DEDx - Ideas worth binning

Is the traditional 5-day work week overdue for retirement? In this episode, John and Anna dive into the world of reduced working hours with academic psychologist Charlotte Rae, who leads the Sussex Four-Day Week Project. The trio explores the growing momentum behind the 4-day week movement, backed by robust data on well-being, productivity, and job satisfaction.With a mix of personal stories, hard evidence, and challenging questions, they unpack whether this shift is just a nice idea—or a future-defining evolution in how we work.Key Topics & InsightsWhere the 4-day week came from: A concept around since the 1970s, revitalized by the pandemic and recent business trials.Charlotte’s research findings: Staff on a 4-day week show:Improved sleep and moodReduced burnoutIncreased work engagement~8% productivity improvement on averageTrust is a critical enabler: Smaller organizations (SMEs) are leading the way due to tighter relationships and higher flexibility.Scalability challenges: It can work in large orgs (e.g., Atom Bank), but requires longer lead times, careful planning, and internal champions.Not for everyone: A minority of participants saw reduced well-being or productivity, especially managers who struggle to disconnect.Impact on younger employees & career progression: The “cohort effect” of doing this together helps level the playing field, potentially more so than individual part-time arrangements.Terminology matters: "Four-day week" may be misleading. “Shorter,” “more productive,” or “smarter” work weeks may be better framingPractical TakeawaysStart with a trial mindset: Measure what matters, iterate, and learn.Focus on output, not hours: Encourage performance over presenteeism.Involve employees in the design: Co-create solutions to build trust and buy-in.Flex the model: From 4 days to 9-day fortnights—one size doesn’t fit all.Use the data: Hard evidence is your best selling point.Resources MentionedSussex Four-Day Week ProjectAutonomy Think Tank study on AI & future work patternsBook by Andrew Barnes: “The 4 Day Week”VerdictKeep it. The 4-day week isn’t just a utopian dream—it’s a viable, evidence-backed shift that can benefit people and organizations. But it requires cultural change, leadership buy-in, and smart customization.If you have any Dedx suggestions email us at [email protected] with the subject line Dedx Idea. We would love to hear them! John: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jadm/ Anna: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anna-wesson-54989929/Music credit: by Yevhen Onoychenko from PixabayDisclaimer: The ideas discussed in this podcast are intended for entertainment purposes only and should not be taken as serious business advice. Listeners are encouraged to do their own research and seek professional advice before implementing any of the ideas discussed.

Anna and John explore the surprisingly rich terrain of failure—why it matters, when it’s useful, and how to distinguish the constructive kind from the kind that should never happen twice. Along the way, they share personal stories (including one involving 100 golf balls and a tractor), challenge the romanticised tech-world narrative of "failing fast," and consider what failure looks like in everyday organisations.Key Topics DiscussedThe different types of failure—avoidable errors vs. intelligent experimentsWhy failure is still a taboo in many professional environmentsThe critical role of leadership in how failure is handledHow hierarchy affects openness to learning from mistakesPractical ways teams can reflect, learn, and improve (without lengthy post-mortems)Examples from aviation, tech, creative industries, and real client workTakeawaysNot all failure is bad—but not all failure is useful either.Cultures that learn from mistakes outperform those that ignore them.Leaders set the tone: if they’re open to hearing about failure, others will be too.A quick retrospective can deliver high value without needing heavy processes.Language matters. If “failure” feels too loaded, call it something else—but still do it.Recommended ReadingRight Kind of Wrong by Amy EdmondsonCreativity, Inc. by Ed CatmullFinal ThoughtFailure is inevitable. The question is whether we treat it as something to fear or as an opportunity to learn. The best teams—and leaders—find ways to make it safe, honest, and useful.If you have any Dedx suggestions email us at [email protected] with the subject line Dedx Idea. We would love to hear them! John: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jadm/ Anna: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anna-wesson-54989929/Music credit: by Yevhen Onoychenko from PixabayDisclaimer: The ideas discussed in this podcast are intended for entertainment purposes only and should not be taken as serious business advice. Listeners are encouraged to do their own research and seek professional advice before implementing any of the ideas discussed.

