Description
In this episode of The Curiosity Current, Molly and guest co-host Katie Bernal sit down with Garret Westlake to explore how LEGO SERIOUS PLAY captures the insights traditional research methods miss. Garret shares how his experience as a neurodivergent learner revealed a hard truth: Many research environments reward speed and verbal confidence while pushing other voices to the margins. Traditional market research favors quick responses. That design choice excludes participants who think visually, physically, or simply need time to process before speaking.
LEGO SERIOUS PLAY shifts that dynamic. It gives everyone space to think, build, and express meaning through metaphor before they have to find the words. The conversation reveals how serious play creates psychological safety by removing the pressure to deliver the right answer. Abstract building makes difference visible and expected, which opens the door for participants to share insights they might otherwise hold back.
Garret discusses how vivid metaphors built with LEGO bricks have surfaced hidden friction in customer journeys and reframed problems in ways leadership could finally see and act on. The episode closes with a reflection on innovation, play, and the role of AI: It should support human sense-making, not replace it.
Episode Resources
- Garret Westlake, Ph.D on LinkedIn
- Virginia Commonwealth University Website
- Katie Bernal on LinkedIn
- Molly Strawn-Carreño on LinkedIn
- The Curiosity Current: A Market Research Podcast on Apple Podcasts
- The Curiosity Current: A Market Research Podcast on Spotify
- The Curiosity Current: A Market Research Podcast on YouTube
Transcript
Garret - 00:00:01:
If it was just about the right answers, you wouldn't need people. I think if it was only about the right answer, like, we're obsolete to begin with. And I think what we've really seen through this process is it's not just about the what, it's about the how, it's about the context, it's about the interconnectedness, it's about the diversity of experience, it's about those other perspectives. And so I think that is something that comes alive in this methodology as well, is that you're able to bring those perspectives.
Molly - 00:00:30:
Hello, fellow insight seekers. I'm your host, Molly, and welcome to The Curiosity Current. We're so glad to have you here.
Stephanie - 00:00:38:
And I'm your host, Stephanie. We're here to dive into the fast-moving waters of market research where curiosity isn't just encouraged, it's essential.
Molly - 00:00:47:
Each episode, we'll explore what's shaping the world of consumer behavior from fresh trends and new tech to the stories behind the data.
Stephanie - 00:00:55:
From bold innovations to the human quirks that move markets, we'll explore how curiosity fuels smarter research and sharper insights.
Molly - 00:01:04:
So, whether you're deep into the data or just here for the fun of discovery, grab your life vest and join us as we ride the curiosity current.
Molly - 00:01:15:
Today on The Curiosity Current, we're joined by Garret Westlake, Vice Provost for Innovation and Strategic Design at Virginia Commonwealth University. And we've also got a special guest host with us today, Katie Bernal, our Senior Director of Learning and Enablement here at aytm, who spends a lot of time thinking about how people actually learn, share, and apply insight.
Katie - 00:01:36:
Thanks, Molly. Garrett has spent his career at the intersection of human-centered design, education, and innovation, working with Fortune 500 companies, startups, nonprofits, and government teams to unlock new ways of thinking and problem-solving.
Molly - 00:01:51:
He's also a long-time practitioner and advocate of LEGO Serious Play, using it not only as a warm-up activity, but as a rigorous and inclusive way to surface insight, especially from people who don't always thrive in verbal first research or learning environments.
Katie - 00:02:06:
Today, we'll explore how serious play functions as a legitimate research methodology, why embodied and visual thinking matter more than ever, and what tools like LEGO Serious Play can unlock in a world increasingly dominated by screens, surveys, and AI. That sounds so awesome. So, Garret, welcome to the show.
Garret - 00:02:26:
Oh, thanks so much for having me. I'm excited to be here.
Katie - 00:02:28:
So, before we talk about LEGO Serious Play as a research method, I wanna start with you. You've spoken openly about being neurodivergent and about hating school but loving learning. How did those early experiences shape the way that you think about insight, learning, and whose voices get heard?
