can go on is to find the fearless honestly within ourselves.Kofi reminds us that we do not control much in the world. One of the most important journeys we embark on is that of understanding who we are. Understanding who you are your own personal history. The journey of understand is unfinished work, it is difficult work, and is the most important work you will do. The fearless honestly with ourselves and avoiding our projections of self. but time well spent.We have to embrace detached action.This is a nuanced point. It refers to recognizing that we are all part of something bigger than ourselves. Something that we cannot control. The notion that we control the outcome of events and that the world is ours to be manage is a strong dominant narrative in society. Kofi reminds us to release ourselves from the that we have control over the ultimate outcome. Nothing is preordained. What we can control, the intention, integrity, and the value we put into the work we do. Lack of control can be mitigated by being mindful in the way we approach our work. We have inherited a legacy from those who have come before us. All that can expected, is that we do our best and do not get too caught up with the results.Cause and effect are not always closely coupled.In response to Kofi’s comments, I draw on complexity theory to describe that idea that systems often have a delay in them. We live in a world that overvalues quantitative short-term data. We undervalue long-term qualitative data or thick data. When we measure prematurely, we stifle innovation. Most approaches to measuring assume a linear predictable world. One that we can forecast, and things unfold as we forecasted. Kofi and I both challenge this notion.We coexist in mutual struggle and collective responsibility.Kofi is challenging the idea that people in privileged positions get to reach down and tell those who are marginalized, here are some crumbs to redefine your future. We have to ask larger questions. Why are people poor? Why are those folks in prison? He is asking that we see ourselves in a mutual struggle instead of those people are struggling. My interpretation is that he is asking, if I am benefiting from a system, and they are not, how can we work to change it? He sums his point by saying, “that if you want to even the playing field if you want to bring in people on the margins and let them have a place at the table…it takes investment, it takes time, and it takes intentionality”. Investment in people means investing a the system in a way that changes the patterns of that system.We need to avoid flavor of the month funding.Kofi makes that point that funding priorities change and resources begin to follow in the direction of the new priorities. For example, “Youth-Lead” programming. What happens is while this flavor his hot we build up organizations that support a “Youth-Lead” model. When the cracks show up and the is no longer appealing, funding priorities change and you now have all this infrastructure that needs to change. Too many of our third sector organizations are chronically under resourced.I worked hard for all that I have, is a myth.Kofi reminds us that a dominant troupe of our society is that hard work gets your riches and spoils. If you work hard enough you can have it all. Kofi is challenging the idea that people get to where they are because of hard work. I would concede that people do get to where they are because of hard work, but they also get there because of privilege. The challenge is that when they tell their story, it focuses on the hard work side and pretty much ignores the privilege that increased your chances that hard work would pay off. No one does it alone. We all get help along the way.

This interview with Kofi Hope was thought-provoking on many levels. In this episode, we explored his work as an activist and an academic. Hope you enjoy the many insights we uncover in this episode. Here are some of the things that stood out for me.The most important journey we can go on is to find the fearless honestly within ourselves.Kofi reminds us that we do not control much in the world. One of the most important journeys we embark on is that of understanding who we are. Understanding who you are your own personal history. The journey of understand is unfinished work, it is difficult work, and is the most important work you will do. The fearless honestly with ourselves and avoiding our projections of self. but time well spent.We have to embrace detached action.This is a nuanced point. It refers to recognizing that we are all part of something bigger than ourselves. Something that we cannot control. The notion that we control the outcome of events and that the world is ours to be manage is a strong dominant narrative in society. Kofi reminds us to release ourselves from the that we have control over the ultimate outcome. Nothing is preordained. What we can control, the intention, integrity, and the value we put into the work we do. Lack of control can be mitigated by being mindful in the way we approach our work. We have inherited a legacy from those who have come before us. All that can expected, is that we do our best and do not get too caught up with the results.Cause and effect are not always closely coupled.In response to Kofi’s comments, I draw on complexity theory to describe that idea that systems often have a delay in them. We live in a world that overvalues quantitative short-term data. We undervalue long-term qualitative data or thick data. When we measure prematurely, we stifle innovation. Most approaches to measuring assume a linear predictable world. One that we can forecast, and things unfold as we forecasted. Kofi and I both challenge this notion.We coexist in mutual struggle and collective responsibility.Kofi is challenging the idea that people in privileged positions get to reach down and tell those who are marginalized, here are some crumbs to redefine your future. We have to ask larger questions. Why are people poor? Why are those folks in prison? He is asking that we see ourselves in a mutual struggle instead of those people are struggling. My interpretation is that he is asking, if I am benefiting from a system, and they are not, how can we work to change it? He sums his point by saying, “that if you want to even the playing field if you want to bring in people on the margins and let them have a place at the table…it takes investment, it takes time, and it takes intentionality”. Investment in people means investing a the system in a way that changes the patterns of that system.We need to avoid flavor of the month funding.Kofi makes that point that funding priorities change and resources begin to follow in the direction of the new priorities. For example, “Youth-Lead” programming. What happens is while this flavor his hot we build up organizations that support a “Youth-Lead” model. When the cracks show up and the is no longer appealing, funding priorities change and you now have all this infrastructure that needs to change. Too many of our third sector organizations are chronically under resourced.I worked hard for all that I have, is a myth.Kofi reminds us that a dominant troupe of our society is that hard work gets your riches and spoils. If you work hard enough you can have it all. Kofi is challenging the idea that people get to where they are because of hard work. I would concede that people do get to where they are because of hard work, but they also get there because of privilege. The challenge is that when they tell their story, it focuses on the hard work side and pretty much ignores the privilege that increased your chances that hard work would pay off. No one does it alone. We all get help along the way.

Maarten Ectors is the Chief Innovation Office at Legal and General. He has helped companies like Amazon launch new services and disrupt markets. At the time of the interview, he was focused on disrupting insurance from the inside. In this conversation, we explore some very interesting ideas around disruptive innovation.There are few ideas that stood out for me in this conversation:If people are sleeping in the streets for the competitor’s product, you might need to rethink your offering. Maarten made this point in an almost a dismissive fashion. He was describing when he worked at Nokia and people could not understand why people were willing to sleep in the street for an inferior product. People sleeping in the road for the competitors offering should have been a warning sign that iPhone and Android were onto something that Nokia had missed.Build a future that looks enticing for your children. Maarten made the point that we should always strive to balance our professional and personal life. He then raised the bar by asking a compelling question: Does the future you are building look enticing for your children? When working on innovation, our moral compass must always point towards making a better future for your kids. Building a better future for your kids can be unpacked in many ways, but it is an excellent compass for us to have in mind. It is a subtle point, but it is something that I think both Maarten and I agree should be essential components of innovation.In a digital age, the rules are entirely different. I loved this observation. I see it very often with incumbents. In my experience, incumbents are usually playing by the rules of an old game. If the rules of the game have changed and you are playing by the old rules you are going to be left behind.Additionally, if your competitors have a better or cheaper product, you are in trouble. If they have both, you need to think about disrupting yourself. Otherwise, you are likely watching the other companies iPhone moment.Do digital experiments to find Aha moments. Maarten made the point that the problem with digital disruption is that you need to need to find solutions to the issues that customers do not know they have or have not yet expressed. The challenge is being able to do this in a way that the cost of failure is low. It is easy for us to say this, but changing the engine while your and flying and still having to keep an eye on what your customers don’t yet know they want is no easy task.Find a way to address the emotion of experiencing failure. It is one thing to say we need to put an incomplete idea in front of the customer. It is another thing to feel comfortable doing it. One way to address the comfort level of company leaders, Maarten suggests, is to do a quick video of the prototype. Do not do a spreadsheet or PowerPoint. Show them the idea in action in as minimal a form as possible. Do not build the complete model. Build the minimum working model you can. Keep in mind the value of doing a demo is etting feedback.I really enjoyed my conversation with Maarten. There is a lot to learn from this episode. One of the questions Maarten asks, is how would I disrupt your business? It is an interesting question to hold in mind while listening to this episode. For a moment, think about how you would disrupt your own sector? It is what I call a holding question. A holding question is a question you hold in your mind while you do your own work. As you continue to disrupt sectors and systems ask yourself, how you would disrupt my own sector or business? Hope you enjoy this episode.

