The Heart of Innovation

Design is an Act of Love with Irene Au

February 12, 2023 Bill Duane
The Heart of Innovation
Design is an Act of Love with Irene Au
Show Notes Transcript

Irene Au has been building bridges between technology and creativity her whole life. From being the child of Chinese immigrants in South Carolina who wanted to study design and dance (but chose engineering) to being the voice of user centric design at tech companies who thought design was the result of complex calculations, she has developed a fascinating way of projecting her power and expertise in the world in the form of values based design in ways that are both practical and transcendent. 
Irene has led User Experience at Netscape, Yahoo, Google and Khosla Ventures and has led Human Experience in Yoga, Meditation, Art, Raising a Family and Being Irene Au. 

Intro and Outro music kind courtesy of Taraval.

Bill Duane:

Hi, welcome to the heart of innovation Podcast. I'm Bill Duane former Google engineering executive and Superintendent of wellbeing and courage consultant and speaker on innovation strategy. We're going to be diving deep into the internal innovation that unlocks external innovation, and the surprisingly practical ways we can become better innovators will be in conversation with innovators from many different backgrounds and contexts including business, science, social change and technology and not only benefit from their expertise, but also their personal stories of their innovation journey. Today, we get to spend time with my friend Irene out Irene has been building bridges between technology and creativity her whole life for being the child of Chinese immigrants in South Carolina who wanted to study design and dance but chose engineering to being the voice of user centric design at tech companies. We thought design was the result of complex calculations. In both situations, he's developed a way of projecting her power and expertise in the world in the form of values based design in ways that are both practical and transcendent. She's led user experience at Netscape, Yahoo, Google and Khosla ventures and has led human experience and yoga meditation, art, raising a family and being a renown. So welcome, Irene. It's very wonderful to have you. I've been looking forward to this chat for a while.

Irene Au:

Thank you for having me.

Bill Duane:

You're very welcome. And so that we jump in in the usual way we jump in an anchor and like this word innovation, what does it mean for you? Or how does it show up for you in your life?

Irene Au:

More broadly, I guess, innovation is, is about making something new. And from a career perspective, I guess, I've spent my energies bringing new technologies to the masses, to to, to large consumer audiences. And I think in my own personal practice, it's an it's about an endeavor to always look at things with a beginner's mind and see things as new. Because it's through different and fresh perspectives that we're able to cultivate creativity and come up with new solutions to old problems.

Bill Duane:

So I love that idea of beginner's mind. And to be honest, it's something I have a tough time with. So I'd love to know more about it on the one hand, as I have a lot of impostor syndrome, and so, as engineers slash smarty pants, it's like, I'll be I'll be safe from ridicule. Or, like, if I can only know enough, then I'll be safe. And so for me, and I think a lot of people like me, this idea of beginner's mind seems a little a little dangerous, or maybe, or maybe counterintuitive. What's your relationship with with beginner's mind? Is that is that a hurdle you've had to overcome? Or how have you developed this ability to look afresh at something that's been in front of your eyes, maybe many times.

Irene Au:

It's interesting, like, I think, like the need to know and to be right, comes from a place of not wanting to be wrong, and not wanting to be wrong comes from a place of self criticism, or fear of failure or fear of being perceived in a certain way. And so I think all of those things are emotions that have to be confronted, in order to be comfortable with cultivating a beginner's mind and to come in with like a, I don't know, and, and to be okay with making mistakes, and to be okay with not knowing and that that in itself is not a failure, or a defect or a problem. It's an opportunity. But, I mean, I think the way we are raised and the way we are as a society, it's, you know, like, if you fail, or if you make mistakes, you you might be a loser, or you might be doing something wrong or bad. So, you know, in my daily life, I tried to see it as just, you know, trying like, to quote my boss, Vinod, he always says, like, it's better to try and fail than to fail to try. And so like this whole notion of your relationship with failure, and how you see yourself and and how you treat yourself like, do you treat yourself with kindness and compassion when things don't work out? You know, it's like when a toddler is learning how to walk, we don't say that the toddler is failing to walk, we're saying that the toddler is learning how to walk. And so I think that that shift in mindset is really key. Because it changes the conversation you have with yourself.

Bill Duane:

Yeah, absolutely. And I mean, part of the reason why I did my career change from engineering towards innovation and personal development is to, you know, test him testify that it's possible to make that shift, I definitely have you my, you know, early middle age onward work as going from a fear and shame engine is very powerful, requires a lot of bourbon and cheeseburgers to keep it running, in my experience, puts out a lot of exhaust to a love and service engine. So you know, thank God, this is something that you can choose to get better at. But I'm curious, were you always like this? Or did you have to find your own way towards that sense of strength through vulnerability is the way it's landing with me.

