The purpose of my visit was to be one of two Australian university students invited onto Microsoft’s ‘Information Worker’ Board of the Future, of which there were 15 members from around the world (including from the UK, NZ, US, Canada, India, South Africa, Slovenia, Italy, Norway, Turkey & other countries). Our mission was to give Microsoft an idea of how our generation would work in the future, how we’d use technology, and specifically, to provide some creative ideas and feedback around how the Microsoft Office product could be improved.

It was a nice visit in many respects. They provided me my own apartment, fridge stocked with all my favourite drinks and snacks, gadgets and promotional gifts everywhere, a shiny new (and very rare) fully loaded Tablet PC, and at the end of our week of work, a weekend in Seattle proper to hang with the other Board members.

But they worked us hard too. There were long days, late nights refining presentations, and some tense moments too – especially as us socially minded Board Members (all originally picked through the early online social network TakingITGlobal ) had our values tested and a little hung out to dry by the demands of corporate executives.

This week, with the launch of Microsoft Office 2010, we’ve participated in an odd Facebook reunion of sorts, as a reporter published a follow-up story to our time in Redmond 6 years ago. You can read the story here.

I haven’t used the product yet, but my feeling is that the heart of our recommendations to Microsoft have unfortunately stayed in Redmond. Promising ideas around an African Tablet PC and a computer-based personal assistant I now see reflected elsewhere in, for example, the One Laptop per Child initiative and Apple’s ‘aps’. All they cared for was Office.

Yes, Microsoft has accounted for our generation’s increasing use of social technology in Microsoft 2010. But they failed to acknowledge that our membership of TakingITGlobal wasn’t purely technology driven. It was out of a sense of social responsibility. So our more socially entrepreneurial ideas and feedback went by the wayside back in 2004; and stay there 6 years later. Microsoft are still stuck on Office.

This is despite both their competitor Google using social responsibility (with a mantra of “Do No Evil”) to its brand advantage; and Members like myself, Simon Moss and others, interweaving the fabric of social responsibility and entrepreneurship into our work. The same future of work we envisaged for Microsoft back in 2004.

At least the public have this one golden nugget to thank us for: our recommendations in 2004 sounded the final death knell for the horribly annoying Clippy. This, tongue in cheek, is the greatest achievement our work bequeathed you.

I find many professional events these days unstimulating, with a lot of re-hashed, nothing-new content. Or equally concerning, they’re incredibly niche: with innovations and insights explored only insofar as their application to one industry, or one sector within it.

So what’s exciting Creative Innovation 2010 at the Melbourne Recital Hall this September is that the scope is big; I mean, creativity and innovation definitely aren’t niche. That the audience is anyone; not a narrow section of business specialists. And that the content will, I hope, provide thought-provoking discussion on how the ideas and concepts presented can be applied in many, many different ways. And even twisted and improved.

They’re rolling out the big guns with speakers like Edward de Bono (no introduction required). And on top of a stellar speaker line-up, there’s all the “creative added extras” of composers and poets in-residence; concerts and even scholarships to help emerging creative leaders attend.

Super. Now only 80 days to go!

This employer had many, many things I found attractive, but particularly their culture and the type of people who work for them. These too, have been widely publicly reported about this employer. You see, they hire incredibly smart, savvy people – and have some real and famous pioneering innovators in their ranks. They value creative thinking, meritocracy, innovation, risk, effective teamwork and have a general modus operandi I found – still find – very, very appealing. And the way they organise their people, have them work together, and treat them – is pretty darn cool. But even further, to say you work for this employer, is, quite frankly, GOLD. People ooh an aah. They have an amazing brand.

In applying for the position, I went through what I can only describe as the most challenging recruitment process I’ve ever encountered. And I’m in recruitment, so it’s safe to say I know a bit about selection processes. Over 5 months (!) I had multiple interviews, sometimes at all times of the day or night with people in their offices in London, India and the US; completed assignments; revised my resume twice; submitted GPAs and current pay slips. But this isn’t totally unusual. What was pressing, was dealing with being selected largely on the basis of ‘culture fit’.