Maarten Ectors is the Chief Innovation Office at Legal and General. He has helped companies like Amazon launch new services and disrupt markets. At the time of the interview, he was focused on disrupting insurance from the inside. In this conversation, we explore some very interesting ideas around disruptive innovation.There are few ideas that stood out for me in this conversation:If people are sleeping in the streets for the competitor’s product, you might need to rethink your offering. Maarten made this point in an almost a dismissive fashion. He was describing when he worked at Nokia and people could not understand why people were willing to sleep in the street for an inferior product. People sleeping in the road for the competitors offering should have been a warning sign that iPhone and Android were onto something that Nokia had missed.Build a future that looks enticing for your children. Maarten made the point that we should always strive to balance our professional and personal life. He then raised the bar by asking a compelling question: Does the future you are building look enticing for your children? When working on innovation, our moral compass must always point towards making a better future for your kids. Building a better future for your kids can be unpacked in many ways, but it is an excellent compass for us to have in mind. It is a subtle point, but it is something that I think both Maarten and I agree should be essential components of innovation.In a digital age, the rules are entirely different. I loved this observation. I see it very often with incumbents. In my experience, incumbents are usually playing by the rules of an old game. If the rules of the game have changed and you are playing by the old rules you are going to be left behind.Additionally, if your competitors have a better or cheaper product, you are in trouble. If they have both, you need to think about disrupting yourself. Otherwise, you are likely watching the other companies iPhone moment.Do digital experiments to find Aha moments. Maarten made the point that the problem with digital disruption is that you need to need to find solutions to the issues that customers do not know they have or have not yet expressed. The challenge is being able to do this in a way that the cost of failure is low. It is easy for us to say this, but changing the engine while your and flying and still having to keep an eye on what your customers don’t yet know they want is no easy task.Find a way to address the emotion of experiencing failure. It is one thing to say we need to put an incomplete idea in front of the customer. It is another thing to feel comfortable doing it. One way to address the comfort level of company leaders, Maarten suggests, is to do a quick video of the prototype. Do not do a spreadsheet or PowerPoint. Show them the idea in action in as minimal a form as possible. Do not build the complete model. Build the minimum working model you can. Keep in mind the value of doing a demo is etting feedback.I really enjoyed my conversation with Maarten. There is a lot to learn from this episode. One of the questions Maarten asks, is how would I disrupt your business? It is an interesting question to hold in mind while listening to this episode. For a moment, think about how you would disrupt your own sector? It is what I call a holding question. A holding question is a question you hold in your mind while you do your own work. As you continue to disrupt sectors and systems ask yourself, how you would disrupt my own sector or business? Hope you enjoy this episode.

Seyi Fabode is one of LinkedIn’s TopVoice in Technology. In this episode of Disruptive Conversations, we talk about many of his perspectives on disrupting sectors and systems.In my conversation with Seyi, he attributes a major part of his success to bringing his whole self into all that he does. In his experience, he found that by being honest with himself and in showing up completely and fully, he has greatly transformed his personal and professional life. He loves writing and has been able to use writing to transform his life and career.Seyi cut his teeth at the intersection of utilities, technology, and consumers. At one point he had a great interest in the automotive industry, but his first job out of school was within the power industry. This experience was surprisingly meaningful since he grew up in a country where it was not uncommon to lose power. So many of us take power for granted. Seyi has spent a considerable amount of thinking about how to ensure everyone in a city always has power.One of the things that stood out for me in our conversation was his approach to understanding the power sector. In my own experience, I have found that questions can greatly improve the quality of our interactions and perspectives. One of the questions that have helped to make Seyi one of LinkedIn’s ToVoices is: Are we really satisfying the folk on the other end of the switch? Although there are many fields that take a similar approach to understanding the end user. Seyi’s habit of putting the needs of the end consumer first changes his gaze. For example, a question that emerged from our conversation was, how is this product meeting a fundamental need of the end consumer? In the episode, he uses a personal example to illustrate his point. He has a fundamental need or desire for power but he wants that power to have as little impact on the planet as possible. Most of us have similar needs or desires and Elon Musk has used Tesla to make a beautiful package that plays toward this fundamental need or desire. In many ways, Elon Musk is not doing anything all the unique. Many other people in the industry have been doing this before Elon Musk, but Musk does better than most. His packaging appeals to our fundamental needs and desires. In doing so, Musk appeals to our emotions and is able to build a brand that so many covet.When I asked Seyi what sector or system he was trying to disrupt, he said consulting. Seyi argued that from his perspective, and I happen to agree, too many companies hire consultants to tell them what they want to hear. Additionally, many of these companies charge exorbitant rates for work that does can be done at a much lower cost. For him, the game in the consulting world is not about asking new beautiful questions or adding value, it is about keeping a client on billable hours for as long as possible.Seyi finds that he is good at hearing, listening, and responding to what is emerging. One of his frustrations is that many people take too long to act on the insights they receive. For example, when proposes new trends to a client, it is not uncommon for the client to return a few years later saying that he had warned them of these changes. For him, companies do not need validation for their existing beliefs, they need insight into future trends so they can align their business model to meet the demands of an emerging future.When something is working, it takes a huge leap of foolishness to change what we are doing.Seyi offers five very important pieces of advice for people who trying to disrupt sector and systems.Be open to being wrong.Discover the answer to the question, what are the drivers of the industry you are in?Context is king, but focus is best.Your innovation should be additive and not subtractive.Understand the drivers of your sector or industry.This last piece of advice is very informative. For many of us who work to disrupt a sector or system, our impatience or frustration leads us to skip the step of understanding why things are the way they are. When I ask the question, what is your least favourite word or phrase? The most common answer is “that’s just the way it is.” Seyi reminds us that it is important to ask why are things the way they are? His advice is to make sure you understand the drivers of your industry. It is a good reminder that sometimes we need to return to the basics. He reminds us that sometimes, things are the way they are because the core premises that the system was built upon greatly influence the dynamics of the system. If we try to change some of those things that were the foundations on which the system was built, we can actually erode the integrity of the system. There are some fundamental principles that if we violate, it compromises the entire system. At times, innovation should be additive and not subtractive.

Seyi Fabode is one of LinkedIn’s TopVoice in Technology. In this episode of Disruptive Conversations, we talk about many of his perspectives on disrupting sectors and systems.In my conversation with Seyi, he attributes a major part of his success to bringing his whole self into all that he does. In his experience, he found that by being honest with himself and in showing up completely and fully, he has greatly transformed his personal and professional life. He loves writing and has been able to use writing to transform his life and career.Seyi cut his teeth at the intersection of utilities, technology, and consumers. At one point he had a great interest in the automotive industry, but his first job out of school was within the power industry. This experience was surprisingly meaningful since he grew up in a country where it was not uncommon to lose power. So many of us take power for granted. Seyi has spent a considerable amount of thinking about how to ensure everyone in a city always has power.One of the things that stood out for me in our conversation was his approach to understanding the power sector. In my own experience, I have found that questions can greatly improve the quality of our interactions and perspectives. One of the questions that have helped to make Seyi one of LinkedIn’s ToVoices is: Are we really satisfying the folk on the other end of the switch? Although there are many fields that take a similar approach to understanding the end user. Seyi’s habit of putting the needs of the end consumer first changes his gaze. For example, a question that emerged from our conversation was, how is this product meeting a fundamental need of the end consumer? In the episode, he uses a personal example to illustrate his point. He has a fundamental need or desire for power but he wants that power to have as little impact on the planet as possible. Most of us have similar needs or desires and Elon Musk has used Tesla to make a beautiful package that plays toward this fundamental need or desire. In many ways, Elon Musk is not doing anything all the unique. Many other people in the industry have been doing this before Elon Musk, but Musk does better than most. His packaging appeals to our fundamental needs and desires. In doing so, Musk appeals to our emotions and is able to build a brand that so many covet.When I asked Seyi what sector or system he was trying to disrupt, he said consulting. Seyi argued that from his perspective, and I happen to agree, too many companies hire consultants to tell them what they want to hear. Additionally, many of these companies charge exorbitant rates for work that does can be done at a much lower cost. For him, the game in the consulting world is not about asking new beautiful questions or adding value, it is about keeping a client on billable hours for as long as possible.Seyi finds that he is good at hearing, listening, and responding to what is emerging. One of his frustrations is that many people take too long to act on the insights they receive. For example, when proposes new trends to a client, it is not uncommon for the client to return a few years later saying that he had warned them of these changes. For him, companies do not need validation for their existing beliefs, they need insight into future trends so they can align their business model to meet the demands of an emerging future.When something is working, it takes a huge leap of foolishness to change what we are doing.Seyi offers five very important pieces of advice for people who trying to disrupt sector and systems.Be open to being wrong.Discover the answer to the question, what are the drivers of the industry you are in?Context is king, but focus is best.Your innovation should be additive and not subtractive.Understand the drivers of your sector or industry.This last piece of advice is very informative. For many of us who work to disrupt a sector or system, our impatience or frustration leads us to skip the step of understanding why things are the way they are. When I ask the question, what is your least favourite word or phrase? The most common answer is “that’s just the way it is.” Seyi reminds us that it is important to ask why are things the way they are? His advice is to make sure you understand the drivers of your industry. It is a good reminder that sometimes we need to return to the basics. He reminds us that sometimes, things are the way they are because the core premises that the system was built upon greatly influence the dynamics of the system. If we try to change some of those things that were the foundations on which the system was built, we can actually erode the integrity of the system. There are some fundamental principles that if we violate, it compromises the entire system. At times, innovation should be additive and not subtractive.