Garret - 00:02:46:
So, I think one of my favorite ways to sum this up is thinking about the comic, the X-Men. And I think I love this contrast between, are the X-Men a group of mutants, or are they a group of superheroes? And I think it's all about your perspective. And I think as a neurodiverse learner, I really take this perspective when I think about that original school by Professor X, right? He didn't bring a bunch of people together and teach them the fundamentals of math, and reading, and science. It was all about how do you leverage your unique talents and strengths to contribute to the better common good. And so, I think that really sticks with me when I think about learning, which is how can we spend less time trying to get everyone to assimilate and look the same and know the same things? And how can we create environments that really double down on our unique talents and perspectives and bring those to the surface in a way where people feel safe, where people feel empowered, where they can share, instead of feeling like they need to hide those things about them that are actually their superpower? And so I think the more I've done this work, the more I believe that we're surrounded by superheroes and that they're often made to feel like mutants, and so it's really about creating space for superheroes.
Molly - 00:03:53:
Yeah. And so many people have so many different perspectives on things, and you gotta use everybody's differences as a superpower. And how do you extract what people can bring to the table in a nontraditional way?
Garret - 00:04:06:
Absolutely.
Molly - 00:04:07:
And so going off of that, you mentioned talking about learning outside of traditional structures and what people can bring to the table with that. Was there a moment in your work as you were going through, whether it was in education, innovation, or consulting, where you realized that for either you or the people that you were working with, that conventional learning just was not cutting it? Like, take us through what that turning point was for you.
Garret - 00:04:31:
I think the big ‘aha’ for me was years ago now, but I was at Arizona State University, and I was leading the disability resource center. And I was working with some absolutely phenomenally bright students who were on the autism spectrum. A lot of them happened to be engineering students, they had 4.0's, they were on the dean's list, they were incredibly bright and talented students, and some of them maybe didn't have the social skills that some of their peers did. And while they were successful in school, they were failing to find employment. And when I did a deeper dive into the research, I found that over 50% of individuals with a STEM degree and an autism diagnosis were underemployed or unemployed. And so you're talking about a 50% unemployment rate for folks with a four-year degree in a STEM field, where we hear nothing but that there's a shortage. And that disconnect between the educational environment in which we had created accommodations and scaffolding where people could be successful really wasn't translating to the work environment. That ‘aha’ led me to found a startup company that employed individuals on the autism spectrum and hired current college students on the autism spectrum in tech to give them a first job, to give them a reference so that they could then break into the world of work. And what was so interesting was that companies would say they wanted really bright, talented I mean, to use another example, right, like, who wouldn't want Sheldon Cooper from the Big Brain, or from the Big Bang Theory's brainpower? Like, you'd want Sheldon's brainpower on anything you were working on. How do you create a work environment that allows him to show up to work and get along with his friends and coworkers? So, I think that really was the turning point for me. School had really failed these students because it looked on paper like they were the best and the brightest, and they were off to do great things, and yet we weren't closing that gap for an employment pathway for them.
Katie - 00:06:23:
Interesting. Very interesting. So, for the listeners who may have heard the term serious LEGO play, but they don't really know what it is, can you give us an explanation in your own words? Like, how does it actually work? And how did you figure out that this is something that was serious enough to use in research and innovation work?
Garret - 00:06:42:
I think we're all familiar with LEGO bricks. We've played with them. We've stepped on them. Like, we have exposure in one way or another. This really blew me away. So, I was at a corporate innovation conference, really focused on front-end innovation and heard a great talk from the chief innovation officer of the time at Chick-fil-A. And the chief innovation officer at Chick-fil-A shared that they had used LEGO SERIOUS PLAY to gain insights on how they could improve their employee training for new hires and frontline employees in their franchises. And that just seemed really weird to me. I mean, I was like, I'm curious. I mean, I love the name of this podcast, right? I was really curious about that. I was like, I've gotta learn more. And so dug into it a little bit, and that was my first exposure to LEGO Serious Play, which was really understanding this case study from Chick-fil-A. Um, and that took me down this road of, okay, if an organization like Chick-fil-A can use this methodology to drive insights that improve employee training, there are probably some other really useful cases for this, both in industry and maybe in academia as well.
