How to win friends and influence people

June 22nd, 2008

I guess I’m not alone in feeling slightly uncomfortable when standing in a room of people we don’t know. Nobody wants to stand in the corner making everyone else wonder why they have no friends, but at the same time initiating conversation with strangers instils a certain fear. Maybe this stems from our tribal background in which encounters with strangers were relatively uncommon, and an inappropriate approach might severely reduce your chances of passing on your genes! Once the conversation is flowing, though, those fears usually drift away and afterwards you reflect on what you’d have missed out on if you hadn’t broken through your hermititus.

What if you have a goal in mind for these conversations, such as to persuade or build rapport? Then there’s an extra challenge – not just to keep the conversation flowing but also to steer it in a particular direction.

Of course, these ar
e skills we’ve all been practising since we were born, but ones that we’re rarely consciously aware of. Although they’re crucially important to our lifelong success, we’re never taught these skills at school. The trouble is, that means that we tend to develop certain bad habits that impede our communication and give people the wrong impression, such as not making enough eye contact or standing with hunched shoulders.  We tend to assume that some people are just generally much better than others at these things.  I think that some people have personality traits that make it come more naturally, but also that with practice, we can learn how to behave so well that it becomes second nature.

I decided to make sure that the way I present myself allows my ideas to shine through, and enrolled on a series of training sessions that covered professional presentation and interpersonal skills.  Through a series of practical exercises, we practised how to present ourselves effectively, both verbally and non-verbally, and how to understand others. We learnt how to stand, sit and speak in order to command respect and make ourselves heard. We looked at how to communicate effectively by understanding which type of person is listening and altering how we present the ideas appropriately. The non-verbal exercises were particularly remarkable, as they demonstrated just how much we can tell about what others are thinking by subtle clues in their body language.

More than anything, I feel this course has made me significantly more self-aware about how I act while talking to people, and empowered me to alter my style to suit the situation. This means that I can be a better manager and team member, who can understand, persuade and motivate more effectively. I am now more confident approaching unfamiliar business and social situations and with selling myself, my ideas and my business.

Welcome to my professional blog

June 22nd, 2008

I’ve been keeping a personal blog for a couple of years, writing about a variety of topics.  Now that I’m leaving education and becoming a freelance I.T. professional and serial entrepreneur, it seems like a good point to separate out the personal from the professional.  Not because I’m trying to keep any secrets from you – it’s just that I realise that no matter how amazing it is, not everyone is interested in my recipe for chickpea curry.

So that it’s not so empty, I duplicated some of the relevant posts from orangejon.com but from now on, I’ll post work-related things only to this blog, so you might like to follow both if you wish to stalk me effectively.

Building a better social news browser

May 3rd, 2008

So we identified that online social networks don’t make it easy to find the news that interests you, and we discussed different ways that we can figure out which social context each of your friends fits into. How can we now design a better user interface for browsing news on social networks?

In my dissertation, I suggested interfaces that group the stories according to the person they relate to, then arrange these people in two dimensions according to:

  • their social context (by looking at shared friendships and co-appearance in photos)
  • how much interest the user shows in stories about this person (by observing the user’s behaviour)

Here’s a short video I made to show one of these designs:


For more interface designs and details about how they could be implemented, please refer to my dissertation (PDF, 3.5Mb).

Putting friends in boxes

May 2nd, 2008

In my first post in this series, I suggested that current social networks are hobbled by their oversimplified underlying social model. So what can we do to improve this?

In my research, I proposed five categories of friends:

  • a close friend whom you see regularly
  • a friend who was close but whom you now don’t see or contact regularly
  • family
  • a new friend whom you see regularly but don’t know much about
  • somebody you don’t know well or meet regularly (face-to-face), but publishes good news

Although they seemed like sensible categories, the respondents to my survey only succeeded in categorising an average of 41% of their friends. In retrospect, I was probably rather naïve in assuming that people’s Facebook friends were people they’d with whom they’d had some meaningful relationship at some point in time. In any case, when asked how interested they were in seeing news about each of these categories, there was significantly lower interest in those not covered by these categories, suggesting that I’d not missed out anyone important.