In this episode, you meet Chris Hooper. Early in his life, Chris began to see accounting as the language of business and despite having had success as an accountant, he realized that his business could not scale beyond him. The company he is building is called Accodex. Accodex is disrupting what some describe as the most boring profession in the world, Accounting. He is building a company to avoid what he calls the Accounting Apocalypse.Chris noticed that just as the innovation of the double entry accounting had revolutionized Accounting, there were new trends that were also about to disrupt the field of accounting. His company Accodex, his striving to be a platform to support the future accounting. Although it is often described as Uber for accounting, the analogy does not fit well. If Uber gave you the same driver each time, and spent time ensuring that you trusted the driver, then that would be Accodex.The company Chris is building is based on the insights he gained while studying the history of Accounting during his MBA. He noticed four trends that were changing the future of Accounting:Changing labour force dynamics and expectationsTechnological changeGlobalizationsChanging expectations of owners and entrepreneursDriven by the entrepreneurial bug, he set himself on a journey to build a company that met his needs as an accountant. He built a company to satisfy his own needs.One of my favourite insights from Chris was his use of the analogy of sailing a ship. You can build a ship but if the winds are not blowing, or the weather is not right, it is hard to get the ship moving. What I love about this analogy is that it acknowledges the uncertainty involved in building a business. It acknowledges that we all have limited control as we try to build the future.Chris is ambitious and wants to build a company that last well beyond his lifetime. Very few companies make it past forty years. What I admire about him, is that once he noticed that there was incongruence between what he was doing and what he wanted to be doing, he took the time to fundamentally shift his course. This is a common theme among people I interview on Disruptive Conversations.Being an entrepreneur is hard work, and Chris suggests that entrepreneurs need to believe that the fight is worth fighting for. They need to be so committed to it that they're almost willing to die for it. If you believe that fight is worth fighting for, then fight relentlessly. Chris believes in hard work. His favourite quote is, “the elevator to success is out of order, but the stairs are always available”.To learn more about what Chris means by the accounting Apocalypse you can check out his video here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mO2Iy0yvdEYLearn more about Accodex here:https://www.accodex.com/

In this episode, you meet Chris Hooper. Early in his life, Chris began to see accounting as the language of business and despite having had success as an accountant, he realized that his business could not scale beyond him. The company he is building is called Accodex. Accodex is disrupting what some describe as the most boring profession in the world, Accounting. He is building a company to avoid what he calls the Accounting Apocalypse.Chris noticed that just as the innovation of the double entry accounting had revolutionized Accounting, there were new trends that were also about to disrupt the field of accounting. His company Accodex, his striving to be a platform to support the future accounting. Although it is often described as Uber for accounting, the analogy does not fit well. If Uber gave you the same driver each time, and spent time ensuring that you trusted the driver, then that would be Accodex.The company Chris is building is based on the insights he gained while studying the history of Accounting during his MBA. He noticed four trends that were changing the future of Accounting:Changing labour force dynamics and expectationsTechnological changeGlobalizationsChanging expectations of owners and entrepreneursDriven by the entrepreneurial bug, he set himself on a journey to build a company that met his needs as an accountant. He built a company to satisfy his own needs.One of my favourite insights from Chris was his use of the analogy of sailing a ship. You can build a ship but if the winds are not blowing, or the weather is not right, it is hard to get the ship moving. What I love about this analogy is that it acknowledges the uncertainty involved in building a business. It acknowledges that we all have limited control as we try to build the future.Chris is ambitious and wants to build a company that last well beyond his lifetime. Very few companies make it past forty years. What I admire about him, is that once he noticed that there was incongruence between what he was doing and what he wanted to be doing, he took the time to fundamentally shift his course. This is a common theme among people I interview on Disruptive Conversations.Being an entrepreneur is hard work, and Chris suggests that entrepreneurs need to believe that the fight is worth fighting for. They need to be so committed to it that they're almost willing to die for it. If you believe that fight is worth fighting for, then fight relentlessly. Chris believes in hard work. His favourite quote is, “the elevator to success is out of order, but the stairs are always available”.To learn more about what Chris means by the accounting Apocalypse you can check out his video here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mO2Iy0yvdEYLearn more about Accodex here:https://www.accodex.com/

In this episode, you will learn about some of the challenges of the future of work. This episode has a lot of great content and is hard to summarize. The future of work is full of possibility and there are new ways of collaborating that can be transformative for future workers.  This episode is a recording of a panel I attended earlier this year. Below I took some time to capture all the organizations mentioned throughout the episode. There are many examples of innovation throughout this episodes. Organizations and Apps mentioned in the episode. Dave helps people facing income volatility: https://www.dave.com/And Co is an App for invoicing: https://www.and.co/An example of platform community: https://enspiral.com/Urban Workers project: http://www.urbanworker.ca/ Free Lancers Unions: https://www.freelancersunion.org/Green Taxi - an alternative to UBER: http://www.mygreen.taxi/UpAndGo - for home cleaner professionals: https://www.upandgo.coop/National Domestic Workers Alliance is the largest network for domestic workers: https://www.domesticworkers.org/Coworking Movement: http://coworking.com/ CommonWealth in Canada is high-quality retirement plan for independent workers: https://www.cwretirement.com/Tradey is a company in Spain - an App helps freelancers prove trust to banks and traditional institutions. Uses your online data to help you go to a bank to prove you can be trusted. Bread Funds started in the Netherlands and was a group of people who created their own disability insurance: http://breadfunds.uk/Coworking Toronto is community members in Toronto: http://coworkingtoronto.ca/A coworking space in Vancouver: http://312main.ca/GCUC is the largest coworking conference series in the world:  https://gcuc.co/One of Toronto's first Coworking communities: http://foundery.is/Perco Lab is an international co-creation and co-design firm: http://www.percolab.com/en/Smart Eu is a cooperative dedicated to the needs of all freelancers. http://smart-eu.org/

In this episode, you will learn about some of the challenges of the future of work. This episode has a lot of great content and is hard to summarize. The future of work is full of possibility and there are new ways of collaborating that can be transformative for future workers.  This episode is a recording of a panel I attended earlier this year. Below I took some time to capture all the organizations mentioned throughout the episode. There are many examples of innovation throughout this episodes. Organizations and Apps mentioned in the episode. Dave helps people facing income volatility: https://www.dave.com/And Co is an App for invoicing: https://www.and.co/An example of platform community: https://enspiral.com/Urban Workers project: http://www.urbanworker.ca/ Free Lancers Unions: https://www.freelancersunion.org/Green Taxi - an alternative to UBER: http://www.mygreen.taxi/UpAndGo - for home cleaner professionals: https://www.upandgo.coop/National Domestic Workers Alliance is the largest network for domestic workers: https://www.domesticworkers.org/Coworking Movement: http://coworking.com/ CommonWealth in Canada is high-quality retirement plan for independent workers: https://www.cwretirement.com/Tradey is a company in Spain - an App helps freelancers prove trust to banks and traditional institutions. Uses your online data to help you go to a bank to prove you can be trusted. Bread Funds started in the Netherlands and was a group of people who created their own disability insurance: http://breadfunds.uk/Coworking Toronto is community members in Toronto: http://coworkingtoronto.ca/A coworking space in Vancouver: http://312main.ca/GCUC is the largest coworking conference series in the world:  https://gcuc.co/One of Toronto's first Coworking communities: http://foundery.is/Perco Lab is an international co-creation and co-design firm: http://www.percolab.com/en/Smart Eu is a cooperative dedicated to the needs of all freelancers. http://smart-eu.org/