Katie - 00:07:39:
Absolutely. I mean, as a training person who did team building exercises, we used to use Legos for change management and making sure that people were thinking flexibly, and how could you be adaptable in these different situations, we would have little competitions, you know, turn this into three different things, right, trying to get all these different skills sort of into practice. Because when you're at work, you're strategizing and you're doing all these things, but really getting that hands-on practice with something, we just saw such amazing results. So, I absolutely love that you're applying this in a really specific way to market research and innovation. It's great. So, you've been a lifelong advocate, obviously, for learners who don't fit these traditional molds. So, how does LEGO Serious Play help actually create these more inclusive research environments, especially for neurodivergent participants or people who are struggling with abstract or verbal language?
Garret - 00:08:31:
Yeah. I've thought a lot about this as I've run a number of these facilitations, and I think what really sticks out with me is this idea that there's not a right answer. And even if we might tell someone there's not a correct answer, there's no right answer, we're still asking you to either write something down or to verbally give us a response. And there seems to always be this, like, well, I didn't say the right thing, or I didn't do the right thing. And with the LEGO bricks, the beauty is that there's so much abstractness from the get-go that it's clear that no two builds are gonna look the same, that there wasn't something that you were hoping they would do with the bricks that they didn't do. And I think once participants get comfortable with the idea that everyone's gonna use the bricks to represent something differently, they're all gonna look different, there is clearly no right answer, it takes the pressure off. And so I think it's really this idea that, like, there's no right answer. We're not seeking something. There's nothing that we want to hear as the facilitator. It's really a blank canvas. I think that just lowers the barrier to entry for participants in a big way. And then I think at our core, we all enjoy playing. I think there is something just human about wanting to be in community with others and play and engage, and so the silliness, the flexibility and silliness that comes from some of the building, I think, really helps to unlock some of those insights that live just below the surface.
Molly - 00:09:56:
I feel like sometimes in education, there can be a lot of right answers, but maybe that's one of the discrepancies when translating those skills to the workforce, is a lot of times, there isn't a right answer in the workforce, right? Things are very nebulous, and there's a lot more of, I'd say, more traditional social skills that are required in the workforce, going back to what you're saying about that translation process.
Garret - 00:10:17:
That's what is so interesting, right, is that, and I think AI is forcing us to think more about this. But, like, if it was just about the right answers, you wouldn't need people. I think if it was only about the right answer, like, we're kind of obsolete to begin with. And I think what we've really seen through this process is it's not just about the what, it's about the how, it's about the context, it's about the interconnectedness, it's about the diversity of experience, it's about those other perspectives, and so I think that is something that comes alive in this methodology as well is that you're able to bring those perspectives. It's not just like, this is the answer, the answer is 5, or this is the answer, it's March 15, right? I mean, it's not something like that that we're looking for.
Molly - 00:11:02:
That idea of format really matters, the format in which people discuss innovation. And so switching gears a little bit to look at applications in our industry and market research, a lot of market research relies on people being articulate, confident, and quick with words and just kind of a first instinct. And this can lead to many audiences being underrepresented in the final dataset for when products come to market. So, how does serious play change who gets heard in that context? And what does that do for the quality of insights that surface?