That doesn’t sound that demanding, but think about it for a minute. This employer selects people for “who they are”. So unlike other processes, where you might miss out on a role due to experience or performance in the process, there’s not much improvement you can do next time on “being you.” The interviews in particular left me often very confused as to how I’d performed, and questioning my instincts and values. Though behavioural in style, you knew they were really evaluating: ’are you one of us?’. Still, I hung in there. I really tried.

Over time I came to convince myself that this was the only employer for me.  I wanted this job more than anything I’d ever wanted. Ever.

And after 5 months, I kinda made it. And the role was cancelled. And I was devastated. I mean, really devastated. In honesty, for over a year. And to make matters worse, I kept running into the guy who wanted to hire me. So it was a constant reminder of what could have been. Should have been.

Fast forward two years to just the other day, when came an unexpected  and serendipitous moment.

Out for drinks with some industry folk, and the guy who wanted to hire me is there. We often talk and run into each other. It’s gotten easier, and I harbour absolutely no ill will towards him for what happened. And so there we are chatting about work stuff and he asks me if I’m looking to move on to something new. And proceeds to explain that his own role – one up from the one I originally applied for – is up for grabs. That they’re looking. Is that something I’d be interested in? Here, finally, was the door being opened to what I’d  long believed  to be career heaven.

And I had the strangest, most unexpected, incredibly satisfying moment of saying “thanks, but no thanks.” And not out of spite either. 

The pros and cons flashed through my mind – I have a great job, wonderful colleagues, a pretty good deal and a promotion coming. But in truth, a year and a half ago I would have given up all that – even better pay and more seniority, sold my house, whatever it took - for a foot in the door with his employer. This guy even said to me as a declined, “you look like you’re not sure.”

But I can tell you I was sure. 100% sure. And realising that was a great moment for me in letting go. Immensely satisfying, actually.

And what made me sure was that where I am, I feel like I have someone looking out for me. An informal, unspoken mentoring if you like. Someone who watches over my career progression, and I suspect, has played quite a role in making sure I’m engaged and retained. And though it may all be in my mind – the loyalty I feel towards that person is enough, more than enough, for now, to make me stay firmly rooted where I am. And working hard.

It’s not that I feel I need that. Trust me, I’m as self-sufficient and opportunistic as they come in terms of my career management. I don’t ever expect anyone to look out for my development and progression. I’ve been an entrepreneur in the past. I know how to look out for No. 1.

It’s amazing then, really, that a possibly imagined sense of being looked after can be so powerful.

Reflecting on this further, the power of “people magnets” – those managers, leaders or mentors that inspire people to stay with them – is quite incredible. It’s made me think about whether organisations really ‘tap’ this often ambiguous and highly personal, but also highly effective, way of engaging and retaining people. I guess the value depends though on whether the hi po / talent in question sees value in such career stewardship.

What is as clear to me, however, is not just that I am in the right place right now. But that I too, would like to have that effect on someone one day. Whether it’s charisma, or good management, or just clever influence I don’t know – but I hope I too can one day inspire someone great to look their former dream in the face, say “thanks, but no thanks,” let go, and realise they’ve changed. 

The personal insight and confidence that came from that moment was worth all the pain.

He quickly debunked the theory that ethics is about what’s moral and good; a topic confined to philosophers and do-gooders. Instead, he painted a clear picture that ethics is infact a part of our everyday lives, and comes down to the question “what ought one to do?” in any given situation.  That ethics is pratical, not theoretical. The audience at this particular function was mainly early-career professionals, so the context he gave of the relationship of ethics to one’s own – or an organisation’s - values and principles, was also helpful.

In making an ethical decision, the St James Centre recommends testing your proposed course of action against a number of key questions. One is the “sunlight test” or what I have less formally called the “front page of the newspaper test” in my own life; that is – “would I be happy for my actions to be open to public scrutiny?” Other questions might be “what would happen if everybody did this?” and “how would someone perceive my character if I did this?”

But it was in explaining the relationship between ethics and leadership the things got really interesting. Dr Longstaff explained that as leaders, in order to challenge those around you to do what is right when social or organisational norms would say that slightly ‘less right’ or even ‘wrong’ is ok, we should adopt the notion of “constructive subversion,” or constructively challenging those things which we do not believe are right. This might not make us popular, but it will make us ethical. This point seemed to really get people talking, including myself, about just how often we currently do this and why we don’t do it more.

