Hope to see you there.

First, it’s pretentious and unable to withstand scrutiny. How did all the invention that took place before this trope was born occur? What was Leonardo using as a method? Years ago, Jerry Mann, then president of Seagrams, told me that a new tequila I was helping them launch was a “Barbie Doll Tequila”. That it needed credentials and that our job was to develop them. This is what Design Thinking feels like to me.

Second, it barely hides the insecurity that inspired it, which is usually the case with pretension. Isn’t design supposed to be thinking in the first place? What’s the need for redundancy if we didn’t have to be for sure for sure that people know there is a legitimate process behind it? For me, this falls into the same category as “Quality Inn” and “Dependable Dry Cleaners”; flagging a weakness by denying it before people have a chance to figure it out for themselves.

Third, it’s dangerous in several ways. Instead of making design a more integral, universal and respected part of business, it creates another silo, another separation. Another category of specialists that builds one more barrier to the kind of real systems thinking we need to survive.

It lulls people into thinking they are being creative when they are not. It harbors procrastination and stereotypical thinking, substitutes process for real invention. It robs design of dimension by placing it solely in the world of the brain when design is much more than rational thinking – it is emotion and intuition and sensing and gut. When does a process become dogma? And why is our culture so afraid of the feminine energy? (Don’t answer that, I already know.)

It becomes another bit of ideology that makes it even harder for business to embrace a truly original thinker.
I do not believe, with Helen, that there are only a few designers who have earned the trust of business leaders, I believe there are many. I just don’t think these people call themselves designers any more. Perhaps this is a more relevant problem to look at, and to solve.

I like design stinking better than design thinking because when you stink at something, you at least admit there is much more to learn.

I am currently a coach in the NYU Stern Business Competition. I focus on the Social Venture side – including ventures that have a social mission and are for-profit, non-profit, and hybrids. Candidates will spend the year honing their pitch and plan with our coaching and rounds of judging. Social Venture Competition winners get the $100,000 Satter Family prize.

In round one of coaching, candidates used Angel Fund software to profile their ventures. The core idea, market analysis, basic numbers, and competition are all analyzed concisely on the sheet. What’s not there? Collaborators. My co-coach Janet Becker, noted this gaping hole and disadvantage to those profiling their ventures.

The signs of silo-ed business strike again. It made me think back to Cheryl’s talk with She Says at the WeWork space.

What would it be like if ventures were forced to think about collaboration and integration from the first steps of conceiving their concepts and viability? How would that change the game? Tech, traditional, and social ventures alike would benefit from the analysis that offers integration and innovation with it. Let’s stop creating the wheel and dig into the complexity of our overlaps and ability to serve each other.

Two people that I care about and admire deeply have recently been removed ungraciously from the organizations they founded. One is Jeffrey Hollender, the other is a friend who would prefer to remain anonymous. In both cases, it’s been attributed to Founder’s Syndrome, what is commonly meant as the time at which a visionary leader should extract himself or herself from the enterprise they created to make room for people who can “ take the organization to the next level”.

“Founder’s Dilemma” and “Founders Syndrome” are linguistic frames not unlike “tax relief”. Without our even having to think about it, the words themselves nail the subject as something which must be eliminated. But this dilemma is one we should spend time reconsidering, because it has profound unintended consequences.

Is chasing off the founder always for the good of the organization, or it is only good for the people who want to step into positions of power and try (as they might) to fill the founders’ shoes? Or is it simply a convenient way to avoid the hard work of navigating an inevitable growth inflection point while preserving the vision and ethics of the company intact?

And is the “next level” something to which we should automatically and mindlessly aspire?

In order to grow and scale, every business looks for efficiencies, and in most cases that means doing what’s convenient. Visionary leaders are inconvenient, and the bigger the organization, the more inconvenient they become. They are idiosyncratic. They don’t always do what they’re told, and they hate to compromise. They embrace risk. They have character, passion, and outsider-thinking that have not been ground down clawing their way to middle-management in a multinational corporation. In short, they have the traits that other enterprising people admire enough to follow out of inspiration instead of just fear.

Entrepreneurs get bored easily as well, and they are typically not good at managing large organizations. Smart boards recognize this, help them get the support they need and find a way to integrate game-changing vision with the systems that can make it happen.

It has become self-evident that big business needs radical innovation in order to thrive in our world of infinite competition and finite resources. But as long as money is the only metric of success, business will continue to stifle creativity, killing what is alive and exchanging it for formulas, bullet points and fragmented processes.