Garret - 00:11:39:
I think what it fundamentally does really well is create space, and it creates space in a way that isn't awkward for participants. So, what's interesting is, you know, as an educator in school, you're taught that you have to wait at least 6 seconds after you ask a question and give students the opportunity to respond. 6 seconds is a really long time when you're quiet for that long, and it's uncomfortable for the person asking the question. It gets really uncomfortable for the class. And so, I think about that from an industry perspective of collecting insights. People feel put on the spot, and they get nervous, like they have to respond immediately. And the methodology in LEGO Serious Play is that you're always gonna give this prompt, and then there's always, you know, 5 to 7 minutes for you to do the build. And some of that is actually just kind of a cover for you to get your own thoughts in line, but you're fidgeting with the bricks, and you're looking busy. And so there's no pressure that if we just sat there and we're like, we're gonna ask you a question, you're gonna respond 5 minutes from now, and I'm just gonna stare at you, and you're gonna think about your response. Like, that is, like, so terrifying even for an extrovert. And so I think the idea that I'm saying, “Hey, here's the prompt. I'm gonna play some relaxing music. You’ve got 5 to 7 minutes to think about that and how you wanna respond.” There are some people that really use the brick, almost not at all. Like, they just think and love the talking, and they'll put two bricks in front of them, and then they'll tell you a great story with their insight. Then, there are other participants, and I don't say that in a negative connotation, but like to hide behind their build. And we'll put their build first and foremost, and it's a defense mechanism that protects them and their opinions from judgment and allows them to be more expressive. And so I think it creates space because everyone in the context, everyone does a build, everyone has that 5 to 7 minutes to process. And as a result, I think you're benefiting from people really absorbing what you're asking of them and putting some thought into it, when sometimes I think we're too quick to get a response from a participant.
Molly - 00:13:34:
And I would love to deep dive on maybe a moment that occurred with that type of practice. Can you share a time where you did the serious play exercise for corporation, government entity, maybe even a university team, students that completely reframed how the stakeholders were even understanding the problem that they were trying to solve.
Garret - 00:13:59:
There is one that really stood out to me. And I think one of the ways that I deviate from the very traditional or the very serious approach of LEGO Serious Play is that under the strict methodology, you never do a negative build. So, you would only frame things in the positive. I have found some really great opportunities to collect insights when you are exploring pain points or friction. And I think this example was one where there was a team in a health care setting, and members of the team were all expressing that they thought they had a breakdown in a process. And they had expressed it to senior leadership, and senior leadership was kind of, sure, okay, maybe we could be better in this area, but, like, work harder was essentially the summary.
Molly - 00:14:42:
Wow. That's unhelpful.
Garret - 00:14:45:
We've all been there, right, where it's like, yeah, like, sure. Maybe that's the thing, but, like, we have other leadership designated areas that we need to work on, right? We have other verticals that we're focused on. This isn't one of them. But the team themselves kind of felt like, until we get this right, I think we're not gonna be able to hit those other objectives. So my goal was to really get in and listen for what was creating that friction that was holding this particular team back. And what was so interesting was when we did the build about where there was friction in the system, one person said, “This is the journey of the user in this particular context, and the user gets to this point, and they enter the jungle of doom. And in the jungle of doom, there's no escape, and they're completely lost, and we lose them.” And you're like, wow, that's so vivid. And the person next to them was like, “Oh, here's mine. This is where our user does all these same other things as the other person, but they enter the pit of despair. And they're like, in the pit of despair, they experience all of these things.” And then someone else had a really vivid graphic, this is the, like, step into the abyss. I mean, it was all of these really vivid depictions that all address the exact same moment in time for a user. And they were all saying, everything's kind of going okay until this one piece, where it just totally goes off the rails for our users. And then everything we do after that is just trying to get them back to some semblance of where we had the user before this intervention. And it was so interesting just capturing those visualizations and reflecting those back to leadership. Instead of saying, hey, we have a challenge, or there's this part in our journey map that we think we're concerned about, it was, here's the pit of despair, here's the jungle of doom, and they were like, what is happening at this point in the journey map? Right? Like, and everybody dug in. And it turned out that, in this case, it was a tech solution that we needed to purchase to close the gap that we hadn't wanted to spend the money, but we all kinda were like, oh, if we just bought this piece of tech, it would actually solve this for users and give them the information they need. But that was one for me where it was really the power of the storytelling that was able to break through. And the way that different users told that story in their own way, and they built these really colorful, vibrant and if I was just thinking, if I'd asked them where is their friction in this journey map or for these users, they would have said, “It's when we asked them to fill out this form or when we try and follow-up with them, and it just doesn't go well.” That doesn't sound particularly compelling, like, no wonder leadership wasn't anxious to do something about it. And so I think it's the ‘we're storytellers, we respond to stories’, I think that's one of the powers of the insights that are collected through the methodology.