Irene Au:

You know, it's interesting. I mean, as a child, I was not allowed to in, I was not allowed to engage in creative endeavors. We, as a child of immigrant parents, we did not have a lot of disposable income to spend on Hobbies, or lessons, dance lessons, or art lessons, or music lessons. And so my father not only did not have the resources, he did not want to spend what resources we have in that way. And he also felt like they were kind of a waste of time. And even just a couple of years ago, I had lunch with my parents, and I asked them, Is there anything that you regret in the way that you raised me and my brother, and my mom said, Oh, I wish we could have allowed you to engage in more enrichment activities. And my dad was like, well, actually, that wasn't such a bad thing, after all, because you wouldn't have had the career that you've had if you had engaged in, you know, like, art and dance and music. So it kind of reflects like the mindset that he held then. And now, I guess. So my focus as a child was very much on math and science, which is very quantitative, there's a right and a wrong answer. And maybe I naturally gravitated to that. Or maybe that was just how I saw the world, because that's where the focus was. And so yes, certainly, as I, as I matured, and also entered into a field that is very creative profession, I definitely had to change my relationship with that. And, and, you know, I always really loved the ambiguous nature of design, like this notion that there is never really a definitive right or wrong answer. It's always very context dependent. And I love seeing the problem through a whole system. Like it's, it's, it's not a B testing, but it's like a lot of variables at play with each other. And then seeing how everything is interconnected. is always something that really intrigued me and something that I was drawn to. So in a world like that, there is there is never a right or wrong. And I think as a, as a child, I also had to cultivate the ability to see multiple perspectives because I grew up in an environment where my peers had very different family backgrounds and upbringings from the environment I was raised in, I grew up in South Carolina, as a child of Chinese immigrants. And in South Carolina, the church is the center of the social universe, and we did not belong to one because my father is profoundly atheist. So and people had very different worldviews, very different political views. And so at almost as a survival mechanism, I had to cultivate the ability to see other perspectives and think about things through their eyes. And so I think that has also informed my belief that things are not black and white and, and just to have more tolerance for the unknown and the ambiguous and the gray So I think that those qualities definitely helped shape the way that I entered in my profession and kind of endeavored in the work that I took on.

Bill Duane:

Oh, that's amazing, right? So what I'm hearing you say is, if someone were to come in with a more black and white view of right and wrong, then the demarcation point is actually more dramatic, and maybe more, maybe maybe more fraught, but what you're talking about is coming up in an environment where, and I like the term that you use as as a matter of survival to understand. So I'm now here to I'm now hearing two things that are really standing out to me. One is that you're obviously an intensely creative person who was dissuaded from that yet still stood the course, right, you took a math and science background, and then made a beeline for the most direct connection between math and science, and creativity, which is the user experience part of it. And I think a lot of people would not have turned that into, like, turn that into creative power, like like the tension being like driving, like, like being juicy. And then that second part is being in this environment, I can imagine both of those situations shutting someone down. So I'm curious, I've just been hearing like these stories of these two stories of going into a gnarly situation and being invigorated by it and having it feed your creativity, right. I mean, you earlier you talked about empathy. You know, one of the biggest ticket items is empathy is to have empathy for people that are very different from you. And you just listed off a whole bunch of different ones about, you know, religion, culture, geography, probably language, also a portion in there. So that's, that's, that's amazing to me.

Irene Au:

Yeah, I often joke that growing up as a petite Chinese woman in the south fully prepared me as the, for career as a woman in tech, and especially as a designer in tech. Well, yeah, feels that I built up like, like, you know, I grew up in an environment where I had no social status, or power, or authority or control. And as a designer, in these engineering driven companies that I've been with, like, there's no like automatic power or authority bestowed upon me, you know, coming in as a designer, like, you know, it's not it was never like, oh, the engineers have to implement whatever the designer says. I had to summon all of my skills in listening and empathy and being able to see different perspectives and negotiation and also like more subtler arts, like getting people to think that it was their idea. You know, how to bring people along? And make them feel like they're still the ones in power and have control because that would never be given to me. in those contexts. So useful skills. Yeah, for sure.

Bill Duane:

Yeah, absolutely. So it's really notable I'll, I'll share a story that I have from the deep within the bowels of engineering heard. So we joined Google at about the same time in 2005, very different parts of the organization. One of the teams sort of in my organizational area had T shirts that said, we make the thing that makes the thing that makes the thing sort of the opposite of the of the backhoe you know, of the of the of the front end stuff. But even then, I had heard a story about one of the very first designers who arrived there, I think before before we did who was just disgusted. So one of the things that made Google really great was this real data based decision making. Just we didn't know each other back then. But I had a bumper sticker I had a sticker on my laptop that said, Fuck you. I have charts and graphs to back me up. And that was, that was the ethos. And so I had heard a story that the very first designer so first of all, Google had told itself a story. That data was the best way to do design, and you would do a B testing. And you would do all these little micro tests to see who clicked on what, and that the aggregate of all those tiny decisions, because they're all mathematically and calculable would lead to Good design, and that person that just quit and disgust at trying to get people to understand or to hew to this, and then not too long later, you come in as the Global Head of, of user experience, right? And then, and then you're using those tools you met you, you managed made that eventually work, maybe through a different set, I wonder, you know, seems like somebody came in and tried to