In my work with social innovators and social entrepreneurs, I see every day the best hope we have for new models for business that will fix our unsustainable society. Will each of them be removed from the enterprises they found just at the point they could show us the way to take them to scale without compromising their vision?

As Chiat Day merged with TBWA in 1993, Jay Chiat famously said, “I want to see how big we can get before we get bad.” He summed up, in his elegant way, the real dilemma that every company faces. At what point do you lose that ineffable, magical thing that was worth working for? And why does it have to be inevitable?

If we continue to slide through every tough transition by firing the founder, we may never know. Jeffrey Hollender has a vision of proving that a successful business can be restorative to life rather than destructive. This will be accomplished through his continued conviction and force of will. And it will not be convenient for business as usual.

In Designing Minds, David Orr said, “As homo sapiens’ entry in any intergalactic design competition, industrial civilization would be thrown out in the qualifying round.” What’s interesting about this observation is not that it contains anything of which we aren’t already painfully aware. What’s brilliantly insightful about it is that it presents our entire society, and everything in it, appropriately and instructively, as one single design problem. One single problem that is the root of all problems everywhere.

Which inspires me to think that there is one single design solution.

“The Cutting Edge of Common Sense”
Taking the two words together, “common sense” is practicality and wisdom – useful, infinitely relevant information. And there actually is a cutting edge of common sense, just as there’s a cutting edge of fashion or technology or science. Moreover, it IS the edge we should be living on,  but we’re so overwhelmed with complexity that we can’t see it.

Separately, Common is what we share, what is accessible to all of us, not just a few. Sense is what we experience, what is real – far more real than thinking in fact. Humans are sensing machines – our eyes, ears, skin and tongue are built to register life outside ourselves and establish relationships with each other and the natural world. But “we” have to a great extent stopped sensing the natural world and sense only the world of man-made things. We urgently need to come to our senses.

Our human-made world has been created through separation, particularization and specialization. We separate, then we evaluate, then we judge, then we conflict. And once we separate, we have a very hard time overlooking those dividing lines.

Integration and Disintegration.
Integrity is the root of integration. My favorite definition of integrity is that when you look inside yourself, there is only one self there. I think it’s also called inner peace.

Disintegration prevents us from seeing the whole, and the common – from gaining real wisdom and insight, and from living on the cutting edge of common sense.

Disintegration is everywhere in our world.

In science, the reductionist method entails working deep in an extremely narrow area, hoping to discover something that no one has found before, avoiding the risk of being wrong by venturing outside that narrow area of investigation, and frowning upon others who do.

In business, integration is foiled by titles, divisions, politics and org charts.

Our government has become like a war without real bullets, with divisive reactions overcoming any hope for dialog.

Our real wars proliferate – we identify new enemies all the time.

The art world is as vicious in drawing lines in the sand as any congressional debate – I recently found this review of a new book by Andy Goldsworthy: “Beardsley addresses head-on the glaring mismatch between Goldsworthy’s popularity and the art world’s critical disdain for his work, which he attributes in part to ‘an avant-garde that in the years since Minimalism has been deeply suspicious of beauty, craftsmanship, formal directness and the absence of irony.”2

Our dividing walls between genders, races and religions are still high and solid.

“Specialists” in research and demographics work hard to convince that Gen X and Gen Y are barely the same species because they are so different from each other.

We accept like sheep impenetrable lines between life and work and money and ethics and greed and good and power and empathy.

We allow unscalable walls to go up between rich and poor, in other parts of the world and now in our own.

And for me, the most damaging division of all is the one between humans and nature. While it’s easy to lay blame for this on the industrial revolution, the problem began long before that, witnessed by Socrates in Phaedrus when he said, “You must forgive me, my dear friend. I’m a lover of learning, and trees and open country won’t teach me anything, whereas men in the town do.” Is this where we first went off the rails? Imagine if Socrates had studied trees, and if we had known since then that trees have everything to teach us – how to manufacture, how to live restoratively, how to clean the atmosphere and sustain life.

One of my favorite quotes from Peter Senge is, “All boundaries, national boundaries included, are arbitrary. We create them and then ironically, we find ourselves trapped within them.”

And all these arbitrary dividing lines are causing the world to fall apart. The point is that we need to focus on what we have in common, what we share, what holds us together and the things that we can rally around.

Now, where do women come in?
Integration is the role of the female. We keep things together, it’s our job and our calling. Much has been written about the differences between genders, and whether you accept them all or not, it’s safe to say that for the most part women communicate to strengthen relationships and are more attuned to intuiting emotions and emotional cues. Men are wired to have a fight or flight reaction to stressful encounters, whereas women tend to gather together to tend to the group, taking care of themselves and their children.