So perhaps these categories have some value in helping people find the news that’s most interesting to them, but they have a key flaw. Not only is it tedious to try to categorise all your friends (the average respondent has 212), but friends will inevitably move between categories.

Facebook takes a different approach – when you add a new friend, they ask instead how you met. This comes back to the idea of friends existing within a social context, something which can actually be quite successfully inferred automatically by simply grouping people according to shared friendships and co-appearance in photographs.

I suggest that there’s probably a link between how much news you’d like to see about a given person and the social context into which those people fit. For instance, you might be quite interested in what your university friends are up to whilst you whilst you’re at university together, but when you graduate you might prefer just to hear about them occasionally – the 21st-century equivalent of the “christmas letter” some of my parents’ friends write.

Trouble is, online social networks such as Facebook don’t do anything useful with this information. Social context is ignored and all your “friends” news is presented you in one big heap. In my next post, I’ll suggest some ways in which the user interface might be re-designed to help you find the news that’s important to you.

For more survey results and discussion of how the social models underlying social networks might be improved, please refer to my dissertation (PDF, 3.5Mb).

My Facebook "friends" aren't my friends

May 1st, 2008

This is the first in a three-part blog series based on my final-year undergraduate dissertation.

I’ve got 167 “friends” on Facebook. According to my research, that’s pretty normal – actually it’s slightly below average. We all know, though, that of those 167 people, only a handful are “friends” according to the old fashioned meaning of the word – people who you enjoy hanging out with, people whose name you remember, etc. It’s true that online social networks are probably flattening social hierarchies somewhat by allowing us to easily maintain some level of contact with a much larger number of people than we would otherwise, but to think that they blow away 10,000 years of sociocultural evolution is hard to believe.

This gross over-simplification of social structure into a binary “friend” or “not friend” has two major implications. Firstly, it has major implications for privacy and impression management – if you added your mum as a “friend” (and it would seem rude not to), she’s just as likely to see those photos of you stupidly drunk at a party as your mates are. Or your boss, for that matter. Real friends tend to exist in a certain contexts – social boundaries that are rarely crossed, and for good reason.

Secondly, the news you’re presented with in the News Feed is flooded with all the latest gossip from the school-friends you added out of curiosity to see what they became. Sure, you could manually construct a friends list with only your closest friends in and only view their updates, but who can be bothered with that? Before they were removed, the feedback buttons and filtering preferences (where you could opt to have more photos, for example) promised to give you some influence over what appears in your News Feed, but my research showed that very few users had even noticed them, let alone used them regularly. There also seemed to be a great deal of uncertainty about what they were supposed to do or if they were actually having an effect.

By grossly oversimplifying relationships, ignoring social context and failing to give the user any way to effectively monitor and filter news from friends, online social networks are missing their golden opportunity to bring people closer to those they care about. In my next blog post, I’ll look at whether this situation can be improved by adding a little more realism to the social model.

For survey and interview results regarding the number of friends people have on Facebook, their level of interest in the News Feed and usage of the filtering facilities, please refer to my dissertation (PDF, 3.5Mb).

When Global Goes Local: hitch-hiking for the networked generation

August 10th, 2007

Nowadays, it’s becoming quite rare to see a hitch-hiker. I’m sure there are many reasons for the death of hitch-hiking, but I suggest that these are the top three:

  • trust (for both parties): it seems that we are becoming increasingly distrustful of our fellow citizens, and especially of strange-looking people who stand by the roadside. Sharing a car requires a fair amount of trust in your passengers.
  • lack of incentive for the driver: a good friend of mine (who is quite active in Christian groups) shocked me somewhat by admitting that when he sees a hitch-hiker, he thinks “get a job and get your own car, you freeloader”. Whilst not everyone is so selfish, many people won’t give up their comfortable solitude without a reason.
  • more comfortable alternatives for the passenger: many people in our developed societies are rich in enough to run a car, or at least afford the occasional taxi. Why stand in the rain waiting for some kind soul to take pity on you?