Irene Au:

clarify the story, I know exactly who you're talking about. And that was actually after I joined, he was on my team. And this was circa 2007 2008. And what I was trying to do was to create a common look and feel for all of Google, because there wasn't any, and there was like the search fiefdom, and then the the Google Apps fiefdom, and then there was ads. So we had like three different worlds that were all doing their own thing. And it was not scalable or sustainable. And also, like, it was really hard to pass the UI Review Committee, especially in the world of search. And it was unclear to people what the rules were, what was the intention, what were people optimizing for? So I sought to work with the leaders over there to create a common look and feel. But what we found was that what works from a design perspective for search was actually completely opposed to what worked and designed for Google Apps, because they're different interfaces. You know, in Gmail, for example, everything is clickable, everything in the interface is clickable. So whereas in search, we knew from a B testing that if you underline links, like that gets people to the answer that they're looking for a lot faster. But if you if you create this hardline consistent rule, that everything that's clickable needs to be underlined, then that doesn't work for Google Apps, and then the interface breaks there. And so this is what I mean about how there's no black or white, right or wrong answer. So context dependent, but the prevailing thinking at that time was like, Oh, 99% of our traffic into Google was coming in through search, therefore, whatever worked from an interface perspective for search should apply to the rest of Google, like that should dictate the rules, the interface rules for the rest of Google, like, that's what this particular executive argued for. And so we tried to unify just, you know, identify a link color, you know, what should be the shade of blue for the link color, because that in itself was different in Google Apps than it was in search. And so Marissa said, Well, we can calculate all the 40 Shades of Blue, and we can a B, test all of them and see which one performs the better and best and whichever performs the best. That should be the default for all of Google. And, you know, again, like I think this is where having some empathy and perspective is really helpful here, because Google has been highly criticized, I mean, during that period, for the whole 40 shades of blue thing, you know, I mean, like, anytime I spoke at a conference, I get asked about it. But you have to understand that like, and I know, you know, this, Google's interface is very fragile. And this is true for all search interfaces, because I worked at Yahoo. And we saw this in any testing we did at Yahoo as well. Any slight change, whether it's like the letting, which is like the space between the lines, you know, in on the on the page, like how much space you allow between one line versus the other, whether you bullet this search results, or number them or leave them blank, whether you present the search results in a serif, or sans serif font, all of these subtle changes have dramatic impact on user performance and user happiness, and various other success metrics that were used internally. And so you could see like, Marissa was the executive who was responsible for protecting search and safeguarding search and ensuring its success, along with all those metrics. So from her perspective, she was perfectly reasonable and rational. And you know, from the perspective of the designers and the folks working on apps, you know, there was also a very good rationale for not having all the interface rules being dictated by search. So there was an impasse. And actually, I mean, it even escalated to to Eric Schmidt at some point, and everybody ended up voting on the one Google bar, the navigation bar across the top because they were like religious wars against what worked and I was very context dependent again. So you know, I don't need to get into the details around the interpersonal issues that led to this designer leaving but I will just say that like They could not forge a working relationship with each other, that would carve a path forward. And it was really unfortunate, but there was a lot of ego there on both on both sides and and, you know, ultimately what paved the path forward was changes to executive leadership. When Larry became CEO, he was the one, only the CEO could bust through all of these organizational challenges. And so when, when what preceded material was actually Kennedy, when that was created. And that was like a vision for what a unified look and feel could be. And even though it was unified, there were still exceptions made for search. And Gmail, like if there was a way we could rationalize why and how the interface would be different, even across Google, and still be consistent, like different but consistent. He was the one who brought all the VPs in and said, we're going to do this. And he's the only one who could have done it. And even when he did it, all of the like a lot of the piece didn't believe him. Google had such a checkered history with efforts like these. Right. But I wish I could take credit for it. I was just the intermediary that just kind of made sure everything happened the right way. And but yeah, it was this is tough.