We can use our natural inclinations to identify what we have in common in each of these cases, rather than how we are different. We can work to rebuild relationships between ourselves and nature, between generations, cultures, races and convictions. We can create a vision of the future based on our common senses.

The role of integrator has not been a role of glory in our society. Glory comes from hierarchy, and from specialization. Our culture rewards narrow and deep, and doesn’t know what to make of generalists.

That’s a challenge for systems thinkers, a challenge for women and a monumental challenge for the world.

If we work together, can we make the role of integrator a valued one? Can we make it heroic and even sexy?

William Gibson famously said, “The future is already here, it’s just not evenly distributed.”
If we think of the future as the assertion of feminine energy and a vision of an integrated, living system on our planet, this is a profound statement indeed.

I did it every day for a month to win the prize of a free following month. My accomplishment was slighted, though, by the fact that I did not manage to become the FourSquare Mayor of the workout studio. Hana H., whoever you are, I tip my hat.

FourSquare — the company that helps you “find new ways to unlock your city” by sharing locations with friends and winning points, badges, and “Mayorships” of locations they go to more than anyone else in 2 months time – is a phenomenon. It seemed as if it would be threatened by the advent of Facebook Places and SCVNGR’s use of camera phones and text messages to win themed scavenger hunts, but they’ve held strong.

Guessing games, competitions to create the best content, Mayorships, points, badges, and other awards are all the rage. People are even getting married over FourSquare mayorship competitions. People say they love the friendly competition. Meanwhile the New York Times wondered last week, will this trend ever break into the mainstream?

Points and games are not the issue here, though. It’s a matter of Communication Design – building and enhancing relationships the spaces where possibility arises and invisible connections already exist.

I was telling family lore the other night when my audience interrupted me: “You know, you could have asked me to guess where you guys went on that vacation.” He was right. Having one storyteller is the old model. Make it experiential for everyone, and the impact and potential grow. Sharing is caring.

People may not want to share their location with the internet, they may not want to enter contests for the exchange price of sharing their email address. Find a way to interact, bring often-silent voices into the conversation, and your story becomes multi-dimensional. Games can draw out these voices and expand your potential.

Have you ever fallen asleep envisioning Tetris or bricklayer? What would you give to crawl into that mind-space between dream and wake to spread your idea, move a project forward, or get a date invitation you’ve been hoping for?

Combining this gaming dream-state with fun competition and collaboration tools is an effective way to create a community, a movement, a collective that pushes and pulls to create something new. It draws out new voices and shines light on new ideas. In that new arena, communication design reigns.

These are the basic concepts of the commons, of Wikinomics – that collaboration is the best model. See GOOD magazine to realize the power of asking the crowd what they think and getting content and stories, fans, readers, and more.

Start now: What’s your favorite game?

IBM’s “Let’s build a smarter planet.”  Actually, the planet is genius, homo sapiens are too stupid to learn from it. If only we were smart enough not to destroy the one we have.

Naked Juice, “This is fruit’s higher purpose.”  Huh? I think they actually do mean to imply that processing fruit and putting it in a heinous plastic bottle is more noble than what nature came up with. Peaches have all that ickey fuzz on them after all.

In both cases, these thoughts (and I use the word lightly) are designed to make us accept without hesitation that we are superior to and other than nature. These are the insidious beliefs upon which rests the assumption that we have rights that supersede all other living things and therefore can unthinkingly destroy them.

Communication creates these beliefs, communication can change them.

* The story of Yamboy appeared in USA Today. The article ended with the simple statement that belief in witchcraft is still prevalent in Nairobi.

The indignity of the strip search.

First class is cool.

Yamboy was always prone to motion sickness.

Even shallow water can be dangerous.

Updike and lemonade. Ummmmm.

What the doctor ordered.

One does not need possessions to be fulfilled.

THE END.

We interpret the communication of this story to be: “Believe in the power of transformation, and don’t take candy from strangers, but if you do, make the best of it.”

Coming soon, Yamboy at the painfully chic TED conference. (with DK Holland)

But good things happen when you “go off”. In fact, life teaches us that when anything is eliminated, no matter how crucial we think it is, or how much we think we’ll miss it, we find a hidden blessing in the room it leaves for the universe to fill in surprising ways, or simply for the time it gives us to notice other things. It leads to the discovery of a whole new sense of the world that is closer to human scale, more hopeful, more enjoyable and closer to what is real. This is in part because the news doesn’t reflect reality any more than listening to a campaigning politician does, and partly because it gives us a little time to spend thinking about how we might go about creating a world that isn’t filled with car crashes, fear, loathing, violence, corruption and terror.