What does it mean to live in a world where we struggle to find funding for programs that help children find their humanity? After my Disruptive Conversation with Mary Gordon, founder of Roots of Empathy, this is the question I was left with.If you have never heard of Roots of Empathy, it is a nonprofit organization whose long-term goal is to build the capacity of the next generation for responsible citizenship and responsive parenting. In the short term, Roots of Empathy focuses on raising levels of empathy, resulting in more respectful and caring relationships and reduced levels of bullying and aggression.In this episode of Disruptive Conversations, I dive into conversation with Mary Gordon. We have a candid conversation about the Art of the Disruptive Conversation. One of the many things that stood out to me was when I asked Mary to describe her most disruptive internal conversation, her answer had to do with finding herself. Her most disruptive internal conversation centred around the question who is Mary Gordon. This stood out to me for a number of reasons, for one thing, I am publishing this podcast the day after it was announced that Mary was awarded the 2018 Governor General's Innovation Award. It is a reminder that no matter how successful we are, we all seek to be comforted in knowing who we are and that we belong. It is a fundamental part of being human.What I heard in that comment, was someone stepping into their whole humanity. Through her work, Mary’s question to the world, as I understand it, is why don’t we educate the whole child? Why do we focus on academic scores and scores in scales of humanity? Even a woman with accolades, like the Governor General's Innovation Award, can express publicly, on a podcast, that she sometimes searches for herself.She too can be vulnerable.I think we can all agree that empathy, vulnerability, and belonging are all integral to the human experience. If we agree with this, then how is it that teaching empathy in a classroom can be considered a radical idea? To learn more, tune into this episode of Disruptive Conversations with Mary Gordon, founder of the Roots of Empathy program.

What does it mean to live in a world where we struggle to find funding for programs that help children find their humanity? After my Disruptive Conversation with Mary Gordon, founder of Roots of Empathy, this is the question I was left with.If you have never heard of Roots of Empathy, it is a nonprofit organization whose long-term goal is to build the capacity of the next generation for responsible citizenship and responsive parenting. In the short term, Roots of Empathy focuses on raising levels of empathy, resulting in more respectful and caring relationships and reduced levels of bullying and aggression.In this episode of Disruptive Conversations, I dive into conversation with Mary Gordon. We have a candid conversation about the Art of the Disruptive Conversation. One of the many things that stood out to me was when I asked Mary to describe her most disruptive internal conversation, her answer had to do with finding herself. Her most disruptive internal conversation centred around the question who is Mary Gordon. This stood out to me for a number of reasons, for one thing, I am publishing this podcast the day after it was announced that Mary was awarded the 2018 Governor General's Innovation Award. It is a reminder that no matter how successful we are, we all seek to be comforted in knowing who we are and that we belong. It is a fundamental part of being human.What I heard in that comment, was someone stepping into their whole humanity. Through her work, Mary’s question to the world, as I understand it, is why don’t we educate the whole child? Why do we focus on academic scores and scores in scales of humanity? Even a woman with accolades, like the Governor General's Innovation Award, can express publicly, on a podcast, that she sometimes searches for herself.She too can be vulnerable.I think we can all agree that empathy, vulnerability, and belonging are all integral to the human experience. If we agree with this, then how is it that teaching empathy in a classroom can be considered a radical idea? To learn more, tune into this episode of Disruptive Conversations with Mary Gordon, founder of the Roots of Empathy program.

(Chapter 5) In this mini-series, we explore how patient-generated data is being used to redefine the patient experience. This mini-series if funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and is a partnership between Reos Partners and Disruptive Conversations. In this mini-series, we explore three examples, or use cases, of how patient-generated data is being used to redefine the patient experience.Patient-generated health data refers to data that is collected by a patient. A patient can collect this data in a number of ways, they can record data throughout the day, they can use wearable devices or data can be passively collected through a number of different kinds of technology.In this mini-series, we explore how one team, Reos Partners, helped facilitate Disruptive Conversations in three examples. Each example explores how innovators are rethinking, reimaging, and repurposing traditional ways of working.In these episodes, you will learn how data is being used as a medium through which patients and providers can collaborate on decisions that improve health outcomes. This new approach is not without its challenges. For example, many providers have concerns about the validity of the data. Other approaches place too much burden on the patient. Too much responsibility for them to collect data without being clear on if and how that data will be used. Perhaps most concerning of all is how can the data be used or misused?I this mini-series, we explore many of these concerns. In each episode, we reveal how the patient can be an innovator when thinking of solutions in healthcare. We explore unlikely players and partnerships to demonstrate how some providers are inventing novel solutions to common healthcare problems.This mini-series was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the United States’ largest philanthropy dedicated solely to health. The foundation is focused on building a national “culture of health” that looks beyond the healthcare system to the wide range of powerful personal, cultural, and socioeconomic factors that influence health.

(Chapter 2) In this mini-series, we explore how patient-generated data is being used to redefine the patient experience. This mini-series if funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and is a partnership between Reos Partners and Disruptive Conversations. In this mini-series, we explore three examples, or use cases, of how patient-generated data is being used to redefine the patient experience.Patient-generated health data refers to data that is collected by a patient. A patient can collect this data in a number of ways, they can record data throughout the day, they can use wearable devices or data can be passively collected through a number of different kinds of technology.In this mini-series, we explore how one team, Reos Partners, helped facilitate Disruptive Conversations in three examples. Each example explores how innovators are rethinking, reimaging, and repurposing traditional ways of working.In these episodes, you will learn how data is being used as a medium through which patients and providers can collaborate on decisions that improve health outcomes. This new approach is not without its challenges. For example, many providers have concerns about the validity of the data. Other approaches place too much burden on the patient. Too much responsibility for them to collect data without being clear on if and how that data will be used. Perhaps most concerning of all is how can the data be used or misused?I this mini-series, we explore many of these concerns. In each episode, we reveal how the patient can be an innovator when thinking of solutions in healthcare. We explore unlikely players and partnerships to demonstrate how some providers are inventing novel solutions to common healthcare problems.This mini-series was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the United States’ largest philanthropy dedicated solely to health. The foundation is focused on building a national “culture of health” that looks beyond the healthcare system to the wide range of powerful personal, cultural, and socioeconomic factors that influence health.

(Chapter 3) In this mini-series, we explore how patient-generated data is being used to redefine the patient experience. This mini-series if funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and is a partnership between Reos Partners and Disruptive Conversations. In this mini-series, we explore three examples, or use cases, of how patient-generated data is being used to redefine the patient experience.Patient-generated health data refers to data that is collected by a patient. A patient can collect this data in a number of ways, they can record data throughout the day, they can use wearable devices or data can be passively collected through a number of different kinds of technology.In this mini-series, we explore how one team, Reos Partners, helped facilitate Disruptive Conversations in three examples. Each example explores how innovators are rethinking, reimaging, and repurposing traditional ways of working.In these episodes, you will learn how data is being used as a medium through which patients and providers can collaborate on decisions that improve health outcomes. This new approach is not without its challenges. For example, many providers have concerns about the validity of the data. Other approaches place too much burden on the patient. Too much responsibility for them to collect data without being clear on if and how that data will be used. Perhaps most concerning of all is how can the data be used or misused?I this mini-series, we explore many of these concerns. In each episode, we reveal how the patient can be an innovator when thinking of solutions in healthcare. We explore unlikely players and partnerships to demonstrate how some providers are inventing novel solutions to common healthcare problems.This mini-series was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the United States’ largest philanthropy dedicated solely to health. The foundation is focused on building a national “culture of health” that looks beyond the healthcare system to the wide range of powerful personal, cultural, and socioeconomic factors that influence health.