Bill Duane:

Oh, so you say you are just the intermediary. But I will draw your attention to your previous comment where you noted that the kind of power that was successful in this environment was that soft power of the building of coalitions of perhaps tricking people into thinking it was their ideas, right. So it sounds like, I mean, again, looking at it from very much the outside and several degrees is what I'm when I'm, when I'm listening to you, I'm like, Oh, this is the this is the power of bending and not breaking. Yeah,

Irene Au:

you know, it was it was amazing, was like, so this was kind of jujitsu, we opened up a Google Doc. And we started cataloging, we started documenting all the rationale in every single UI review committee. With search, anytime anything was approved or rejected, we documented the rationale. And we reverse engineered how the executives thought about. And I translated that into Google UI design principles. And I popped it up a level where I talked about the intention, like this is actually the intention behind the UI review feedback. This is why things got shut down. And so as you design the interface, this is what you should be thinking about. So for example, there was this rule that like no gray text was allowed, or there was this other Oh, when Google News first launched, people were mystified because they would come through UI review committee every week. And like that, the only feedback they would get was a number like the you know, the executive would just say, 1411, nine, nobody knows what's going on. And it turns out like, this was developed during a time when people were mostly on desktop computers, and they weren't used to scrolling. And so your view of what was happening in the world that day came from the first at a glance view of what popped up on Google News on the desktop. And so it's everything was like above the fold. We were very concerned about the fold back then, these days, I don't even know if designers understand what a fold is. What what the executive was doing, she was counting the number of headlines that she could see above the fold. And all the designers could figure out was that the higher the number, the better, but they didn't understand why. And so this is an example where like, I had to translate this into a design principle that was like, Look, Google is all about speed, like we care about creating a fast experience. This is not only about the amount of capital that was laid out for building, you know, you know, web site, you know, like the infrastructure to make Google Search run fast. This is about the interface, the streamlined interface, the reason why we use Sans Serif fonts, because we know from human interface research that people read more quickly on with sans serif text online. Like the whole point is to create a fast experience. And so like if people can get the fastest at a glance view of what's happening in the world, above the fold, like that is the design intention. And that is what constitutes a successful design. And this is why Google's interface like circa 2006 2007, was perceived as looking very cluttered, like there was a lot of stuff, you know, but that's because we knew people didn't scroll and people wanted like as much information as they could at a glance. And so then what happened when Larry does kind of pushed for elevating the look and feel is that we said, the design principles stand the test of time, like the principles themselves have not changed. But our interpretation and execution of those principles have changed. And there was even a TGIF, all company, all hands, that I led with Larry, around this time when he got up on stage. And he said, Don't underestimate the importance of whitespace. Because sometimes it's the whitespace, that gets you to the thing that you're looking for a lot faster. And this was like profound and revolutionary, because before we issued whitespace, like that was considered bad. That was like a poor design element. And all of this is true, if you understand the intention, it's just that the interpretation could evolve, because suddenly, we had smartphones and things like that. And so this is what I mean about holding space for the ambiguous, being able to see different perspectives, being able to, you know, kind of, like, help people understand what's the higher level purpose or intention, rather than getting stuck in the weeds and sticking with rules and the black and white, it's like, you know, there is room in their space for the gray matter for the gray area. And, and, you know, I think that's, that's kind of the, the magic.

Bill Duane:

Wow. So this makes me think of something that we've spoken about previously. And I know what you've spoken about publicly. And maybe I've not thought of it in this way, but it presents so we were just really talking about the benefits of emotional, intellectual cognitive, suppleness, of bending without breaking and how your background really trained you to do that really well. But I'll read to you a quote that you wrote about, because then at the same time, now, you're also talking about the importance of anchoring in something but you're not anchoring in something that's brittle, but you're anchoring essentially in values and virtues. Right. And so I think it's a very interest. But let me let me read to you for the sake of the of the folks listening. I really love this quote from you. Any creative endeavor is an expression of the human spirit. When we create something, we create an outward expression of who we are, and the values and virtues that we have internalized, what we make embodies our values and virtues and becomes a tangible expression of our self self with a with a capital S. So at the same time, it seems like the part of your recipe for success is this combination of being very firm. But also curious mean, I should say, reasonably firm about about your values and virtues while at the same time really explore using that as a well, let me know if this is true as a way then to explore ambiguity, in grayness to look to see what what options might be available that aren't obvious.

Irene Au:

Yeah, and I think as a designer, and for anyone who's making like, it's really important to be clear about your intentions. And so it's one thing to hold values and principles, but like, your your intentions are, how you make choices. I mean, you're choosing, you're choosing along a line of principles and things that you believe in that are important. But it also comes back to like, what is it that you're trying to achieve? So if you don't really, if you're not clear on the intention, then the the outcome or the execution becomes more murky? Because you don't know what criteria trying to satisfy. You don't know who you're designing for, you don't know what success looks like. So like when we, when we, when we encounter well designed products or experiences, we perceive them to be well designed, because the intention comes through in such a crystal clear way. And the reason why it does is because all the decisions and choices along the way, in the making of that thing. We're arbitrated by a clear set of values and principles.

