“Not my circus, not my monkeys” – a Review of The Art of Ideation: For Culture Building

“Is that actually a word?”  That was my first question when I attended the program on “ideation” at the SCCE CEI in 2024. Of course I looked it up. My translation is that it is a call for thinking and imagination. This book, “The Art of Ideation: For Culture Building,” by Dr. Hemma R. Lomax & Ashley Dubriwny, is a very useful, thought-provoking tool for compliance and ethics (“C&E”) professionals.  I love the idea of focusing on ideas.  Sadly, I have often found in life what I describe as a failure of imagination. People can get caught in an endless, negative loop instead of being open to new ideas.  This book is an antidote for such failures. And yes, when I attended the ideation session at the SCCE CEI I found it entertaining and thought provoking – just like this book. 

“Not my circus, not my monkeys” – engagement & training. 

One fun piece I learned from the book is a Polish saying, “not my circus, not my monkeys.”   Aside from sounding cool, it is a reminder that in any presentation you need to engage the audience.  You may be passionate about the topic, but for the audience it may not be their circus or their monkeys.  I think this little saying could also remind us that while you might not actually need to stage a circus, you do need to apply your imagination to the process, and also engage beforehand with some of the people you are trying to reach, so you will know what matters to them.

I am a big believer in the power of personal stories.  While there is much written about cultures (some of it greatly over-complicated), the best definition in my view is that culture is the stories that people tell.  When doing a presentation it is always useful to remember this. 

A core part of engagement is talking with your people, and perhaps surveying them (but learn how to do surveys first – don’t wing it).  If you have a training method or a company-wide message, test it out first.  Always, always, always do this. 

Games.

In covering the topic of training, a reader would expect a discussion of gaming. I fully believe in experimenting with such tools.  I would add a note, though, that you do not usually see in such discussions.  You need to be careful that the method does not overtake the message.  I did experience this years ago in a Defense Industry Initiative program dealing with what was then the Dilbert game.  We all enjoyed the game, but did not remember what the compliance message was.  Merely “enjoying” the training (typically measured by what used to be called a “happy face” survey) is not the key measure here.  Whether the audience liked or enjoyed it is not enough, although it helps when people relate positively to the experience.  But we also need to test out any new approach and then try to measure the impact.  For example, for the attendees did it improve their knowledge of important points, help motivate them in the right direction, and/or improve their skill in an important area? 

Making it easy.

The authors show much sensitivity to human nature and the reality of working with people who are already very busy.  They wisely advise that when it comes to communication, make it easy for the managers.  Provide them with prompts or “plug and play” options.  There may be template emails, funny cartoons, or useful and memorable quotes from the code that managers can use. It helps to have inertia on your side, if you want people to do something.   

Investigations.

There is much written about investigations in the C&E world, but the authors add some new, interesting perspectives.  They recognize the impact an investigation has on all those involved.  For example, while you are not going to tell people publicly the detailed results of an investigation, you can certainly educate them on what is actually involved in investigations and why they can take a considerable amount of time – a point investigators know, but those outside the process might view as a complete mystery. This is an important point that in the context of a focused investigation can be easy to overlook.

The authors look at the human side of investigations, considering the human toll they can take.  I don’t think this is commonly done but is a very valuable insight.  Investigations are actions that affect the culture.  Yes, they must be professional and efficient, but investigators should also understand their larger context.

There is an unfortunate timidity among C&E professionals about communications in this context. There is legitimately a need for confidentiality in each investigation to protect all those involved.   But investigators can certainly explain the process so that everyone affected by the investigation understands what is done and why it takes time. 

Ask this question during investigation interviews!

The book contains another, brilliant suggestion in the form of a simple question.  They recommend “asking those interviewed what they hope to see as an outcome of the investigation.”  This can surface what beliefs people have about the investigation, providing an opportunity to clarify what is involved and how it operates. Plus asking this question serves the very valuable purpose of showing people that they do have input and that the C&E program cares what they think.   

Did incentives play a role?  

Page 90 offers outstanding advice that reminds us why the Organizational Sentencing Guidelines make incentives one of the minimum requirements to meet those compliance program standards. The authors wisely advise investigators: “Be curious and look to see if the organization is inadvertently incentivizing poor choices with our tone from the top.” Perhaps one could easily add at the end: “and what we recognize and reward”. When doing a root cause analysis of misconduct and compliance program failings, it makes sense to explore the role of incentives. 

Crowdsourcing information. 

I was intrigued by the concept of “crowdsourcing” information within a company. It is wise to collect information from around the company.  Among other benefits, this shows that C&E listens to employees. On p. 106 the authors use two of my favorite words for what C&E professionals need:  they recommend using humility and curiosity in gathering intelligence

Crowdsourcing for ideas relating to AI.

There is a very useful story on p. 82 about using crowdsourcing for ideas.  In this case a company crowd-sourced ideas for the use of AI within the company. The company’s engineering department used Slack for this purpose.  It was able to crowdsource employees’ “creativity, productivity and efficiency hacks.” This even became a source of friendly competition among teams. 

Crowdsourcing about compliance risks. 

While I sincerely believe that it is not necessary to be a lawyer to do compliance work, there is value in having a lawyer as an advisor.  Being a lawyer makes me at least a bit nervous about using a crowdsourcing tool to determine areas of possible risk and wrongdoing (which could easily raise actual accusations of illegal conduct).  The word “crowdsourcing” suggests a system that is inherently open to the world.  I agree with going out to the field and hearing from people around the company, but doing this using a model resembling social media may not be the safest tool for addressing issues that may be sensitive. Anyone could submit accusations that are totally unfounded and dangerous, and then have these leaked on the Internet. if someone does raise a concern through this vehicle the C&E people now need to address it.  If someone raises an issue of wrongdoing you are now on the record along with an unknown number of people who are also aware of this concern or accusation – whether it is true or not.   I see real value in using crowdsourcing to seek out ideas, but would be extremely careful in using it to surface risks of illegal or unethical conduct.  Certainly, you should pursue such information, but a broadcast system has major flaws and risks.   

One should also remember the vulnerabilities of group systems.  They can disproportionately enable the complainers and loudest voices. And while the workers can comment, the bosses can see what they say.  There may be wisdom in crowds but there can also be major weaknesses.  It is easy to attribute unusual power to the crowd, but not all intelligence comes from crowds.  This still cannot replace the human scale of one-on-one person to person discussions. My advice would be to pursue those diligently, but be careful with crowdsourcing in this context. 

Peer Ideation.

Chapter 8 Discusses the peer coaching model.  As I noted above, I was in such a group at the 2024 CEI, but for our group it was clear we needed to have more emphasis on having a guide. The curious coaching part is tough, because it is just asking questions.  I could see the value of the original approach, but our group mostly ignored the rules and just discussed ideas; our participants  immediately went to their solutions, not questions.. P 122 says it is fundamental that peer coaches are not to give advice, but ours did. P. 127 says the most important rule is that coaches can only ask curious coaching questions and cannot make recommendations or give advice.  The coachee is to refrain from any comments.  The role of peers is supposed to be curiosity and food for thought, leaving the coachee with agency and the ultimate decision-making.  I would still very much like to try this; perhaps the authors could produce a video of this approach in action. 

Here is my final idea for readers:  Get this book and read it.  Give it serious thought.  Test out the ideas.  And when you test out Peer Ideation, maybe give me a call so I can see it in action. I could even be your “guide” to make sure everyone follows the rules.  I think this can work very well – if you can just get your compliance people to follow the rules!!!