Anyway, a few of the key points I took away from the podcast were:

1. Traditional “carrots & sticks” (i.e. incentives & punishments) work really well in routine, focused, clearly defined tasks. But they work quite poorly in the sort of creative, fluid, less defined tasks that are typical of knowledge work today.

2. The #1 motivator in the work context is a sense of progress. In other words, we all feel a strong need to get better at things, to improve, maybe even to develop mastery. Finding ways to give people a sense of progress is critical if you seek to get the best out of them in the work environment …or to get the best out of yourself, particularly if you’re self-employed.

3. Contribution is another under-rated but powerful motivator of human behaviour. We want to make a difference, and contribute to something greater than ourselves. Interestingly, it’s important not to layer monetary incentives on top of this …because it can backfire. A classic example is open source software – paying contributors would arguably destroy the fabric that binds so many disparate people in a collaborative effort.

Reflecting on my own efforts in launching and promoting Software Shortlist, I can see the power of this ‘sense of progress’. There’s nothing quite like positive feedback from the market (in the form of sales) or the satisfaction of hitting a major milestone to encourage further efforts. And conversely, the toughest times are those when you’re working hard but don’t feel like you’re getting anywhere. Finding ways to give yourself a sense of progress seems like a powerful antidote in those challenging situations – for example, highlighting some of the lessons learned along the journey.

To find out more, listen to HBR Ideacast #183 or check out the book at Amazon:

“…if a CEO’s primary focus is on profit maximization, employees develop negative feelings towards the organization. They tend to perceive the CEO as autocratic and focused on the short term, and they report being somewhat less willing to sacrifice for the company. Corporate performance is poorer as a result.

This research [...]  underscores the risk of single-mindedly pursuing profit”

Makes sense.  Who’s going to go out of their way to make someone else (e.g. CEO, shareholders) rich, particularly at significant personal cost to themselves? As a motivational strategy, ‘we have to make $X profit” is limited – you might get a basic level of compliance but you won’t get much engagement and initiative.

For all the talk about self-interest, the evidence suggests that humans are actually social creatures who are intrinsically motivated by working together in pursuit of a bold vision.

What picture of the future are you painting?

My own startup was born global. In addition to tackling a global target market, we have made creative use of overseas options to lower our costs, access better services, and tap into the right talent. Our logo was done in Melbourne, website mockups in Canada, website development in India, ecommerce via  a Scottish bank, and our first paying customer was from the US.

However, in my view, distribution is what often makes or breaks a new business. There’s a big difference between dabbling in a country versus building a serious channel to market. And the reality is that it can be very difficult to tackle a new market when you are located somewhere else.

A couple of services we have come across may be of interest if you want to target the US and UK markets.

• ANZA Technology Network is a private organisation that helps Australian and NZ companies “explore, build or strengthen business roots in the US”. They run a variety of programs and leverage their networks to help innovative companies investigate the US market and prepare an effective entry strategy. (Note:  my business is participating in the Gateway to the US program in October)
• UK Trade and Investment runs a Global Entrepreneur Programme (GEP) which aims to encourage innovative companies to move their headquarters to the UK. They can help smooth the process, open doors, and connect you with potential investors, grant providers, customers and suppliers. It operates via a network of “dealmakers” in key markets globally, who are themselves entrepreneurs.

Suddenly, it’s hours later. And you’re left wondering what the hell happened.

When you think it through, it’s often a ‘one-off’ reason. Unexpected complications. An interruption. Dependencies between tasks. Or just more to it than you anticipated. Whatever the specific explanation, that simple task somehow turned into something much larger.

“No task is trivial”, said a friend of mine, when asked what he’d learned on a recent project.

His words stuck with me.

They express so simply and yet so powerfully a truth that, sooner or later, we all come to learn. Tasks almost always take longer or cost more than you expect.

Eventually, if your mind is open to such things, you start allowing for it in your estimates. “But surely it can’t take that long”, people will say. But inevitably it does.

What can you do about this unfortunate state of affairs? Is there a way to escape this apparently universal law of non-triviality?

Efficiency alone is not the answer. You can’t “time-manage”, “process-optimize” or otherwise “buzzword” your way out of this trap.

Effectiveness is what counts. Establish clear priorities. Focus your efforts. Say no to stuff.

If you don’t say no to low-priority tasks, then no matter how trivial they seem, they’ll inevitably end up costing you more than you expected. It is only by not starting them that you will have enough time to do the few important tasks that really make a difference.

Remember, no task is trivial. So choose carefully…

“...in the late twentieth century something changed. It turned out that economies of scale were not the only force at work. Particularly in technology, the increase in speed one could get from smaller groups started to trump the advantages of size”

There has always been a fascination in many corporate circles with size. This is (partly) justified by economies of scale but often has much to do with ego and emotion. Why do people’s resumes cite achievements in terms of how big the budget they managed or the deal they worked on? Why do mega-mergers and acquisitions happen so often, despite evidence showing that the vast majority of deals fail to add value? And why has the phrase “too big to fail” been bandied around so much lately, with even more size being the proposed solution?

“Now it turns out the rule “large and disciplined organizations win” needs to have a qualification appended: “at games that change slowly.” No one knew till change reached a sufficient speed”

There’s no doubt speed is growing in importance in business today. Speed to market. Rapid decision-making. Ability to adapt quickly to changing circumstances. The notion of comparing the “economies of speed” with the “economies of scale” is intriguing … and I think a valid one. There are real, economic costs to moving too slowly:  money spent on activities that no longer matter; employee turnover or disengagement; lost sales due to an outdated product range; and so on.

Large organizations will start to do worse now, though, because for the first time in history they’re no longer getting the best people. An ambitious kid graduating from college now doesn’t want to work for a big company. They want to work for the hot startup that’s rapidly growing into one. If they’re really ambitious, they want to start it.

Puts an interesting angle on the war for talent, doesn’t it?  Think about Google – in 10 years, they’ve gone from a startup to a mega-corporation, based heavily on a talent-driven strategy. Get the best people. Challenge them. Foster an entrepreneurial environment.   Although, the scale that success brings will pose an increasing challenge to Google, perhaps eroding that which drove their rise.

Even if Internet-related applications only become a tenth of the world’s economy, this component will set the tone for the rest. The most dynamic part of the economy always does, in everything from salaries to standards of dress. Not just because of its prestige, but because the principles underlying the most dynamic part of the economy tend to be ones that work.

The cultural and social implications of this shift will be enormous. There are many assumptions and traditions engrained in the ‘big is better’ paradigm that will be discarded … but this won’t happen overnight. Nonetheless, I think the prospect of a more entrepreneurial society offers great hope for us all – both in terms of ‘material’ standards of living as well as our satisfaction with work & life more generally.