In this mini-series, we explore how patient-generated data is being used to redefine the patient experience. This mini-series if funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and is a partnership between Reos Partners and Disruptive Conversations. In this mini-series, we explore three examples, or use cases, of how patient-generated data is being used to redefine the patient experience.Patient-generated health data refers to data that is collected by a patient. A patient can collect this data in a number of ways, they can record data throughout the day, they can use wearable devices or data can be passively collected through a number of different kinds of technology.In this mini-series, we explore how one team, Reos Partners, helped facilitate Disruptive Conversations in three examples. Each example explores how innovators are rethinking, reimaging, and repurposing traditional ways of working.In these episodes, you will learn how data is being used as a medium through which patients and providers can collaborate on decisions that improve health outcomes. This new approach is not without its challenges. For example, many providers have concerns about the validity of the data. Other approaches place too much burden on the patient. Too much responsibility for them to collect data without being clear on if and how that data will be used. Perhaps most concerning of all is how can the data be used or misused?I this mini-series, we explore many of these concerns. In each episode, we reveal how the patient can be an innovator when thinking of solutions in healthcare. We explore unlikely players and partnerships to demonstrate how some providers are inventing novel solutions to common healthcare problems.This mini-series was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the United States’ largest philanthropy dedicated solely to health. The foundation is focused on building a national “culture of health” that looks beyond the healthcare system to the wide range of powerful personal, cultural, and socioeconomic factors that influence health.

(Chapter 4) In this mini-series, we explore how patient-generated data is being used to redefine the patient experience. This mini-series if funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and is a partnership between Reos Partners and Disruptive Conversations. In this mini-series, we explore three examples, or use cases, of how patient-generated data is being used to redefine the patient experience.Patient-generated health data refers to data that is collected by a patient. A patient can collect this data in a number of ways, they can record data throughout the day, they can use wearable devices or data can be passively collected through a number of different kinds of technology.In this mini-series, we explore how one team, Reos Partners, helped facilitate Disruptive Conversations in three examples. Each example explores how innovators are rethinking, reimaging, and repurposing traditional ways of working.In these episodes, you will learn how data is being used as a medium through which patients and providers can collaborate on decisions that improve health outcomes. This new approach is not without its challenges. For example, many providers have concerns about the validity of the data. Other approaches place too much burden on the patient. Too much responsibility for them to collect data without being clear on if and how that data will be used. Perhaps most concerning of all is how can the data be used or misused?I this mini-series, we explore many of these concerns. In each episode, we reveal how the patient can be an innovator when thinking of solutions in healthcare. We explore unlikely players and partnerships to demonstrate how some providers are inventing novel solutions to common healthcare problems.This mini-series was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the United States’ largest philanthropy dedicated solely to health. The foundation is focused on building a national “culture of health” that looks beyond the healthcare system to the wide range of powerful personal, cultural, and socioeconomic factors that influence health.

(Chapter 5) In this mini-series, we explore how patient-generated data is being used to redefine the patient experience. This mini-series if funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and is a partnership between Reos Partners and Disruptive Conversations. In this mini-series, we explore three examples, or use cases, of how patient-generated data is being used to redefine the patient experience.Patient-generated health data refers to data that is collected by a patient. A patient can collect this data in a number of ways, they can record data throughout the day, they can use wearable devices or data can be passively collected through a number of different kinds of technology.In this mini-series, we explore how one team, Reos Partners, helped facilitate Disruptive Conversations in three examples. Each example explores how innovators are rethinking, reimaging, and repurposing traditional ways of working.In these episodes, you will learn how data is being used as a medium through which patients and providers can collaborate on decisions that improve health outcomes. This new approach is not without its challenges. For example, many providers have concerns about the validity of the data. Other approaches place too much burden on the patient. Too much responsibility for them to collect data without being clear on if and how that data will be used. Perhaps most concerning of all is how can the data be used or misused?I this mini-series, we explore many of these concerns. In each episode, we reveal how the patient can be an innovator when thinking of solutions in healthcare. We explore unlikely players and partnerships to demonstrate how some providers are inventing novel solutions to common healthcare problems.This mini-series was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the United States’ largest philanthropy dedicated solely to health. The foundation is focused on building a national “culture of health” that looks beyond the healthcare system to the wide range of powerful personal, cultural, and socioeconomic factors that influence health.

(Chapter 4) In this mini-series, we explore how patient-generated data is being used to redefine the patient experience. This mini-series if funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and is a partnership between Reos Partners and Disruptive Conversations. In this mini-series, we explore three examples, or use cases, of how patient-generated data is being used to redefine the patient experience.Patient-generated health data refers to data that is collected by a patient. A patient can collect this data in a number of ways, they can record data throughout the day, they can use wearable devices or data can be passively collected through a number of different kinds of technology.In this mini-series, we explore how one team, Reos Partners, helped facilitate Disruptive Conversations in three examples. Each example explores how innovators are rethinking, reimaging, and repurposing traditional ways of working.In these episodes, you will learn how data is being used as a medium through which patients and providers can collaborate on decisions that improve health outcomes. This new approach is not without its challenges. For example, many providers have concerns about the validity of the data. Other approaches place too much burden on the patient. Too much responsibility for them to collect data without being clear on if and how that data will be used. Perhaps most concerning of all is how can the data be used or misused?I this mini-series, we explore many of these concerns. In each episode, we reveal how the patient can be an innovator when thinking of solutions in healthcare. We explore unlikely players and partnerships to demonstrate how some providers are inventing novel solutions to common healthcare problems.This mini-series was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the United States’ largest philanthropy dedicated solely to health. The foundation is focused on building a national “culture of health” that looks beyond the healthcare system to the wide range of powerful personal, cultural, and socioeconomic factors that influence health.

(Chapter 3) In this mini-series, we explore how patient-generated data is being used to redefine the patient experience. This mini-series if funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and is a partnership between Reos Partners and Disruptive Conversations. In this mini-series, we explore three examples, or use cases, of how patient-generated data is being used to redefine the patient experience.Patient-generated health data refers to data that is collected by a patient. A patient can collect this data in a number of ways, they can record data throughout the day, they can use wearable devices or data can be passively collected through a number of different kinds of technology.In this mini-series, we explore how one team, Reos Partners, helped facilitate Disruptive Conversations in three examples. Each example explores how innovators are rethinking, reimaging, and repurposing traditional ways of working.In these episodes, you will learn how data is being used as a medium through which patients and providers can collaborate on decisions that improve health outcomes. This new approach is not without its challenges. For example, many providers have concerns about the validity of the data. Other approaches place too much burden on the patient. Too much responsibility for them to collect data without being clear on if and how that data will be used. Perhaps most concerning of all is how can the data be used or misused?I this mini-series, we explore many of these concerns. In each episode, we reveal how the patient can be an innovator when thinking of solutions in healthcare. We explore unlikely players and partnerships to demonstrate how some providers are inventing novel solutions to common healthcare problems.This mini-series was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the United States’ largest philanthropy dedicated solely to health. The foundation is focused on building a national “culture of health” that looks beyond the healthcare system to the wide range of powerful personal, cultural, and socioeconomic factors that influence health.

(Chapter 2) In this mini-series, we explore how patient-generated data is being used to redefine the patient experience. This mini-series if funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and is a partnership between Reos Partners and Disruptive Conversations. In this mini-series, we explore three examples, or use cases, of how patient-generated data is being used to redefine the patient experience.Patient-generated health data refers to data that is collected by a patient. A patient can collect this data in a number of ways, they can record data throughout the day, they can use wearable devices or data can be passively collected through a number of different kinds of technology.In this mini-series, we explore how one team, Reos Partners, helped facilitate Disruptive Conversations in three examples. Each example explores how innovators are rethinking, reimaging, and repurposing traditional ways of working.In these episodes, you will learn how data is being used as a medium through which patients and providers can collaborate on decisions that improve health outcomes. This new approach is not without its challenges. For example, many providers have concerns about the validity of the data. Other approaches place too much burden on the patient. Too much responsibility for them to collect data without being clear on if and how that data will be used. Perhaps most concerning of all is how can the data be used or misused?I this mini-series, we explore many of these concerns. In each episode, we reveal how the patient can be an innovator when thinking of solutions in healthcare. We explore unlikely players and partnerships to demonstrate how some providers are inventing novel solutions to common healthcare problems.This mini-series was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the United States’ largest philanthropy dedicated solely to health. The foundation is focused on building a national “culture of health” that looks beyond the healthcare system to the wide range of powerful personal, cultural, and socioeconomic factors that influence health.

