Each and every week the Square Holes team are deep in the bowels of a number of projects, working to mine all of the insights that we can to help grow businesses and support thriving cities.

These insights are used by businesses and organisations to innovate their offerings, move into new markets, track their impact and hone their products and output. Each week we will be sharing a broad insight that we have learnt for you to use in your own work.

Let us know what you find valuable!

Mahalia: Plastic (not so) fantastic

Australia has a plastic problem. I kind of knew about it and then I wrote this week’s article, and the stats were sobering to say the least. It surprised me that it has become something of a political handball. No one wants to own the issue. But what is clear is that we can’t keep moving ahead as if nothing is wrong. Industry and government data confirm that while they set a goal to recycle or compost 70% of plastic packaging by 2025, the actual rate is sitting at about 20%. Our research has shown that people largely want to do the right thing when it comes to recycling, but they just need clarity and simple steps to make it happen.

Dylan: Common language personas

Customer personas are ultimately about understanding customers better, but one of the most interesting outcomes is what happens inside an organisation. Even when teams are working towards the same goal, they often carry different assumptions about who their customers are, what motivates them, and what matters most. Over time, this can lead to different parts of the business talking about the same customer but meaning very different things. Well-researched customer personas help create a common language, grounding conversations in evidence rather than opinion and making it easier for teams to align around the people they’re ultimately trying to serve.

Jason: Rules, Values and a Drive to Waikerie

I started writing this in Waikerie, South Australia, at the end of last week.

My faithful Subaru is acting up, so I hired a car for the two-and-a-half-hour drive north and back to run a focus group. It is nice to have the chance to go face-to-face, even when it might be easier to jump online.

The hire car did an excellent job of reminding me about speed limit changes and politely nudging me whenever I drifted over the limit. Last year, I received my first speeding ticket in a long time. Then another. One for travelling 5km/h over in a short transition zone leaving the CBD, the other for travelling at 95km/h as the freeway reduced from 100km/h to 90km/h.

My first speeding fines in more than 30 years of driving, both in the same year, and 6 demerit points down. Ouch!

I understand why the rules exist. They are designed to improve safety and reduce road fatalities.

Today I also discovered that despite carrying much of my life on a smartphone, I still needed a physical driver’s licence to hire a vehicle.

The human behind the counter was super robotic when I said I didn’t have one. Thankfully, my wife was able to drive one to me – so old school.

Perhaps there are valid reasons. Insurance requirements, fraud prevention, risk management or legacy systems. Yet it raised a familiar question.

Who are the rules really for? The lowest common denominator is the admin guys in HQ, thousands of kilometres away.

Seven years ago I wrote about rules versus values. I argued that we need both. Rules provide structure. Values provide direction. I still believe that.

Some rules genuinely protect the collective. Others reduce organisational risk, simplify administration or protect institutions from liability. Most are probably a mix of all three. The challenge is that rules often outlive the problems they were designed to solve.

The real question is not whether rules are good or bad. It is whether they continue to serve the values they were created to protect.

Too few rules create chaos. Too many create bureaucracy.

As I drove home from Waikerie, I found myself reflecting that perhaps the measure of a good rule is simple: Does the benefit it creates outweigh the friction it imposes? If not, it may be time for the rule to evolve.

It is a fine line. Too far towards rules is a robot-like dictatorship. Where is the fun in that?  Too far towards values also doesn’t work. The robots win again.

Please do not let the robots win.

Square Holes is a cultural insight studio.

We design mixed method explorations of people and culture beyond the category,  uncovering the patterns, tensions and shifts shaping behaviour to inform strategy, inspire innovation and enable confident decisions. Our studio model brings together the right mix of thinkers, researchers and specialists for each exploration. If you’re navigating change, entering a new market, or seeking deeper understanding of people and culture, let’s start a conversation >