Being brave and championing an alternative course of action is never easy in the workplace, especially when people aren’t used to the course your proposing, and even more so when they’re uncomfortable with the questions you might be asking about the way things are and why. Highlighting the potential consequences of the current norms often only gets you so far; especially when there’s something in it for people to prefer the status quo (such as positive: like a kickback; or avoiding a negative: like not losing their job). “Constructive subversion” could quite easily buy you a one way ticket to not only unpopularity but maybe even dismissal.

Here then is the strong relationship between ethics and leadership. An influential, transformational leader should be able to work through such opposition; aligning the new direction to peoples core beliefs, facilitating learning of the new way of doing things, and empowering people to make change. They should then be able to refreeze the changes made so that things never slip back to what they were. If they key difference between a leader and a transformational leader is their ability to break down resistance to change, Dr LongStaff’s session only reinforced for me the importance of  the transformational leadership style within organisations where deep-seated cultural - or ethical- change is required.

In my role as AAGE conference super-social-event-extraordinare I often poke around looking for cool event stuff. I confess I’ve even ordered customised cupcakes for my birthday in years past (no, not so naff as to put my name on them!). So in all my googling and supplier hunting I have tracked down some truly tasty treats you can stick your brand on. I’m not talking about factory-produced confectionary or companies that stick branded labels on a dinner mint… more the hand-made, high quality item your recipients will remember.

Lollies anyone? Sticky does that old-school rock candy with cute names in the centre. Yes, it’s the same famous Sticky as in The Rocks, Sydney – the shop that makes the candy right infront of you (and trillions of tourists). Only drama here is that for corporate candy, you have to buy an 8-10kg bag. Which is a tonne of candy, really, and none of it comes individually wrapped. Doing it yourself is going to be, well, sticky!

Gingerbread Folk can make you a house or a pretty much any other shape out of delicious gingerbread, or just stick your logo in icing on a gingerbread cookie. They’re pretty inexpensive, individually wrapped in cello, and I’ll be tasting some in about a week but assume since that’s all they do, they won’t be half bad. About $3-4 per cookie for a simple design, which is a pretty inexpensive event morning or afternoon tea.

If you’re looking for custom cupcakes, Planet Cake, The Cupcake Parlour, The Cupcake Bakery and Lushcups can all deliver. Personally I use Sweet Art, who can set you back a cool $100 or more a dozen. But by god are those cupcakes tasty! They even come with thoughtful instructions on how to carry and store them prior to your event, to make sure they look as good as the moment you received them.

Transforming your brand into a tasty, personalised item of the above quality (& price!) is probably not recommended for promotional handouts of huge proportions with the general public. But for making valued clients, strong sales leads or current employees feel special, this kind of branding goes down a treat.

I do, however, spot amongst the rabble a few sessions worth showing up for. Indeed it’s a shame you can’t buy a one-session pass!

Upcoming & of note are:

• HR Summit, Sydney (April): Ian Williamson’s always pretty good, though he’s been trotted out a few times in the last 12 months. Nonetheless I like his (American) style. Academic but practical. Makes some of the big company names look disappointing. Usually some interesting things to say (& research to back it up) on engagement, alumni, sourcing and more. Not much else at this summit though.
• AHRI Annual Convention, Melbourne (May): Marshall Goldsmith is, well, gold. And he’s running an extension workshop you can go to without attending the whole shebang. Fantastic, world-renowned coach and great presenter. Ah if only I could get to Melbourne…
• Australiasian Talent Conference, Sydney (May): The two Steve’s from Adidas recruitment look to be promising, speaking on Day 1 along with the always informative Josephine Thompson of Telstra (formerly Coles). Ian Williamson being trotted out yet again! Unfortunately the rest is all a bit same old, same old / Kevin Wheeler & co.

When someone decides to take the brave step on having a conference that’s truly on talent and challenges our industry’s reactive practicalism with some new ideas and models that are more stretching than how to use Social Media or find passive candidates, I’ll be the first to sign up.

On one hand (or in one book!), Edward de Bono (of Six Hats fame) is telling me that intelligence alone never got anyone anywhere. Like vision, he says, you can have great eyesight but always be looking in the wrong direction. To really exercise intelligence you need to think about your thinking. And not just reflect on it – actually, strategically, purposely, think about it, he says. Unfortunately his mini-book “Intelligence is not enough” doesn’t really give much of a hint how to do this. The answer, apparently, lies in all his other books. Which are larger and so thoughtfully more expensive.