Bill Duane:

And the other thing that jumps out in the beginning, when we when we started chatting, you mentioned that you're designing for the masses, and your career has really been operating at a scale that most people have difficulty cognizing. And some of the examples you gave, really speak to that of the I mean, I remember just even again, from a distance, how fraught those discussions about the Google front page was about adding any tiny thing so we're really dealing with this idea of almost having this, this massive megaphone in front of our amplifier in front of you design decisions. But at the same time, you know, what you're talking about when I've heard you talk about this is this, this tangible expression of our self, which means that there's a relation, that there's an inwardness to identifying those values and virtues. And then I don't know if I'm curious what you think of it, there's some sort of like a translation by which the other sometimes billion others get involved in that in that design process. So what's the maybe the busted into the big, gnarly topic? To what extent like I know that personal development, personal growth, meditation, yoga has been a huge part of of who you are? I mean, it's, it's really, it's when I think of you, that's probably one of the two biggest things, how, how is how was this cultivation of self become a part of that design process of personal development? Or has it been a part of that process?

Irene Au:

I think it happens at so many levels, like, at a, you know, like, when it helped, first of all, it helps cultivate skills, for designers, like, the ability to empathize, like those pathways in the brain are augmentive, through contemplative practices, being able to be creative and flexible in your thinking, being able to generate a lot of different ideas, all of those skills are augmented through contemplative practices, being able to work well with others, like all the EQ skills, being able to negotiate to communicate to see clearly, all of that, and there's a lot of brain research that supports that those skills are improved through meditation, and yoga. So that's at one level, it's just like, the interpersonal skills and the skills to that are essential for becoming a good maker. And then at another level, there's kind of a quality around attention, that is so important for makers because like when we, again, when we encounter something that's well designed, it's designed, well, not only because there's a clear intention, but also the details matter, like design is all about the details. But what does it take for someone to actually understand those details, and to come up with the right solution, at that level of granularity takes incredible attention, and observation, and refinement, and craft, patience, these are all qualities that are cultivated through a contemplative practice. Now, there are many people who don't practice yoga and meditation actively, you know, as, as we understand what it looks like, and they are great designers, actually, but a lot of the designers that I've encountered actually do have some kind of there's some way that they practice a conversation with themselves. And, and slow themselves down. So that they can be better at their craft. And, you know, so it doesn't necessarily have to look like sitting on a cushion for a couple hours a day. But, you know, those skills are definitely cultivated and improved through yoga and meditation, and are essential for making well. The other thing I will say is, like, you know, when we, like design is also like an act of love. Because you're you're loving, you have to love the thing that you're making, in order for it to, in order for the output to be good, you have to care about it. You also have to care about the people who are going to receive this, you know, I mean, you can make something and make it for yourself and just make it for the sake of making something good. But that might be considered, you know, that might be like, art or whatever. But like if you're designing something that other people are meant to consume, you are loving them, because you have to see them, you have to care about them. You have to understand what are their issues and needs and problems. And then you have to care enough to come up with solutions for those. And then for something to be done well, you have to take great care and attention to execute that well. So good design is an act of love. And if you don't love the work or you don't love the recipient, or you don't love yourself, like all that's going to come through in the design like If the user interface or the user experience like design is like a canary in a coal mine, like, all the dysfunction that might exist in the act of making or creating, will manifest itself in the UI. And you see that in an organization, like how many interfaces do we encounter, where you can see, like, the organizational lines of the company drawn out in the interface, or like, you know, interfaces that are, you know, not honest, or are kind of tilted in a one particular direction, that's not necessarily for the benefit of the user, you know, or an interface that has too many features, and can't be simplified, like, all of those are manifestations of some kind of dysfunction, maybe it's like, lack of strategy, poor talent, inability to execute, maybe it comes down to more spiritual issues around greed, or attachment. Fear, you know, so like, when we see poorly designed things, they are manifestations of those, that als in some way, and it's lack of love. That, that, and that's why it's kind of offensive, when we encounter something that's not well designed, it's like, it's like, these people were careless, or they were thoughtless, both are offensive, because they didn't care about me, or about society, or about the environment, or whatever it is, you know, that's offensive, and, and that slows us down makes us sad, it erodes our goodwill towards others. And then conversely, good design, preserves goodwill, it lifts us up and gives us more energy to propagate kindness, love, generosity to other people. And this, to me is the ultimate reason why design is so important. It's not frivolous, it's not about aesthetics. It's really about the energy that we're putting out into the world and receiving.

Bill Duane:

In, in hearing, that, what's jumping out at me is, is when this nature of the way that dysfunction shows up. And to somebody who's not an expert, you know, it shows up almost as if someone is speaking in different tones of voice, or different accents within within the same conversation. And, and, and yet, I'm also thinking, you know, and in particular, the way that design particularly in in organizations is a group endeavor. And one of the big benefits of diversity and inclusion is bringing more points of view to the table. And I've seen that in, in my own experience of that, leading to what's called in the research that cognitive abrasion that leads to, but when there's cognitive abrasion, with wholesome intentions and surrounded in love, then that's actually that's an that's an elevator, right, versus that same amount of disagreement. If it's allowed to not be trans mortified, or if it's not trans mortified by that design process, it will show up as an cohesive or fragmented. So I'd love to know if you have any thoughts about that? Yeah. Because it sounds like I mean, I'm seeing I'm seeing a thread where you wade into situations that could have been destructive. And instead they become generative.