Molly - 00:17:27:
You would never go into a meeting, right, and just be like, well, what's the customer journey like? Well, it steps into the abyss. There's a setting, right, where you just wouldn't say that in a corporate meeting.
Katie - 00:17:39:
People would want to say that. They might want to, but they would be afraid. They would hold back. People don't wanna say that in a room full of leaders, right? But if you go through this exercise with people and sort of bring that out, I feel like it's more powerful for sure.
Garret - 00:17:54:
And maybe we'll get to it later. But I think the other thing that I've seen in these facilitations is that you get those two or three-layered deep responses through this methodology as well. So, when you ask someone a prompt, they'll give you a response. And if you say, is there anything else you wanna share with me? They always say no. Right? Like, anything else you wanna share? No. They're shut down. In the build, what was so great is, like, someone will build this. They'll be telling you the story, and they're, like, this is where they enter the jungle of doom, right? And you're, like, and then they finish, and you say, tell me about this little green brick here. I'm curious about this one. You didn't talk about it. And they were, like, “Oh, that's an alligator that's gonna, like, chop your leg off.” But that's really, like, our existing CRM because it's this hidden thing that we, like, don't have access to or something. And then you'll say, “Oh, tell me about that yellow brick in the corner.” And they're like, “Oh, that's actually this other thing.” And so they will actually build many more ideas than they will share. But because you, as the facilitator, can see those represented as bricks, you have the ability to follow up and ask about something that they very intentionally put on a build. And you'll say, like, what does this flag represent? And they'll say, “Oh, actually, this has been, like, the best experience I've ever had in working in this environment. And so I'm still happy that I'm just waving this magic.” Like, you get things that they would have said, “I have nothing else to say.” And now you're getting the ability to ask really detailed questions and follow up.
Molly - 00:19:22:
That's super fascinating, and I'm gonna steal that and say, “So, Molly, how's your experience with your CRM? It's an alligator that's gonna chop my legs off. Thank you.”
Katie - 00:19:31:
But I feel like that's so true in any learning or training calls that I've ever done. It's like, “Alright, anyone have any questions? Anyone have anything else you wanna contribute?” And everyone just stares at you. And it's like people have to have something else to say. We've been in here for a few hours. Like, where is it? You know? But people don't wanna raise their hands. They don't wanna contribute. They don't think it's important, whatever it is. So, having this other way of pulling things out of people and saying, well, show me the thing that you put there. That's an amazing way to get more information for sure. So, tell me about how you brought this serious play into what you're doing. You know, when someone challenges you and says, is this gonna hold up? Is this really something that's gonna be profound in what we're doing? You know, it's Legos. It's for kids. It's not that serious, you know, maybe for some creative thing, but is this really gonna work? I mean, what do you say to them?
Garret - 00:20:21:
So, I can tell a lot by an organization based on their response to LEGO Serious Play. There have been some organizations that have reached out that want insights. They wanna be innovative. And I say, great. There's this methodology I'm looking forward to doing with you. It's LEGO Serious Play. And they're like, oh, no, no, no. We don't wanna do that. Like, we're out for that. But we want real results. We want innovation. We want these things, but no LEGO Serious Play, right? That tells me a lot. I think I see it in this issue, sort of paradigm of we have become overly reliant on optimization, and I think in our desire to optimize everything, optimization through AI tools, optimization through CRMs, optimization through interview questions or narrowing who our personas are, like, we're so focused on optimization that we failed to be innovative. And I think when I work with organizations, there really has got to be this balanced approach between you've got to do something new and innovative, and then you need to get better at it. Like, yes, you need to optimize your process and your systems, but they only work for you for so long before you need to sort of veer off to the side and do something new. And what I see a lot of organizations struggle with is they're trying to optimize their way to success at the expense of innovation. And so I think LEGO Serious Play is a great sort of check on that, where you're not gonna bring in LEGO Serious Play, it's not a great tool for optimization. It's not gonna lean sick stigma your way to success, but it is gonna show you it's gonna give you a great reflection on how people are thinking, what they're feeling, what they see as opportunities, what they see as threats. It gives them the freedom to be in that creative space about the future and to sort of envision the future in a way that optimization tools don't. When we're seeking purely optimization, we're not really caring about people's future state that they really wanna live in. We're like, how do we eke out a little bit more efficiency from what we're already doing with you? Are you willing to pay $2 more for the subscription, and how much less can we give you for that $2 max to maximize our efficiency? Instead of, hey, if we gave you that magic wand, what would you do with it, and what would that mean to you? And I think that's where the methodology really shines, it creates that space again for true insights that are grounded in a future state that is innovative, that is creative, not one that's just trying to eke out a little bit of efficiency.