This week on Ded X, Anna and John tackle Impostor Syndrome with coach Catherine AndrewsThe Big Idea:Catherine declares it's not a syndrome. She argues that "impostor phenomenon" was coined by researchers Clance and Imes in 1978, based on observations of high-achieving women doubting their success. The "syndrome" part, Catherine suggests, might be a rebranding by the leadership development industry.Key Takeaways:Syndrome vs. Phenomenon: Catherine views it as a common human experience, not a medical condition."Neurodiverse" Connection: Speculates the desire for labels plays a role in understanding differences in a "neurotypical" world.Workplace Dynamics: Explores how workplaces might label women with imposter syndrome instead of recognizing different, effective ways of being.Anxiety vs. Imposter Feelings: Discusses the nuance between temporary performance anxiety and consistent imposter feelings.The Systemic Issue: "Imposter syndrome" often points to organizational problems, with inclusion as a potential "antidote."The "Pill" for Imposter Syndrome: An anecdote about a leader reframing it as profound anxiety, and becoming more effective by embracing humility and empowering her team.The Verdict: To Bin or Not To Bin?Catherine: Bin the "syndrome" part. Embrace humility, but the label is unhelpful.John: Bin it. Dislikes "syndrome" (not medical) and "imposter" (too negative).Anna: Bin most, but acknowledges its intuitive appeal; focus on fixing the system for belonging.Final Thoughts:The hosts and Catherine agree that while "imposter syndrome" may be a misnomer, the underlying feelings of anxiety, doubt, and not belonging are real and highlight a need for better support and inclusive workplace environments. If you have any Dedx suggestions email us at [email protected] with the subject line Dedx Idea. We would love to hear them! John: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jadm/ Anna: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anna-wesson-54989929/Music credit: by Yevhen Onoychenko from PixabayDisclaimer: The ideas discussed in this podcast are intended for entertainment purposes only and should not be taken as serious business advice. Listeners are encouraged to do their own research and seek professional advice before implementing any of the ideas discussed.

In this episode of DEDx, we explore the controversial concept of organisations as families. Can work be a surrogate family, and what does that mean for employees? We examine the benefits and risks of family-style business cultures. John and the host share insights on whether this approach helps—or harms.Key Topics Discussed:What is a Family Culture in the Workplace?We begin by defining what a family culture looks like. Values like empathy, care, and respect are central, aiming to foster belonging and loyalty.The Appeal of a Family Business:The hosts explore why companies adopt a family-based culture, citing benefits like loyalty and morale boosts—at least in the short term.The Risks of Family Analogies:But family dynamics can bring hierarchy, bias, favoritism, and lack of accountability. The hosts discuss how this might trap employees and cause burnout.Are Family Values Effective in Business?They question whether family culture suits larger organizations, where complexity and varied definitions of “family” can cause friction.Alternative Approaches to Workplace Culture:Instead of “family,” terms like “one company” may better foster unity while keeping clear boundaries and avoiding toxic dynamics.A Clear Conclusion:One host calls for a “Dead exit” from the family model, calling it lazy culture-building. The other sees limited value in small companiiesTakeaways:• “Family” culture can promote empathy and loyalty but also cause exclusion and favoritism.• It’s often a shortcut to belonging without clear values.• Healthier ways exist to build unity without family metaphors.• Companies must shape cultures that reflect diverse needs and perspectives.Have you worked somewhere that called itself a family?We’d love to hear your experiences and views on how family dynamics show up at work.If you have any Dedx suggestions email us at [email protected] with the subject line Dedx Idea. We would love to hear them! John: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jadm/ Anna: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anna-wesson-54989929/Music credit: by Yevhen Onoychenko from PixabayDisclaimer: The ideas discussed in this podcast are intended for entertainment purposes only and should not be taken as serious business advice. Listeners are encouraged to do their own research and seek professional advice before implementing any of the ideas discussed.