I gave up “news” in the drinking from the fire hose sense years ago. I prefer to see what surfaces through filtered sources like friends, colleagues or the New Yorker (and ok, The Huff Post). I figure anything important makes it’s way to me, with less hysteria.

I am late to the party on some current events, to be sure. At a dinner a few nights ago, I had to ask someone what they were laughing about regarding a JetBlue flight attendant, an inflatable slide and a couple of beers.

I will never forget the guy who sold me my first fancy bike when I moved to New York City, not only for his mammoth spandex-wrapped thighs, but for the advice he gave me. He said, “this is going to seem self-evident, but when you’re out on the road, don’t look at the things you want to avoid.” If you stare at a pothole, you will likely hit it. Likewise a broken beer bottle.

I see that as kind of a fractal truth – a small truth about the connection between our individual subconscious directing our forward movement  – nested in a huge truth about our collective subconscious directing our trajectory as a species.

If we think, as I do, about the media as one big communication system, perfectly designed, as all systems are, to produce the effect they produce, it is no wonder we have a world filled with bad news. It’s all we think about. We have to look where we want to go, and at what we want more of in our world, not at what we want to avoid. If we continue, as we have been, to focus on all that’s wrong and broken and fear inducing, that is what we will continue to create for ourselves – and crash into.

Our first connection with Pickett through his tweets. At the #promise conference, @PickettFurnitur spoke honestly and was funny on the live twitter feed. Exploring his blog and tweets, we saw that he embraces new communication and practices in tune with our conviction: old ways of communicating for business are dead. Pickett’s voice and engagement online is driven by and driving an authenticity that is absent in old communication. Twitter, his blog, and facebook highlight the humanity of business and are relationship builders and creative tools.

We sought out owner and founder Jeremy Pickett to put a face to @PickettFurnitur. We were thrilled to be invited into his workshop on a hot summer afternoon to see the sustainable business in action and enjoy the breeze off the East River.

Says Jeremy, “We learn from each other. Small business and design can be fueled collectively online, and I think it’s the best way for me to reach and maintain relationships with customers. It’s no longer a world of building relationships with a few interior designers and then selling through them, customers can come from anywhere, and so do new ideas.”

Pickett started in Manhattan and moved soon after to its home in Brooklyn. There, Jeremy builds his sustainable pieces — tables, chairs, benches, and other unique pieces — out of wood harvested by a family in Delaware. He searched long and hard to find non-toxic and sustainable wood finishes that would be compatible with his hand-tool and sustainably harvested approach. He found them at Surface Environment in Bushwick.

Pickett’s hand tool approach allows him to build a relationship with each piece of wood he works. By “showing respect for the material, you avoid its desecration, and get a better end-product,” explains Jeremy.

Visually, he maps the grains and veins of the plank. Tactically, he feels the undulations of the wood. “I read it, feel it, and then learn to anticipate its reaction to me,” he explains. Then, he uses hand tools to “massage it” into sturdy, vibrant structures that bring spirit with them into their final destinations. “It’s the gentlest process possible” and requires that you work with the wood, not against it.

Pickett’s harmonized approach is informed more so by the natural flow of air off river and the earnest quality of the Red Hook neighborhood it calls home.

“Generosity and kindness have marked our experience here in Red Hook,” he says. “This place is filled with families who have been here for generations and value their neighborhood.” It’s a perfect match for his approach to pieces, made to last for generations. And there, on Pier 41, underneath the shadow of the Queen Mary II and alongside other artists, manufacturers, and small businesses, he builds his wares.

And, though he makes his way to Hells Kitchen for cocktail parties and design shows with the New York furniture and interior design scene, he has found a way to bring his wares to market in a way that harmonizes with the material. Jeremy’s approach is driven by the pieces, his exploration, and their online voice.

Indeed, Pickett has designed a communication approach that allows him to build authentic relationships and also showcase his innovations through conversation and idea-sourcing. It fully embraces new communication.

For the coming season, Jeremy has a collection of retro textiles from Scandinavia and Asia that will be made into different pieces. He also is experimenting with bamboo, which in its raw form is extremely sustainable, and malleable in a way that walnut and other materials that are the core of his collection, are not. Now, following him online and connected to Pickett, we are eager to see what he comes up with.