In this mini-series, we explore how patient-generated data is being used to redefine the patient experience. This mini-series if funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and is a partnership between Reos Partners and Disruptive Conversations. In this mini-series, we explore three examples, or use cases, of how patient-generated data is being used to redefine the patient experience.Patient-generated health data refers to data that is collected by a patient. A patient can collect this data in a number of ways, they can record data throughout the day, they can use wearable devices or data can be passively collected through a number of different kinds of technology.In this mini-series, we explore how one team, Reos Partners, helped facilitate Disruptive Conversations in three examples. Each example explores how innovators are rethinking, reimaging, and repurposing traditional ways of working.In these episodes, you will learn how data is being used as a medium through which patients and providers can collaborate on decisions that improve health outcomes. This new approach is not without its challenges. For example, many providers have concerns about the validity of the data. Other approaches place too much burden on the patient. Too much responsibility for them to collect data without being clear on if and how that data will be used. Perhaps most concerning of all is how can the data be used or misused?I this mini-series, we explore many of these concerns. In each episode, we reveal how the patient can be an innovator when thinking of solutions in healthcare. We explore unlikely players and partnerships to demonstrate how some providers are inventing novel solutions to common healthcare problems.This mini-series was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the United States’ largest philanthropy dedicated solely to health. The foundation is focused on building a national “culture of health” that looks beyond the healthcare system to the wide range of powerful personal, cultural, and socioeconomic factors that influence health.

If you own technology, you produce data, and that data is very valuable. OWN is working to help you take control of that data. Mitzi László and her colleagues are working to help you own your data. This conversation is particularly relevant in a week where Cambridge Analytica and Facebook have been dominating our news cycle. Cambridge Analytica was able to hack and manipulate Facebooks data, and its algorithm, to build digital personas and then send targeted marketing messages to those personas. This capacity is valuable to many people. In addition to the kind of money that is thrown around after these digital personas, we are learning that with enough data, people can manipulate entire populations.Most of us do not think about the data we produce, but as we walk the world with our phones in our pockets, we are leaving behind a trail of data. This data is an asset. It is valuable and we need to have a conversation about who owns that data and how can they use? In this episode of Disruptive Conversation with Mitzi László, we unpack why owning your data is so important. I argue that data and data rights will be one of the most Disruptive Conversations we will have in the upcoming years. Mitzi and her colleagues are building technology to make owning your data as easy possible. You can check out her white paper at: www.personaldatatrading.com.You can support her ongoing Indiegogo campaign at this link: https://igg.me/at/ownit/x/17652744.You can also visit her website: https://www.ownyourdata.xyz/

If you own technology, you produce data, and that data is very valuable. OWN is working to help you take control of that data. Mitzi László and her colleagues are working to help you own your data. This conversation is particularly relevant in a week where Cambridge Analytica and Facebook have been dominating our news cycle. Cambridge Analytica was able to hack and manipulate Facebooks data, and its algorithm, to build digital personas and then send targeted marketing messages to those personas. This capacity is valuable to many people. In addition to the kind of money that is thrown around after these digital personas, we are learning that with enough data, people can manipulate entire populations.Most of us do not think about the data we produce, but as we walk the world with our phones in our pockets, we are leaving behind a trail of data. This data is an asset. It is valuable and we need to have a conversation about who owns that data and how can they use? In this episode of Disruptive Conversation with Mitzi László, we unpack why owning your data is so important. I argue that data and data rights will be one of the most Disruptive Conversations we will have in the upcoming years. Mitzi and her colleagues are building technology to make owning your data as easy possible. You can check out her white paper at: www.personaldatatrading.com.You can support her ongoing Indiegogo campaign at this link: https://igg.me/at/ownit/x/17652744.You can also visit her website: https://www.ownyourdata.xyz/

In this episode of Disruptive Conversations, I interview Kishau Rogers, founder of Big Think and many other software related companies. In this episode, Kishau and I geek out on systems thinking and find many overlaps in our own work. As a listener you will enjoy the many nuances she presents on thinking and problem-solving. Her general premise is that people need to think before they act. Kishau helps people find solutions through software. For her, too often people have not thought about the problem enough before they decide to develop code. She wants to disrupt the idea that we can just throw code at a problem. For her, the why is more important than the what. She encourages her clients to ask why because often the first solution we come up with is likely not the best we can do. Asking why helps us develop clarity around the problem we are trying to address. She argues, that too many times, we hide behind technology. When we attack problems with code, we might be building our existing problems into new software. Simply taking an analog problem and making it a digital problem.Kishau, like me, is a fan of structured thinking. She is an advocate of using tools and frameworks to help us think about how we are going to address the problems we face. This episode is a really a clarion call for better-thinking tools. Hope you enjoy this episode of Disruptive Conversations. Related links mentioned in the episode:http://bigthinking.io/http://www.bstudioproject.com/http://thesidelab.com/

In this episode of Disruptive Conversations, I interview Kishau Rogers, founder of Big Think and many other software related companies. In this episode, Kishau and I geek out on systems thinking and find many overlaps in our own work. As a listener you will enjoy the many nuances she presents on thinking and problem-solving. Her general premise is that people need to think before they act. Kishau helps people find solutions through software. For her, too often people have not thought about the problem enough before they decide to develop code. She wants to disrupt the idea that we can just throw code at a problem. For her, the why is more important than the what. She encourages her clients to ask why because often the first solution we come up with is likely not the best we can do. Asking why helps us develop clarity around the problem we are trying to address. She argues, that too many times, we hide behind technology. When we attack problems with code, we might be building our existing problems into new software. Simply taking an analog problem and making it a digital problem.Kishau, like me, is a fan of structured thinking. She is an advocate of using tools and frameworks to help us think about how we are going to address the problems we face. This episode is a really a clarion call for better-thinking tools. Hope you enjoy this episode of Disruptive Conversations. Related links mentioned in the episode:http://bigthinking.io/http://www.bstudioproject.com/http://thesidelab.com/

In this episode, I speak with Adam Kahane, author of the book, Collaborating with the Enemy: How to Work with People You Don't Agree with or Like or Trust.Adam is a full-time disruptor, he spends his time completely dedicated to helping people address their most important and intractable challenges. Adam is a pioneer in the in the lab space and has written several books related to systems change. He argues that we spend a lot of time focusing on what other people should or ought to be doing. For him, this kind of thinking is a complete waste of time.In this episode, Adam and I discuss martial arts and dialogue. You would need to listen to the episode to understand how these two concepts connect. One of the powerful moments in our conversation came when we talked about power, self-development and love. In the episode, he references Martin Luther King and makes that point that in our society we place so much emphasis on love and unity, that we “risk being sentimental and anaemic actually sentimental and anaemic at best and at worst cynically reproducing of the status quo.”I truly enjoyed my conversation with Adam and it was a pleasure to talk to someone who has spent so much time thinking about who we disrupt sectors and systems. The final point I leave you with is that he reminds us that so often we are quick to blame or tell other people what to do, how things should be done or we conclude that they need to change. Drawing on the work of Edgar Schein and is the notion of humble inquiry is a lot more powerful or transformative approach to start from a place of asking questions. I hope you enjoy this episode of Disruptive Conversations.  

In this episode, I speak with Adam Kahane, author of the book, Collaborating with the Enemy: How to Work with People You Don't Agree with or Like or Trust.Adam is a full-time disruptor, he spends his time completely dedicated to helping people address their most important and intractable challenges. Adam is a pioneer in the in the lab space and has written several books related to systems change. He argues that we spend a lot of time focusing on what other people should or ought to be doing. For him, this kind of thinking is a complete waste of time.In this episode, Adam and I discuss martial arts and dialogue. You would need to listen to the episode to understand how these two concepts connect. One of the powerful moments in our conversation came when we talked about power, self-development and love. In the episode, he references Martin Luther King and makes that point that in our society we place so much emphasis on love and unity, that we “risk being sentimental and anaemic actually sentimental and anaemic at best and at worst cynically reproducing of the status quo.”I truly enjoyed my conversation with Adam and it was a pleasure to talk to someone who has spent so much time thinking about who we disrupt sectors and systems. The final point I leave you with is that he reminds us that so often we are quick to blame or tell other people what to do, how things should be done or we conclude that they need to change. Drawing on the work of Edgar Schein and is the notion of humble inquiry is a lot more powerful or transformative approach to start from a place of asking questions. I hope you enjoy this episode of Disruptive Conversations.  