In this episode of DEDx, hosts Anna and John, along with guest Andy Perkins, explore the concept of team building. They delve into whether traditional team-building activities should be embraced or discarded. Andy, with over 30 years in the Learning and Development industry, shares his extensive experience with team-building events, questioning their long-term effectiveness and value. The discussion transitions to the alternative of data-driven team development, which focuses on sustainable and measurable growth. The episode critically examines the high costs, inclusivity issues, and authentic impact of team-building activities while advocating for personalised team coaching and development based on diagnostic data.00:00 Introduction to Team Building Debate00:12 Meet Andy Perkins: A Veteran in L&D01:29 Defining Team Building03:16 Team Building Activities and Their Impact05:13 The Financial Aspect of Team Building06:25 Psychometrics in Team Building07:30 Challenges and Criticisms of Team Building15:42 Who Benefits from Team Building?19:17 Team Development: A Data-Driven Approach25:56 Conclusion: To DEDx or Not to DEDx Team BuildingAndy is the Head of Strategic Partnerships at Meta Team www.metateam.co.ukAndy is on LinkedIn at: https://www.linkedin.com/in/andy-perkins-19374316/If you have any Dedx suggestions email us at [email protected] with the subject line Dedx Idea. We would love to hear them! John: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jadm/ Anna: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anna-wesson-54989929/Music credit: by Yevhen Onoychenko from PixabayDisclaimer: The ideas discussed in this podcast are intended for entertainment purposes only and should not be taken as serious business advice. Listeners are encouraged to do their own research and seek professional advice before implementing any of the ideas discussed.

Episode Overview: In today’s episode, we’re diving deep into one of the most common hiring practices: the job interview. Is it the best way to decide who to hire, or is it time for a change? We’ll explore the history of interviews, their effectiveness, and why they might not always be the best tool for hiring decisions.Key Topics:The Interview ProcessWe discuss the most widely used interview types today—behavioral and lightly structured interviews—and whether they’re as effective as we think they are.The Historical ContextWhere did interviews come from? How did they evolve post-WW2 and through the rise of technology-driven recruitment?Are Interviews Effective?We’ll look at the validity of interviews, citing studies like Schmidt and Hunter’s 1998 research that show a 0.44 validity. We’ll also explore how interviews empower hiring managers, foster trust in the process, and offer a “universal” system.Who Succeeds in Interviews?It turns out interviews might not be as objective as we’d like to think. Traits like extroversion, articulate speech, and likability (often tied to appearance and confidence) can give candidates an unfair advantage, thanks to confirmation bias.The Typical Interview QuestionsFrom asking about weaknesses (where most candidates humble-brag) to questions like “Where do you see yourself in 5 years?”—we dig into why these questions are asked, and whether they’re actually helping us make better hiring decisions.The Pitfalls of InterviewsWhy can’t we compare candidates effectively? We talk about how bias, ‘fit,’ and likeability play a larger role in hiring decisions than they should, and how untrained interviewers tend to “wing it.”What’s the Solution?Could mandatory interviewer training, structured interviews with standard questions, or even work tests be better alternatives? We explore these options and the pros and cons of each.The Bottom LineIs the traditional interview process outdated? Should we be looking for a new way to hire talent, or is the interview here to stay?Takeaways:Interviews may not be the most objective way to hire, but they remain a widely accepted practice.Bias, overconfidence, and lack of interviewer training are all factors that undermine the effectiveness of interviews.Structured interviews, training for interviewers, and skill assessments could be potential solutions to make the hiring process more fair and accurate.Is This Idea Worth Binning?We wrap up by asking whether it’s time to throw the traditional interview process out the window—or if it’s still worth keeping.Listen Now: Don't miss this thought-provoking conversation on rethinking the hiring process. Tune in for insights on how to make hiring decisions better and more efficient!If you have any Dedx suggestions email us at [email protected] with the subject line Dedx Idea. We would love to hear them! John: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jadm/ Anna: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anna-wesson-54989929/Music credit: by Yevhen Onoychenko from PixabayDisclaimer: The ideas discussed in this podcast are intended for entertainment purposes only and should not be taken as serious business advice. Listeners are encouraged to do their own research and seek professional advice before implementing any of the ideas discussed.