For a regular commute, car-sharing with colleagues doesn’t pose these problems. But for those who work flexi-time, and for all other journeys not covered by good public transport, driving your own car is often the only practical option. The effect is obvious, with UK traffic estimated to grow by 26% on 2000 levels. By that point, congestion is predicted to have grown 65% overall (from 1996) and motorway congestion by a whopping 268%. (source)

But we have the technology to solve these problems and make ad-hoc carsharing a viable alternative to driving solo – especially if you factor in a bit of ecological guilt and fuel price increases.

  • trust: as eBay has shown, many people are prepared to make risky financial transactions with complete strangers, so long as they can see the seller’s past history. A similarly simple reputation system could work here, too.
  • driver’s incentive: many lone drivers might take trustworthy passengers just for company or to alleviate their eco-guilt, but others could be tempted by a bit of petrol-money. Or if they’re too proud for that, perhaps they could request a donation to their favourite charity instead.
  • passenger comfort:no need to wait in the rain, you can be notified by SMS when your ride is approaching.

By integrating transport “offers” from mini-cabs, shared taxis and public transport, a joined-up transport service emerges that could really compete with the car on both price and convenience.

When Global Goes Local: the death of the super-mall

August 8th, 2007

It’s a symbol of America, and it’s a concept that’s spreading across the world – the out of town shopping centre. Built on cheap land on the edge of a city, these retail metropolises offer almost every product under the sun at low, low prices. Ample free parking is provided and there’s enough retail therapy within its confines to keep even the most addicted spendaholic happy.

The disadvantage, of course, is that you really have to drive there. Perhaps it’s technically possible to get there on public transport somehow, but it’s hardly convenient. And then when you got there, you could only buy as much as you can carry, making the journey hardly worth the effort. Most people will drive and then fill up with enough food and supplies to last them several weeks. Of course, if your food has to last for such a long time, frozen or tinned is really the only option. As well as being less tasty and lacking in micronutrients compared to fresh alternatives, a significant amount of energy is invested in keeping food frozen from farm to plate.

The biggest advantage of traveling to a big store or retail park is that you can be fairly confident that they’ll have what you want. In a couple of hours, you’ll have filled your freezer and can merrily tick “shopping” off your to-do list. But present-day technology has the power to change that process, giving you fresher food and reducing your carbon footprint.

Imagine that instead of anticipating your needs weeks in advance, you were instead able to browse through a selection of recipes selected by a combination of your tastes, your culinary experience, the contents of your fridge and what’s currently available in your local shops. On your way home, you stop by a couple of smaller stores (guided by your mobile phone), where you pick up your pre-bagged shopping. By ordering in advance, you help the store manage their stock more efficiently. Easy access to real-time information has allowed you to change the way you shop – in a way that’s better for you and for the environment.

In my next post, I’ll talk about how more efficient and flexible logistics can reduce the cost of deliveries of your more exotic culinary requirements and other items, and how better information can make shared transport an attractive choice.

When Global Goes Local: how ubiquitous connectivity and peak oil will challenge economies of scale

August 6th, 2007

We live in a society powered by fossil fuel. Almost everything we do consumes large amounts of non-renewable energy, because our cities, our industries and our lives are designed to do so. That’s bad news, because energy is becoming more scarce and therefore more expensive. At the same time, concerns about climate change are likely to cause the introduction of carbon taxes, pushing energy costs even higher.

But there’s good news, too: we can solve it. Not just through alternative energy sources and more efficient devices – they will play a big role, but they aren’t the whole solution. We need to change how we live, and go back to what some call the “urban village” – urban lifestyles that don’t involve travelling large distances. At the same time, we can even use this social upheaval as an opportunity to solve some of the problems that plague our modern cities:

  • traffic noise
  • social isolation
  • ineffective transportation
  • declining food quality
  • throw-away culture

Over the next few days, I’ll be publishing a series of short posts exploring how communications technologies can change the way we travel, shop, work and socialise. I’ll show that in this process, we’ll not only save our planet, but also make our cities nicer and more exciting places to live.