Molly - 00:22:45:
I think that I would say even that corporate lane is sometimes so in itself that it's not conducive to innovation to begin with. Innovation is messy, creative, playful, colorful, which can sometimes not fit in with the corporate lane and the corporate mold. That's what's gonna be our slight margin on this, or what's gonna be the way that we can change this just a little bit to squeeze out more from.
Garret - 00:23:12:
It's like a great athlete, though. I think when we see organizations that are really successful at doing this, we just almost ignore it because we're like, oh, yeah, they're just a good company. That's just what a great athlete does. They make it look easy. Like, anybody can jump 10 feet in the air and dunk, right, like, it's overused, but I think it's overused for a reason, which is, like, Netflix sort of very seamlessly goes through periods of optimization and innovation. They were, like, oh, we mail you DVDs. They got better at mailing us DVDs, and then they did streaming. Like, the difference between mailing you a DVD and streaming something to your phone is actually a massive diversion that is really creative and innovative, and yet no one treated it as such; that was like, oh, yeah. I mean, it's just Netflix. They're like providing better customer service, right? Like, no big deal. And then when they launched their own original studio, again, like, this idea that Netflix would develop their own content, we treat it just like, oh, that's normal, when actually that was another big innovation that they had to optimize. And I think when we see companies do it well, we don't give them the credit that's due for how hard it is once you're in that corporate lane doing what you're good at. And I think we saw that with Gemini, right? I thought that was so interesting for Google. They were running search, they weren't using AI explicitly in your search results. And then ChatGPT came out, and Google was suddenly forced to say, “Oh, maybe we'll use AI in search.” And clearly, they had had that for a long time and just, like, didn't turn it on. And it took the pressure of ChatGPT to get them to turn that on, but they were hesitant to break from that initial corporate lane of, like, we're really good at this thing. Let's just keep doing it. And I think that's the tension that a lot of organizations find themselves in.
Molly - 00:24:57:
My little cousin didn't believe me when I said that Netflix used to mail you a physical DVD. It was really funny around Thanksgiving. She was like, “Oh, you know what? Molly was around when the Internet was mailed to you.” And I'm like, “Get out of here.” This is, it happened so fast. Now I'm old. So, you talked a little bit about AI at the beginning, and especially about how companies are having to innovate, including LEGO. So, LEGO recently announced their smart bricks at CES, adding some sensors and sound, and responsive tech to traditional blocks. And some people see this as a natural evolution of this product, but others worry that it's crowding out imagination and that it's adding a little bit too much to what it's supposed to be. So, from your perspective, what's that line between technology that supports human sense making, but technology that also then starts to limit creativity or take over the work for us?