DEDx - Feedback - A Gift?IntroductionIs feedback a gift or a burden? Employees often don’t get enough, dislike it, or don’t know how to use it.What Is Feedback?Evaluation of performance to reveal blind spots. But it’s tricky—bias, emotions, and context play a role.Personal ExperiencesNegative feedback lingers, but it’s just one perspective.Effective feedback is direct, caring, and constructive.Cultural norms shape how we give/receive feedback.What Makes Feedback Work?Timely & Regular – Avoid delayed or annual reviews.Constructive & Clear – Actionable, not just criticism.Two-Way – A dialogue, not a monologue.Emotionally Aware – Delivery and reception matter.Not Advice in Disguise – Share perspectives, not commands.Why We Struggle with FeedbackLack of training.Bias distorts judgment.Often reinforces norms, not growth.A Better ApproachSeek input from multiple sources.Ask for specific feedback: "How could I have improved that meeting?"View feedback as info, not judgment.Should We Bin Feedback?Ditch outdated models (annual reviews, unsolicited critique).Replace with retrospectives & coaching-based cultures.Focus on learning, not evaluation.Final VerdictJohn: Scrap traditional feedback—prioritize learning.Anna: Keep feedback but shift to coaching & mutual understanding.What do you think—keep feedback or bin it?If you have any Dedx suggestions email us at [email protected] with the subject line Dedx Idea. We would love to hear them! John: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jadm/ Anna: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anna-wesson-54989929/Music credit: by Yevhen Onoychenko from PixabayDisclaimer: The ideas discussed in this podcast are intended for entertainment purposes only and should not be taken as serious business advice. Listeners are encouraged to do their own research and seek professional advice before implementing any of the ideas discussed.

Episode Summary: In this episode of DEDx, Anna and John are joined by William McKee to discuss the relevance and validity of psychometric testing in the workplace. They explore whether psychometric testing is a DEDx, an idea worth binning, or if it has redeeming features that justify its use.What are we talking about? Overview of psychometric testing and its intended purposes.The distinction between psychometric tools and simple surveys.Where can this go wrong - the criticisms and limitations of psychometric testingWhat are the challenges when using psychometrics?There are instances where they can be unethical - recruitment being a good exampleThe system can be gamed - who’s going to answer questions accurately if they know it might impact the chances of a job?Commerciality can get in the way of ethicsIs there a viable alternative?There is. The Big Five Personality Traits are a way better way to make predictions about behaviour:Measurement of these is the best tool available: Statistically derived and widely researched, the Big Five is considered the most reliable psychometric tool, despite limitations.Have application in Leadership Teams: Understanding personality traits can foster empathy and better collaboration among senior leadership.Conclusion:Overall, psychometric testing is not a dedX, we’re not binning it today. That said, William suggests calling for a temporary halt to current psychometric practices to eliminate subpar tools and revisit the field with a more rigorous and evidence-based approach.John and Anna balance this by suggesting a more skeptical and objective approach, focusing on improving and accurately measuring psychometric tests.Special thanks to William for sharing his extensive knowledgehttps://www.linkedin.com/in/william-mckee/If you have any Dedx suggestions email us at [email protected] with the subject line Dedx Idea. We would love to hear them! John: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jadm/ Anna: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anna-wesson-54989929/Music credit: by Yevhen Onoychenko from PixabayDisclaimer: The ideas discussed in this podcast are intended for entertainment purposes only and should not be taken as serious business advice. Listeners are encouraged to do their own research and seek professional advice before implementing any of the ideas discussed.