Irene Au:

Yes. And I think that's really important to understand. Because when I say design is an act of love, and about caring for users and things like that, that doesn't mean that you cannot make difficult choices. Sometimes the difficult choices that are made are acts of compassion, or kindness or love. Because again, it comes back to the intention, and then the ability to deliver successfully on that intention. So maybe it helps if I give some examples. I'll see one example might be so I worked at Udacity. We were the first online massive open online courseware MOOC at the time, that's what it's called. It was founded by our former colleague, Sebastian Thrun. And the main competitors for Udacity. Around the time when I was there were Coursera Udemy, you know, mostly Coursera. And the conventional wisdom was that the main success metric for MOOC was like course completion rate. So how many what percentage of users that are taking your class actually finished the class? And we knew from our data that But like people who took the class as a cohort, so for example, those who started on the same date and then move through the courses at the same pace, and they were on the same schedule, when when courses were set up like that there was a higher completion rate. And yet, the Sebastian really felt strongly that he wanted to create a company, an offering that supported people who could learn at their own pace, you know, because everybody learns at a different rate, everybody has different demands on their time, he wanted to offer a service that could support like somebody who wanted to do a mid career switch and was working, you know, a job and then taking these classes at night and had a family and you know, maybe they can't move as quickly through classes, somebody, some, some 20 year old, you know, who, who has more time on their hands, or, you know, supplementing their college education or whatever. And so this led to very huge hot debates within the company, because product decisions, were hinging on this. On this conflict, we wanted to make product decisions that would optimize for course completion rate, because that was a success metric. And yet the founder of the company wanted this other experience. And so actually, the kind, compassionate thing was to say, you know, we're just going to change his definition of success. Forget about the success metric, of course completion rate, we're going to invent other success metrics that are going to be more reflective of what we value. And so you know, that that was that was that was that unlocked everything and allowed us to create a more clear vision for the experience, which translated into a much more successful product. I'll give another example. Just contrasting Yahoo, and Google. So like, at Yahoo, we were trying to appeal to the broadest audience possible. And that meant designing our websites for all the old browsers. This was before we had like chrome auto update. Like if you need to update your browser, you had to like go to the website and download the update and reinstall like who knew how to do that. And but so we were hamstrung, because we were designing for the lowest common denominator. But that made us look, really, we were not able to innovate as a result. Because we were hamstrung. And so then as, as new web technologies, like DHTML, came out. And, you know, Gmail launched and had keyboard shortcuts. And we couldn't do any stuff like that, because we were still designing for like, Netscape 3.0. And there was like this. I mean, I guess you could say, we were trying to be nice to everyone. But in the end, that did not serve the business and ended up serving no one. And in contrast, Google was very clear, even before the world of auto update for web browsers, Larry and Sergey were very clear about who they were designing for, they said, if this person is going to be like, early adopter on the forefront of technology, you know, always has the latest and greatest web browser. And the design team just had a heyday about this, because it's like, oh, we're alienating all these users. If we're doing that, you know, it's such a small sliver. But actually, it was a real act of compassion and kindness to be that crystal clear and to be to make such a hard choice as leaders, for the rest of the company to give that kind of direction. Because then it was crystal clear how we're going to move forward, we are going to be seen as innovators. I mean, Gmail was like, you know, that was like the best email account to have, because like, if you had AOL, like you're really behind the time, if your Gmail Hey, your, your, you know, something, you know, that was the brand that it became. And that's because Larry and Sergey were like, we're not going to worry about designing for everyone, we're going to focus on the early adopters, because our belief is that along the way, everyone else is going to come along. And they are going to eventually learn all this stuff. But, you know, we don't want to ever be hamstrung by this old technology that's going to hamper us from innovation. So, you know, on one hand, you could say, oh, that's so mean. They excluded all these people. But I actually think it was a profound act of clarity and vision, which, in turn, was compassionate and kind, because it allowed us it allowed the company to have a more clear vision for its user experience.