Charles (Chuck) Mahron of the Strong Towns interviews me on this episode of Disruptive Conversations. In this episode, I open myself up to the audience for the first time thanks to some comments from listeners. A few listeners emailed and asked me to get someone to interview me. I asked Chuck Mahron from to interview me in this episode. In this episode, I turn the microphone on myself and share my own perspective on disruptive conversations.In this episode, I share for the first time, why I started the podcast and the concept behind Disruptive Conversations. In brief, Disruptive Conversations refer to conversations that change the narrative within an organization. The dominant understanding of organizations within the management literature draws on scientific thinking. Disruptive conversations as a concept, draws on complexity thinking and assumes that organizations are conversations. If we are going to transform organizations, we need to transform things we say and do on a daily basis. By disrupting the conversations within the organization we transform the way we work.Organizations are social arrangements and we need to think of them like that. In this episode, I share some of my own insights on how we generate organizational change. Hope you enjoy.

Charles (Chuck) Mahron of the Strong Towns interviews me on this episode of Disruptive Conversations. In this episode, I open myself up to the audience for the first time thanks to some comments from listeners. A few listeners emailed and asked me to get someone to interview me. I asked Chuck Mahron from to interview me in this episode. In this episode, I turn the microphone on myself and share my own perspective on disruptive conversations.In this episode, I share for the first time, why I started the podcast and the concept behind Disruptive Conversations. In brief, Disruptive Conversations refer to conversations that change the narrative within an organization. The dominant understanding of organizations within the management literature draws on scientific thinking. Disruptive conversations as a concept, draws on complexity thinking and assumes that organizations are conversations. If we are going to transform organizations, we need to transform things we say and do on a daily basis. By disrupting the conversations within the organization we transform the way we work.Organizations are social arrangements and we need to think of them like that. In this episode, I share some of my own insights on how we generate organizational change. Hope you enjoy.

In this episode, Daniel Egger and I discuss how many organization want to disrupt because they have not sufficiently prepared for the future. Daniel is a Human Centered Disruptive Innovation consultant and is the author of the book Future Value Generation: Do you need to create new Business Logics?Daniel has a slightly different take on how we generate innovation. For him, innovation, foresight and strategy should start from the perspective of human emotions. One of his most interesting arguments, revealed in this episode, is that change comes with opposition, but this despite this opposition, it is also an opportunity.One of the many insights to take away from that episode is that a human-centred approach means that we need to remember that people values are in a constant state of change. If you are trying to launch a product in a two or three years, we need to pay attention to how consumers values may change while we are building and launching the new product.Additionally, Daniel argues that humans will always have emotions that transcend age, gender and race. Over time, it is important to focus on people and their perspectives. In taking a human-centered approach to disruption and innovation, it is helpful to focus on all dimensions of clients’ life and the things that influence their emotional states.Going blindly into the future leaves organizations vulnerable to disruptions rather than being resilient to the changes that are going to come. Daniel has very refreshing perspectives of disruption and innovation that we unpack in this episode of Disruptive Conversations.

In this episode, Daniel Egger and I discuss how many organization want to disrupt because they have not sufficiently prepared for the future. Daniel is a Human Centered Disruptive Innovation consultant and is the author of the book Future Value Generation: Do you need to create new Business Logics?Daniel has a slightly different take on how we generate innovation. For him, innovation, foresight and strategy should start from the perspective of human emotions. One of his most interesting arguments, revealed in this episode, is that change comes with opposition, but this despite this opposition, it is also an opportunity.One of the many insights to take away from that episode is that a human-centred approach means that we need to remember that people values are in a constant state of change. If you are trying to launch a product in a two or three years, we need to pay attention to how consumers values may change while we are building and launching the new product.Additionally, Daniel argues that humans will always have emotions that transcend age, gender and race. Over time, it is important to focus on people and their perspectives. In taking a human-centered approach to disruption and innovation, it is helpful to focus on all dimensions of clients’ life and the things that influence their emotional states.Going blindly into the future leaves organizations vulnerable to disruptions rather than being resilient to the changes that are going to come. Daniel has very refreshing perspectives of disruption and innovation that we unpack in this episode of Disruptive Conversations.

Within the rise of the shared economy, there is increasing need for an approach to insurance that meets these emerging ways of working. Tim Attia and his colleagues have built a product for the shared economy. In this episode, we discuss how they built an insurance product from the ground up. One that meets the needs of the new ways people are working. He tells the story of how existing thinking and practices in industry saw insurance in the shared economy as too risky to invest. One practice for example required legislative change, but in another region there was a rule that if there was no other product like it that exists in the market then they can enter that market under special conditions. They used this lightly regulated mode to expand their line of business throughout the United States. In the second half of the podcast, Tim shares his theory on how you disrupt a sector or system. His theory involves three steps. First disrupt in open field. Instead of competing with incumbents do what others are no willing to do. Second, start with a blank slate. Do not rely on previous ways of doing things to do something different. Reimagine the model to meet the new model you are building. Finally, reimagine the experience of the user to be as simple and seamless as possible

Within the rise of the shared economy, there is increasing need for an approach to insurance that meets these emerging ways of working. Tim Attia and his colleagues have built a product for the shared economy. In this episode, we discuss how they built an insurance product from the ground up. One that meets the needs of the new ways people are working. He tells the story of how existing thinking and practices in industry saw insurance in the shared economy as too risky to invest. One practice for example required legislative change, but in another region there was a rule that if there was no other product like it that exists in the market then they can enter that market under special conditions. They used this lightly regulated mode to expand their line of business throughout the United States. In the second half of the podcast, Tim shares his theory on how you disrupt a sector or system. His theory involves three steps. First disrupt in open field. Instead of competing with incumbents do what others are no willing to do. Second, start with a blank slate. Do not rely on previous ways of doing things to do something different. Reimagine the model to meet the new model you are building. Finally, reimagine the experience of the user to be as simple and seamless as possible

In this podcast episode, I talk with Sharon Avery the CEO of Toronto Foundation. Sharon is excited about being at the heart of philanthropy. In the show we talk about how she got into philanthropy. She tells the story of headed off to university thinking she would get into media. Instead, she became a fundraiser. She shares a powerful work experience, related to a past crush and how that experience changed her perspective on what she wanted to do with the rest of her life. We joke about how following love sometimes has profound impacts on our career trajectories.When we began to talk about having Disruptive Conversations, we discuss the challenge of getting your colleagues to work differently. Many of us have the experience of going to training or a workshop that inspires us to try new things at work. For most of us implementing these new ideas in our workplace can be a struggle. Throughout the show we talk about how her career has been peppered with challenging established norms to produce tangible outcomes.At Toronto Foundation, her new challenge is thinking about how she can bring innovative thinking to the organization. In this episode, she shares how she has learned to that by simplifying the message, focusing on learning and limiting choices she was able to get more engagement. From the interview, you can tell that Sharon is bold with her ideas, intentional and collaborative in the way she works. In being disruptive, she likes to bring people along with her on the journey. Before bringing ideas to life, she engages in a lot of inquiry before she dives into her initiatives. For her, it is important to take the time to find ready partners.Although she is new to her position, Sharon has an opportunity to disrupt affluence and unearth philanthropic dollars in new ways. It will be exciting to see Sharon develop in her role and I look forward to seeing how Toronto Foundations develops in the next few years.Links in the podcast:Toronto Foundation website: https://torontofoundation.ca/Toronto Foundation on Twitter: https://twitter.com/TorontoFdnFollow Sharon Avery on Twitter: https://twitter.com/s2avery

In this podcast episode, I talk with Sharon Avery the CEO of Toronto Foundation. Sharon is excited about being at the heart of philanthropy. In the show we talk about how she got into philanthropy. She tells the story of headed off to university thinking she would get into media. Instead, she became a fundraiser. She shares a powerful work experience, related to a past crush and how that experience changed her perspective on what she wanted to do with the rest of her life. We joke about how following love sometimes has profound impacts on our career trajectories.When we began to talk about having Disruptive Conversations, we discuss the challenge of getting your colleagues to work differently. Many of us have the experience of going to training or a workshop that inspires us to try new things at work. For most of us implementing these new ideas in our workplace can be a struggle. Throughout the show we talk about how her career has been peppered with challenging established norms to produce tangible outcomes.At Toronto Foundation, her new challenge is thinking about how she can bring innovative thinking to the organization. In this episode, she shares how she has learned to that by simplifying the message, focusing on learning and limiting choices she was able to get more engagement. From the interview, you can tell that Sharon is bold with her ideas, intentional and collaborative in the way she works. In being disruptive, she likes to bring people along with her on the journey. Before bringing ideas to life, she engages in a lot of inquiry before she dives into her initiatives. For her, it is important to take the time to find ready partners.Although she is new to her position, Sharon has an opportunity to disrupt affluence and unearth philanthropic dollars in new ways. It will be exciting to see Sharon develop in her role and I look forward to seeing how Toronto Foundations develops in the next few years.Links in the podcast:Toronto Foundation website: https://torontofoundation.ca/Toronto Foundation on Twitter: https://twitter.com/TorontoFdnFollow Sharon Avery on Twitter: https://twitter.com/s2avery

