Insights (blog)

(And it's not because they don't care) Wize Snaps started with a simple frustration. Not-for-profits were doing important work—and sending well-written/well-intentioned donor emails—yet hearing nothing back from the very people they most needed to engage. So we started analysing donor communications. Hundreds of emails. Across appeals, updates, funding requests, partnerships and board outreach. What we found wasn't about copy quality, grammar, or even clarity. It was about de

There is a quiet reason communication problems sit underneath almost every organisational failure, even when no one names them as such. It’s because communication is not a capability that supports the business. It is the system through which the business actually functions. Strategy only exists once it is explained well enough for people to act on it. Culture is shaped less by values statements than by what is said, avoided, rewarded, and misunderstood. Decisions are not made

When Risk Sensitivity Becomes Risk Blindness - A cognitive diversity case study I was reading the Sydney Morning Herald coverage this week about the governance issues that led to the cancellation of the Adelaide Writers’ Festival. SMH's reporting on Adelaide Writers Festival and its Board The reporting focused, understandably, on process, accountability, and reputational fallout. But as I read it, I found myself asking a different question: What did the decision environment

Boards rarely perform below their best, or even fail, due to lack of experience. In fact, many of the most visible corporate failures of the past few decades were overseen by boards filled with highly credentialed leaders — former CEOs, senior public servants, regulators, financiers, lawyers, and industry experts. Governance structures were in place. Committees existed. Risk registers were maintained. Assurance processes were followed. Boards rarely function at a sub-optimal

Most leadership teams don’t avoid diversity of thinking because they dislike it. They avoid it because they assume it will slow everything down. More perspectives → more discussion → longer meetings → less productivity. It’s a believable story. It’s also often wrong. In a short clip, Dr Juliet Bourke  addresses the productivity objection with a simple experiment: two groups, the same time limit, very different outcomes.  Her point is blunt: the real productivity drain isn’t “

Most bad decisions aren’t stupidity. They’re blind spots. The meeting ends. Everyone feels aligned. The decision looks “obvious.”Then reality shows up and humiliates the plan. Blind spots are why smart teams don’t see what’s coming — not because they don’t care, but because the process wasn’t designed to catch what the room couldn’t see. This piece breaks down the biggest blind spots (including Juliet Bourke’s three), how cognitive drift  quietly manufactures them over time,