Meetings: Hub of productivity or waste of time?Quote of the Episode:"Why spend 30 hours a week in meetings when you could be using that time to actually get work done?" Call to Action:Have a look at your own calendar—are there meetings you could cut or optimize? Share your thoughts on what makes a meeting truly valuable by tagging us on social media using #DEDxPodcast.Episode Summary:In this episode of DEDx, John and Anna dive into the contentious topic of meetings—are they a necessary evil or an outdated practice in need of overhaul? They explore the history of meetings, and their role in the modern workplace, and share insights into what makes a meeting effective or a complete waste of time.Key Discussion Points:1. History of Meetings:   - Meetings have been integral to human communication since ancient times, but the concept of formal business meetings as we know them began in the Industrial Revolution, spurred by the need to organise large numbers of workers.2. Evolution of Meetings:   - Meetings have become more frequent with advancements in technology (like video conferencing) and organizational growth. The pandemic further accelerated the frequency of virtual meetings.3. The Role of Meetings Today:   - Meetings often signal status within an organization—those who call meetings are typically higher up the corporate ladder.   - Despite their prevalence, many meetings are seen as unproductive, especially if participants are unclear on their purpose or feel pressured to attend out of fear of missing out (FOMO).4. Ideal Meeting Structure:   - Preparation:    - Engagement:   - Content and Decision-Making:    - Reflection and Takeaways:5.  Challenges with Current Meeting Culture:   - The tendency to invite unnecessary participants.   - Lack of psychological safety, which can prevent people from contributing honestly.   - The inefficiency of large meetings with too many attendees.   - The paradox of seniority: higher roles often mean more time spent in meetings, at the expense of actual work.6.   Proposed Solutions for Better Meetings:   - Limiting Participants:  capping meetings at 6-8 people.   - Time Management: Consider a meeting allowance (e.g., 6 hours per week) to prevent meeting overload.   - Meeting Content: Share as much information as possible before the meeting,    - Storytelling Approach: Replace traditional updates with brief, engaging stories to capture attention and make meetings more interesting.---Please share this episode and leave a review if you enjoyed it!If you have any Dedx suggestions email us at [email protected] with the subject line Dedx Idea. We would love to hear them! John: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jadm/ Anna: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anna-wesson-54989929/Music credit: by Yevhen Onoychenko from PixabayDisclaimer: The ideas discussed in this podcast are intended for entertainment purposes only and should not be taken as serious business advice. Listeners are encouraged to do their own research and seek professional advice before implementing any of the ideas discussed.

Episode Title: DEDx - Meritocracy: Dedx or not!The idea that a meritocracy exists is a contentious one. Certainly it is a seductive idea, to suggest that the best people rise to the top in any field. But is there any evidence that it truly exists? This podcast features an intriguing discussion about the relevance of the idea of meritocracy in today's world.What are we talking about?Meritocracy is defined as the practice of judging and rating individuals based on their performance, with the belief that the most meritorious should rise to the top.It’s not clear cut though, since there are challenges in measuring merit, especially in complex organizational structures where success often involves teamwork and external factors.Challenges to this idea:Does past performance truly predict future success?  How much of success can be accounted for by factors like luck, social status, and demographics? These are questions we must ask.There is inherent bias and unfairness in meritocracy, since it perpetuates inequality and overlooks potential systemic barriers like class, race, gender etc.Meritocracy gained popularity, particularly in business contexts, as a means of justifying success and maintaining a sense of fairness where often none existed.What about in sport?Do sports, with their clear metrics for success, represent true meritocracy? In some cases they might, but luck and external support systems are key to athletic achievement.The Illusion of Fairness:Meritocracy can serve as a facade for fairness, masking deeper issues of privilege, discrimination, and power dynamics within organisations.It is a flawed concept that fails to account for the complexity of human potential and the influence of external factors.There is the need for a shift toward assessing potential rather than past performance, acknowledging the role of luck and systemic advantage.Conclusion:Has there been a clearer DedX? Not in this series. Anna and John conclude that meritocracy is without merit. It is a great idea, but in practice, when the start line is different for everyone, merit is not the only influence on success. Meritocracy is firmly binned!Resources - The Tyranny of Merit.  -    Michel Sandel  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Sandelhttps://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/sep/06/michael-sandel-the-populist-backlash-has-been-a-revolt-against-the-tyranny-of-meritIf you have any Dedx suggestions email us at [email protected] with the subject line Dedx Idea. We would love to hear them! John: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jadm/ Anna: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anna-wesson-54989929/Music credit: by Yevhen Onoychenko from PixabayDisclaimer: The ideas discussed in this podcast are intended for entertainment purposes only and should not be taken as serious business advice. Listeners are encouraged to do their own research and seek professional advice before implementing any of the ideas discussed.