In this episode of Disruptive Conversations, I talk to Zaid Hassan, the author of the book, "The Social Labs Revolution: A new approach to solving our most complex challenges" (Berret-Koehler, 2014). In this episode, we explore the notion that our dominant approach to problem-solving, aka strategic planning, does not work. In much of the conversation, we describe complex problem-solving as a practice. One that demands a different lens than that of the dominant culture we call strategic planning.We explore how many of us are learning our way into working with complexity. In that learning, it is important to acknowledge that the field is young, and most of us are still learning about how to address complex challenges. At the heart of our conversation, was a discussion about developing a new practice of strategy and strategic problem-solving. Although we talk about many things, we explore the notion of learning to fail forward, and better.At some point in this conversation, we both acknowledge, that in trying to address this dominant culture, we are sometimes in a position where we have to have very difficult conversations with people who are very invested and passionate about their work, but chances are they will not see the outcome they are hoping to generate. At the end of our conversation, I was left with the question, how might we embrace an experimental approach to problem-solving when the dominant discourse or culture centers around a planned strategic approach to problem-solving?If our systems are not fit for purpose, then it would seem obvious that we need to change them. We live in a project world where things are tactical, and it is assumed that these problems are linear. If so, then how might we genuinely embrace a complexity approach? I guess for now our thesis is that we need to cook or dance our way into it, but to understand what I mean you will need to listen to the episode. One clue might be Zaid’s favourite quote at the time of this recording:"If progress, planning & reason have led to the failed systems that litter our landscapes, might speculation & dreaming be our only way forward?"- Victor Papanek

In this episode of Disruptive Conversations, I talk to Zaid Hassan, the author of the book, "The Social Labs Revolution: A new approach to solving our most complex challenges" (Berret-Koehler, 2014). In this episode, we explore the notion that our dominant approach to problem-solving, aka strategic planning, does not work. In much of the conversation, we describe complex problem-solving as a practice. One that demands a different lens than that of the dominant culture we call strategic planning.We explore how many of us are learning our way into working with complexity. In that learning, it is important to acknowledge that the field is young, and most of us are still learning about how to address complex challenges. At the heart of our conversation, was a discussion about developing a new practice of strategy and strategic problem-solving. Although we talk about many things, we explore the notion of learning to fail forward, and better.At some point in this conversation, we both acknowledge, that in trying to address this dominant culture, we are sometimes in a position where we have to have very difficult conversations with people who are very invested and passionate about their work, but chances are they will not see the outcome they are hoping to generate. At the end of our conversation, I was left with the question, how might we embrace an experimental approach to problem-solving when the dominant discourse or culture centers around a planned strategic approach to problem-solving?If our systems are not fit for purpose, then it would seem obvious that we need to change them. We live in a project world where things are tactical, and it is assumed that these problems are linear. If so, then how might we genuinely embrace a complexity approach? I guess for now our thesis is that we need to cook or dance our way into it, but to understand what I mean you will need to listen to the episode. One clue might be Zaid’s favourite quote at the time of this recording:"If progress, planning & reason have led to the failed systems that litter our landscapes, might speculation & dreaming be our only way forward?"- Victor Papanek

There is a very simple, easy way to stop negative people from disrupting your life. Find out from Master Hypnotist Suzanne Kellner-Zinck.   http://dawningvisions.com   https://www.patreon.com/claimyourexcellentlife Click the above link if you have found value in this podcast and wish to support it.  

Mark Brand is a serial entrepreneur who is also a social entrepreneur. In this podcast, we talk about a number of things that inform Mark's approach to building Beautiful Businesses. Mark has reframed being a restauranteur into a career of service. In the show, he asks, what are you going to wake up every day and do, and do in service to others. The distinction he makes is that being is service to those who need us or being in service to a greater cause is not the same as being in servitude. For him, he argues we need to own our mistakes, own our flaws, and be mindful of what makes us imperfect as we search for solutions. Don't strive to be the most talented or smartest in the room, but struggle to be the most tenacious and resilient person in the room. For Mark, there is no separation in humanity, there is no us and them, there is only humanity. We also have a really funny conversation about Jack Russell style innovation. Enjoy this episode.Links from the show.Follow this link to learn more about Marks closed loop money system or token project: https://vimeo.com/173661086Find Mark at his website: http://www.markbrandinc.com/Hatch website: https://hatchexperience.org/FailForward website: https://failforward.org/Other episodes of Disruptive Conversations referenced in the show: Yarrow Kraner Disruptive Conversation podcast episode #11: http://www.keitademming.com/podcast/ep-11-how-one-creative-alchemist-is-hatching-a-better-world-a-conversation-with-yarrow-kraner/Ashley Good on Failing Forward: http://www.keitademming.com/podcast/ep-4-how-learning-from-failure-can-help-spur-innovation-a-conversation-with-ashley-good-of-failforward/This podcast was recorded via Skype both speakers were in different locations. Music provided by Clint Harewood you contact him on these websites: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Tamo.T or LinkedIn: https://www.facebook.com/Tamo.T

Mark Brand is a serial entrepreneur who is also a social entrepreneur. In this podcast, we talk about a number of things that inform Mark's approach to building Beautiful Businesses. Mark has reframed being a restauranteur into a career of service. In the show, he asks, what are you going to wake up every day and do, and do in service to others. The distinction he makes is that being is service to those who need us or being in service to a greater cause is not the same as being in servitude. For him, he argues we need to own our mistakes, own our flaws, and be mindful of what makes us imperfect as we search for solutions. Don't strive to be the most talented or smartest in the room, but struggle to be the most tenacious and resilient person in the room. For Mark, there is no separation in humanity, there is no us and them, there is only humanity. We also have a really funny conversation about Jack Russell style innovation. Enjoy this episode.Links from the show.Follow this link to learn more about Marks closed loop money system or token project: https://vimeo.com/173661086Find Mark at his website: http://www.markbrandinc.com/Hatch website: https://hatchexperience.org/FailForward website: https://failforward.org/Other episodes of Disruptive Conversations referenced in the show: Yarrow Kraner Disruptive Conversation podcast episode #11: http://www.keitademming.com/podcast/ep-11-how-one-creative-alchemist-is-hatching-a-better-world-a-conversation-with-yarrow-kraner/Ashley Good on Failing Forward: http://www.keitademming.com/podcast/ep-4-how-learning-from-failure-can-help-spur-innovation-a-conversation-with-ashley-good-of-failforward/This podcast was recorded via Skype both speakers were in different locations. Music provided by Clint Harewood you contact him on these websites: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Tamo.T or LinkedIn: https://www.facebook.com/Tamo.T

Will Facebook's impending opening up of its "Instant Articles" on April 12 to ALL publishers of content help the "open web"? Or will it just keep more people inside of Facebook's shiny walled garden? In this episode I talk about all the questions I'm pondering on this important issue that I wrote about on my Disruptive Conversations site: http://www.disruptiveconversations.com/2016/02/do-facebook-instant-articles-support-the-open-web-or-facebooks-walled-garden.html Also published on Medium: https://medium.com/disruptive-conversations/do-facebook-instant-articles-support-the-open-web-or-facebook-s-walled-garden-a9abe0ba43ee

Getty Images recently announced that 35 million of their highly acclaimed images would be available for "free" embedding... the only problem is that the actual implementation doesn't allow social sharing - a major requirement for most people using images today. I wrote more about this on my Disruptive Conversations blog at: http://www.disruptiveconversations.com/2014/03/one-screenshot-to-show-how-getty-images-free-offer-fails-and-why-i-will-not-use-it.html