Bill Duane:

So you just gave two examples of a process by He said reminds me of a thing I have been trainer used to say about creating the physics of the situation. And something I think Google did extraordinarily well, was to think ahead of time about the physics of the situation. And you know, in the case of the of the online learning, the change, like the the design process led to attention by which said, Well, we actually need to look at what we're optimizing for. And to make it more complex, but then also more true to life. And then setting in the tension of the design process was resolved by a shifting of the goals, which then led to a result that was actually easier to design for. And then in the second case, it's this idea of how much are you anchored? By the past, if you're anchored towards servicing, especially in fast growing technology, every iteration of the technology, it gets harder and harder to operate, I'm currently working with a client. And the way we describe it is that the gravity of their planet is like two or three times as heavy as Earth, because there's all this weight of all these decisions that came before. So what you were just mentioning, then is in order. So in order to get that value of the light, and good design and usability, there actually needs to be difficult decisions made to create the physics of the situation that will like that, that will make that result more likely. In this case, it's like, Wouldn't it be nice to use any of the web standards that have been designed in the last nine years? Because there's so because there's so much if I'm hearing you, right, so it's interesting that, and this may be speaks to your point about design, not just being surfacey, and aesthetics. But if you're doing it, right, so we were talking about this idea of making room for gray, and seeing design as something bigger, which then, and then launching into these deeply gray spaces, which I think if you put all that together, it creates a very interesting tool for analysis that can say like, well, maybe we need to rethink either a bottom up physics of the situation of which can resolve we which can involve some difficult compassion, maybe another example that I use when I'm training or coaching new managers is it's not compassionate to leave a dysfunctional situation intact. Even if it's the most heartbreaking of those of when someone is struggling in a role, and they're not going, it's in, they're not going to be able to learn their way out of it. It's a fit issue. It's not compassionate to leave them in that even though it's a very uncomfortable situation, it's certainly not compassionate to the people around them. So it's an interesting definition, a very nuanced view of definition, about being clear about your values, and then creating the physics of the situation. So that it's more likely to get you to that wise outcome that was a struggle to get to,

Irene Au:

is such an engineering way of describing it. You know, just to clarify the Google thing, it's not just about like letting go of the past, I think like more, it's really about being able to make a hard decision that alienates a huge population, potentially, you know, it's like, when you when you choose to focus on something, it means you're not focusing on something else. And that's what's emotionally difficult, because we tend to be attached to, you know, widest audience possible, you know, we don't want to alienate anybody, especially, you know, for a young company, or whatever. And so it takes a lot of emotional fortitude, to be able to say, we're going to focus on this. And that means we're not going to do that. So many companies don't know how to say no to things. And that's what kills them. And so let's even like at a product level, when you see, like, a lot of features are where you go into preferences. And there's like, all these preferences, like one of my mentors, one of my early mentors said, Yeah, you know, like, preferences are just like a way of shoving down, like all the indecision, all the things that the team couldn't decide on. They would just shove the things they couldn't agree on into preferences. So like when we when we see feature bloat, like that is a lack of discipline, that's like two, that's that's attachment that you're seeing right there. The failure to simplify is a consequence of greed and attachment. And so those are spiritual, that spiritual work that the team needs to do or the leadership needs to do to be able to make those tough calls. Like I often also refer to like, what happened when Steve Jobs returned to Apple as CEO After he, you know, he was kicked out and then eventually came back. And the first thing he did was he streamlined the whole product line. Like if you can find probably Google these charts that show like what the line of Apple products looked like, before he became CEO, and then he just slashed all these, because it was unsustainable to have so many different products. And, you know, some people say, Oh, he was so mean, he laid off these people, he killed these products that were being developed and things like that, but actually, it was a, it was a moment of extreme vision and clarity that came through and then also emotional fortitude, to be able to say, you know, what, we're not going to do these things. And it's for the benefit of these other efforts. And, and, and to be able to execute more clearly on these intentions.

Bill Duane:

So I'm, I'm thinking about as a leader, you know, we were just talking about, on the positive side, intentions, and values. And then also husbanding a process shepherding a process through by which it will encounter the fear. People making decisions from a place of fear, or impostor syndrome, or defending territory or heartfelt ideas about that would have a negative net effect of slowing down. As a leader, how, how have you been able to or what have you found effective in helping people negotiate those rapids?

Irene Au:

Yeah, I think self awareness is the first step. Because if people don't understand the dynamics at play, you know, then there's no way to resolve it. Like if we can't see like, oh, the reason why we're logged jammed here is because we have like, these political issues, or someone doesn't trust somebody else, or the incentives are wrong, like this person is pushing for this, because their bonus depends on success with that metric. But then it's in direct opposition with this other organization or whatever, like the first step, the leader, I think needs to be aware of the situation and the forces that are driving these behaviors that cause conflict, or things that get in the way of good design. And, and then as a leader, they have to be able to step in and arbitrate. And too often, that doesn't happen, for whatever reason, it does take incredible courage to intervene. Because it may mean, it often means disappointing somebody, or changing something that's really hard. But that's what leadership is, is to be able to come in and say, like, make these hard decisions, change the success metrics, if you have to remove someone that's a roadblock in the organization, or reorganize the team so that everybody's aligned in the same direction. Like those are difficult choices to make and even more difficult to execute. But so much of it hinges on the leader and their ability to be self aware, be socially aware, and to have the leadership skills to kind of sort these things through and resolve them. And I don't want to pin it all on the leader, but it does mean the organization and the product and the outcomes all do reflect the leader. But I think the more that the leader can create the right kind of culture. The hopefully these issues get surfaced more quickly, more readily and get resolved more quickly and readily with the right kind of culture. When that's transparent, where people trust each other. It's not political and it's not about backstabbing and and when that's more collaborative it takes a lot of work to build that trust you know it takes transparency and communication and and a leaders own kind of emotional sensitivity towards others.

