DEDx - Ideas worth binning

Output not hours - 4 day work week

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 [https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-charlotte-rae-phd/], 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 & Insights * Where 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 mood * Reduced burnout * Increased work engagement * ~8% productivity improvement on average * Trust 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 framing Practical Takeaways * Start 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 Mentioned * Sussex Four-Day Week Project [http://sussex4dayweek.co.uk/] * Autonomy Think Tank study on AI & future work patterns [https://autonomy.work/] * Book by Andrew Barnes: “The 4 Day Week” [https://a.co/d/fU0XbNE] Verdict Keep 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 team@samsas.one with the subject line Dedx Idea. We would love to hear them! John: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jadm/ [https://www.linkedin.com/in/jadm/] Anna: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anna-wesson-54989929/ [https://www.linkedin.com/in/anna-wesson-54989929/] Music credit: by Yevhen Onoychenko from Pixabay Disclaimer: 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.

Failure: Not Just for Tech Bros

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 Discussed * The different types of failure—avoidable errors vs. intelligent experiments * Why failure is still a taboo in many professional environments * The critical role of leadership in how failure is handled * How hierarchy affects openness to learning from mistakes * Practical ways teams can reflect, learn, and improve (without lengthy post-mortems) * Examples from aviation, tech, creative industries, and real client work Takeaways * Not 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 Reading * Right Kind of Wrong by Amy Edmondson * Creativity, Inc. by Ed Catmull Final Thought Failure 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 team@samsas.one with the subject line Dedx Idea. We would love to hear them! John: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jadm/ [https://www.linkedin.com/in/jadm/] Anna: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anna-wesson-54989929/ [https://www.linkedin.com/in/anna-wesson-54989929/] Music credit: by Yevhen Onoychenko from Pixabay Disclaimer: 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.

Is Imposter Syndrome a Myth?

This week on Ded X, Anna and John tackle Impostor Syndrome with coach Catherine Andrews [https://www.linkedin.com/in/catherine-andrews-91a34611/] The 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 team@samsas.one with the subject line Dedx Idea. We would love to hear them! John: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jadm/ [https://www.linkedin.com/in/jadm/] Anna: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anna-wesson-54989929/ [https://www.linkedin.com/in/anna-wesson-54989929/] Music credit: by Yevhen Onoychenko from Pixabay Disclaimer: 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.

Family culture at work - good idea?

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 companiies Takeaways: • “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 team@samsas.one with the subject line Dedx Idea. We would love to hear them! John: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jadm/ [https://www.linkedin.com/in/jadm/] Anna: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anna-wesson-54989929/ [https://www.linkedin.com/in/anna-wesson-54989929/] Music credit: by Yevhen Onoychenko from Pixabay Disclaimer: 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.

The end of team building?

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 Debate 00:12 Meet Andy Perkins: A Veteran in L&D 01:29 Defining Team Building 03:16 Team Building Activities and Their Impact 05:13 The Financial Aspect of Team Building 06:25 Psychometrics in Team Building 07:30 Challenges and Criticisms of Team Building 15:42 Who Benefits from Team Building? 19:17 Team Development: A Data-Driven Approach 25:56 Conclusion: To DEDx or Not to DEDx Team Building Andy is the Head of Strategic Partnerships at Meta Team  www.metateam.co.uk [http://www.metateam.co.uk] Andy is on LinkedIn at:  https://www.linkedin.com/in/andy-perkins-19374316/ [https://www.linkedin.com/in/andy-perkins-19374316/] If you have any Dedx suggestions email us at team@samsas.one with the subject line Dedx Idea. We would love to hear them! John: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jadm/ [https://www.linkedin.com/in/jadm/] Anna: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anna-wesson-54989929/ [https://www.linkedin.com/in/anna-wesson-54989929/] Music credit: by Yevhen Onoychenko from Pixabay Disclaimer: 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.