Positive Purchasing Power

July 12th, 2007

Sometimes I feel like this guy – a little frustrated. Whilst the non-believers he’s attacking are basically a lunatic fringe, I think there’s a large majority who agree that climate change is a problem but are too concerned with their own lives to find out how they can help solve it. They’re not active non-believers – but people who just don’t believe they need to do anything about it. It will be solved by the technologists, the politicians and the corporations.

To some extent, they might be right – but at the end of the day, it’s every one of us who makes decisions that dictate what these groups do. Even if it might not feel like it sometimes, they’re all servants of the people and their salary comes out of your pocket every time you purchase something or pay your taxes. Happily, green is fast becoming the new black in some parts of the world and politicians and businesses alike have started battling with each other over their eco-credentials.

The trouble is that most people trust neither what politicians nor multinational corporations tell us, and don’t have the time to figure out whether they are making empty promises or are really making a difference. Occasionally, environmental organisations will expose the worst offenders or produce a ranking for a particular product type. But who goes to the bother of seeking out these reports? I know I don’t.

Perhaps the solution lies in giving consumers a trivially-easy way to check the “green-ness” of the products they are considering purchasing and allow them to make an informed, environmentally-aware purchasing decision. These ratings could be produced by a community process, amongst those concerned enough to spend the time to research and compare several competing manufacturers. The resulting eco-friendliness score could even be embedded into online shops, so that every customer can shop with a clear conscience.

The internet gives us such huge power to easily cross-reference information that few of us now make any significant purchase without checking a few product reviews first. Isn’t it time that we started using that same power to encourage companies to stop bullshitting us and really “go green”?

The end of an era: a Flukebox post-mortem

June 10th, 2007

It’s been a fun ride but now it’s officially over – I’ve decided to call it a day on the Flukebox project. To be honest, I’ve made little progress over the last few months but the final nails in the coffin were provided by IndabaMusic. They’ve not been around long, but they’ve already created a slick web site with many of the key features that the Flukebox musician community was going to have. With competitors this good, I think it’s time to find a different problem to solve.

It’s often said that you learn more from failure than from success, and for sure, this project has taught me a lot. Most fundamentally, it has taught me several important things about myself that perhaps I knew but was trying hard to ignore:

  • I prefer to pick a hard problem and spend all day thinking about it than to pick a easier problem and actually solve it. Instead, I should try harder to do something productive without worrying too much about the details or in which order I should complete things.
  • I need to work with other people who are less imaginative but more productive. Not just so that I can sit in my chair and bark orders, but that that my team-mates can periodically encourage me to stop dreaming and do something useful for a change.
  • Apart from occasional toilet and meal breaks, I really can surf the internet for an infinite period of time. Having regular contact with other humans, especially those that ask you “what have you done today?” helps a lot, but ultimately I need to recognise my knowledge addiction and keep it under control.

With that in mind, it’s not surprising that as my team fell apart, so did the project. Although I succeeded in finding some great people with the right skills and a genuine interest in the project, they all had successful businesses of their own as well as full-time study. I knew that it would be a problem from the beginning, but I had hoped that I might be able to persuade them to give me just enough time to make it work. As it turns out, I was being over-optimistic. In retrospect, I should have tried much harder to find team members with time as well as ability, instead of trying to “go it alone” with inevitable consequences.

It’s not all doom and gloom, though – many things have gone surprisingly well:

  • Almost everyone I’ve talked to about my ideas have been very helpful, supportive and sometimes even constructively critical
  • Being given funding from my University to “be entrepreneurial” was a pleasant surprise!
  • Moving to Poland. Not only has it been a lot of fun living here, it’s given me a lot of confidence that I can live a semi-nomadic lifestyle without problems. I mean, if I can live in a country where even “hi” (cześć) is unpronounceable, the deputy education minister thinks that “the theory of evolution is a lie” and government officials are worried about school teachers and even the Teletubbies promoting homosexuality, I can live anywhere ;)

Thanks to everyone who gave me their support and good luck to the IndabaMusic crew – it’d be great to see them grow rapidly and vindicate my ideas! I feel I’ve learnt a lot and am much better equipped to start my next businesses. Watch this space.