Bill Duane:

It you bring up an interesting paradox I don't know did you ever run into Mark lesser he was one of the folks who was one of the early designers and prime movers in the Search Inside Yourself Class

Irene Au:

No

Bill Duane:

well, he has a book that I really like so he wrote a book on paradox coming from a Zen point of view and I always so it's very engineering thing to say I was hated paradox because they don't they don't make any sense. They're not very resolvable. But his book on paradox that really helped explain it for me is called Know Yourself, forget yourself. And so when I'm listening to you, I'm Hearing this deep self knowledge and introspection, in service of then making it about much more than you, I mean, and maybe is that that thread between the deeply personal, you know what you mentioned, as, you know, what we make becomes a tangible expression of ourself, but then to not have that be self centered, that know yourself as it sounds like from a leadership perspective, it's having a deep knowledge of yourself such that then you can then reach into that process, and shepherd it through those, those rapids that other people might be going through.

Irene Au:

Absolutely. When I refer to the self, it's not about ego, or accolades, or, you know, things like that, it's, it's really about the inner realms of who you are as a human being. Yeah.

Bill Duane:

I have a constant sense of gratitude and pleasant surprise that this is the kind of thing that that one can work on. And I mentioned for me, I used to be really bad at this. And, you know, in particular, switching over from a fear and shame engine to a love and service engine is something you can set your mind to. And for me, I'm always a little hesitant in, in my own leadership capacities to recommend specific methods to people because they're, they're deeply personal, although I will obviously readily say that mindfulness meditation, therapy, work on trauma, if that's part of, of one's background, relationship with the physical body and Cymatics. So it seems like your role is really as a as a catalyst, what are ways that you have seen other people find their way more from that orientation of creating and designing from more negative to more wholesome areas, either for yourself or another people that you've observed?

Irene Au:

I mean, I think the if the first step is to be loving and kind to oneself, you know. And this is where I think like engaging in creative efforts, whether it's playing music, or movement, or the visual arts is so important, because that's how our soul manifests. First of all, that's our Spirit coming through. But also, like a teacher says, so many valuable lessons for life. In these, you know, those kinds of endeavors don't have a right or wrong. And to do those things, well, you have to practice and maybe generate a million bad ideas in order to get a good idea, at least 100. And so they're practices that cultivate grit, and resilience, and determination. And just like, the journey, it's all about the journey, it's not about the ultimate thing that you make, it's about the process for getting there. So I mean, I think those endeavors teach you all those valuable lessons. And you can you can learn those lessons through, you know, other means and not doing that work. But creative work. I think it's such a great conduit for teaching people, those valuable lessons. Again, like this notion of the not that you're failing, but you're trying, you know, and that is something to be celebrated instead of something to be chastised for. And if I mean, I don't mean to say it's that easy, because I think we can be very self critical when it comes to the act of doing any kind of increases like, Oh, I'm such a bad artist, I can't draw straight line, like, I will say that, you know, so, it but but, you know, you, you can start to watch yourself, do that, like you, you can observe the conversation that you're having with yourself when you're going through those endeavors. And that's when it's like, oh, this is how I'm talking to myself. Hmm, maybe I should have a different kind of conversation with myself. And through that processing, hopefully, you start to cultivate a kinder, gentler relationship with yourself, which then permeates into how you interact with the rest of the world and maybe set a better example for other people.

Bill Duane:

I can't imagine a better way to stick that landing. Exactly, exactly that that was just that was just beautiful. So, I mean, thank you so much for sharing your wisdom and your journey I, you know, it was a real delight to hear I see this. You know that that character of love and care first as it relates to one's own experience, but then as a method for then broadcasting that out to the world. And if particular if if our form of innovation takes the form of design, and I think it always does, whether it be the formal design versus this idea of making difficult choices, I see this through line from someone who grew up in what sounds like really challenging circumstances, and made friends with that ambiguity. And at the same time really had the values that took you towards this deep place of creativity and growth and the way that you've been able to share that with other people. And now you've shared it with a few more people. So,

Irene Au:

thank you for having me. It's been so fun to talk to

Bill Duane:

you. My great pleasure. Take care. You too.