In the other corner I tripped over Malcolm Gladwell (of The Tipping Point fame) whose book “Blink: the power of thinking without thinking” kinda disagrees. It’s all about snap judgment and instinct – how a quick decision can be more effective than a cautious one. He calls it “rapid cognition.” I don’t mind the terminology though he says it’s not intuition, gut-feeling or anything emotional, which I can’t completely agee with (since when is a snap decision purely rational?). It’s a bit bigger, this book, so I’m still reading it; but it does pose quite the juxtaposition to de Bono.

All this reading about thinking; got me thinking about thinking.

Psychologists widely say that the capacity for metacognition, to recognise and analyse our own thinking patterns, is typically a marker of higher cognitive ability and often emotional intelligence (or at least self insight) too. Mindfulness is the new black. The research on self-attentiveness, however, is just as contradictory as my reading, with studies finding self-reflection associated with both personal distress and greater personal awareness. In some cases prolonged rumination can lead to depression; in others self-reflection increases emotional intelligence. Infact Trapnell & Campbell (1999) call this inconsistency the Self-Absorption Paradox – with the central question remaining just how much and what type of thinking about ourselves is actually useful?

The key might lie in self-insight. Studies have recently shown that reflection (on our past, problems, behaviours) is helpful only insofar as it generates self-insight, that is, awareness of our traits or behavioural patterns. It seems thinking about thinking is most useful when we can recognise how we are thinking; then use that information to react (maintain or change our thinking, traits and behaviour based on what we’ve learnt), and move on. We limit our thinking about thinking insofar as extracting the useful information; and before we think too much. This is confusing to the best of us and doesn’t, of course, change the fact that some people seem to be more capable of metacognition (thinking about thinking) than others!

What I have taken away from both books are some of the tools they recommend. Love or hate his prescribed formulas, you can’t deny de Bono has some pretty nifty ways of running a brainstorming session; and whilst I’m not convinced Gladwell is describing a phenomena of the proportions of Csikszentmihalyi’s ‘Flow‘, he does a good job making snap decisions sound appealing and making a decent case for more of them.

Frankly, all this thinking has reminded me how much of a non-thinker I am. Good thing the next book out of my box is on creativity.

Postscript! It must be a sign.. today an invite to Creative Innovation 2010 arrived in my inbox. Ironically though I see de Bono is speaking. And the conference organisers weren’t so creative as to not completely rip off TED.

She tells me that Lion Nathan have banned the word ‘manager’ and universally replaced it with ‘leader’. This of course creates many fantastic workplace jokes (such as ”take me to your leader”) but I’m sure also painfulness, especially if your boss ain’t really leadership material. This also explains why NL seem to call their Human Resources Business Partners (‘HRBP’s at any other workplace) “Leadership Capability Coaches”, which is a bit of a misnomer if you ask me, especially since the job description is likely more about enterprise agreements than coaching leaders.

I have witnessed first-hand the bizarre cultural traits of Coca-Cola employees, even ones outside the office. At a breakfast event last year I was seated with some Coke staff. Imagine my suprise when they pulled out a bottle of Goulburn Valley orange juice from their handbags and had a swig, forsaking the very nice 5-star hotel juice on our table. Apparently, if it ain’t guaranteed Coke produce, they’re contractually obliged not to drink it! Who knew OJ could rival the ‘Cola Wars’ and that sipping the wrong fruit juice could put your job on the line?

All this is fascinating I reckon. Very insightful about company values; and the argument about when corporate culture becomes corporate cult.

I’m on the look out for more so stay tuned!

This is massive for me. I’m a huge TED fan, and whilst technically anyone can turn up and watch, a seat down front would sure be nice. To add a little pressure to my pending application for preferential seating, a good mate of mine – absolutely sure to get accepted – is coming up from Melbourne to stay with me especially for TEDX. Would be quite the embarrassment to make her sit with the punters because I couldn’t get in.

Fingers crossed I’m interesting enough.

Which reminds me, have you checked out Jonathon Klein on ‘Photos that changed the world’. Very cool, moral, stirring, human.