Garret - 00:25:56:
It sounds cliché, but I think it's really about playfulness. I think it's about how do you stay in that creative play mindset with whatever the tool is? And I think that's what I think about, whether it's the new bricks, which are, like, super cool. Like, right, I'm excited. Like, obviously, like, my kids and I both saw them. We're, like, that sounds so cool. Is it about just doing what someone else has done with them? I mean, maybe that's kinda neat, or is it about coming up with your own original use for that? I think about that in movies in the context of special effects. I've been enjoying showing my 12-year-old some of the really cool action movies of my youth that had incredible special effects, right? And you're like, look at this. And you watch them again, and he's like, dad, do you know about Sora? Like, he's like on, get on a phone and, like, do something in seconds that looks like what Lucasfilm's, you know, millions and billions of dollars doing. So, I don't think it's actually about the tech. I think it's about how it's implemented. Again, to go back to the optimization thing, if we're deploying it in pursuit of optimization, like this tool will just make us more efficient, right? Like, if we sell bricks with lights in them, we will sell 5% more this year. That's not the way to think about it. If it's about, will this allow for new exploration, new creativity, things we haven't seen before? Will this allow for playfulness? I think that when I work with companies that do front-end innovation well, they have this real commitment to playfulness and learning at that stage. And the companies that do sort of front-end innovation in name only kinda already have, like, the business line mapped out. They're ready to go to market. They're just checking the box on, like, we did this early stage and learned something, but they know they're gonna go to market. And then I've worked with organizations. One that comes to mind, and I can't tell you what it was, but I was so impressed with Gatorade and working with Gatorade and seeing the commitment to learning and playfulness, and how much time and energy they spent playing and sharing things with users and seeing how people responded to it and that that informed their products. And I think that shows up eventually in the marketplace with products and brands that we love. But I think whether it's AI or whether it's cool new LEGO bricks, I think it's about the implementation or the use of that, not as a tool explicitly to do, well, it allows me now to do one plus one, but what does this free me up to do in a new and creative way?
Molly - 00:28:24:
It's definitely figuring out how the tools are going to work for you and how you're going to use those things. I mean, I think about Sora, and I mean, there was a moment in time where, you know, and there's another one that can also create music for you that I was looking at the very beginning of time. And it's just ridiculously cool, but it pushes your imagination, to your point, like, now that I can create anything and I can see anything, how am I gonna use that to my creative ability?
Garret - 00:28:53:
One of my favorite compilate mashups lately has been using LEGO SERIOUS PLAYBUILDS in conjunction with AI tools to do storyboards. And I think being able to take some of that imagery and some of those words that participants use around the jungle of doom or the pit of despair and taking their quotes and using that to generate storyboards, the graphics that you can create in those storyboards or the short video that Sora can make that tells that story, that really brings things alive for people. And it doesn't take very long, right? The tool allows for some efficiency, right? The tool allows me not to have to build a team of creatives and designers to get together and do storyboards. I can take participant quotes, drop it into a tool, and show you this. This is the experience that people are having on their journey with us. Does that look like how you want to engage? Right? And then when you do the flip, and you're like, what would happen if we solved this? And then you showed the ideal state, and it's like, give me that one. So, I love that some of the tools allow us to do, like I did this with Sora the other day, where we literally took a quote directly from a Lego Serious Play facilitation and turned it into a Sora short. And same thing, that just, like, made it click in a way that no executive one-pager or five bullet points or a PowerPoint slide was ever gonna do. The Sora clip was like, and maybe that's just how we're conditioned today to respond to things. Right? If it's like, if it doesn't look like TikTok, no one's paying attention. But, like, the ability to put it into a medium that everyone instantly related to and understood was part of what made it come to life.
Molly - 00:30:35:
Here's your user journey as it exists. It's just Dante's Inferno. Wow.
Garret - 00:30:42:
Wow. It also gives us a way to share back with other perspective users those perspectives. And I think that's what's so fun, too, is I can take all these user insight conversations, make them into Sora Shorts, and then share that to another group of users and say, which of these Shorts did you most relate to? And I'm really just showing them journey maps that were generated by other users, and it's a way to upvote. And now we're upvoting by liking a video. That is probably the most natural upvote for someone to do today, it's like thumbs up the little short video that you liked. Okay. And I can do all of that in minutes, just based on spending two hours with users, taking key quotes away, a couple of minutes making Sora Shorts, and then showing that to another group of users. And I think that has just been such a fun way to put these tools together. I would encourage everyone with all of these techniques and tools to think about how serious you're being with it. If you're using AI as this, like, very serious tool to get work done, to sort data, to do that, sure. But I challenge everyone to think about how can we use these new tools to be creative, to have fun with it? I'll give you another example. I recently, you know, you get tired of hearing everyone read your bio every time you go to give a talk or do something. They brew everything you've done before. And I flipped it and asked one of the AI tools to create my arch nemesis based on my bio. And it created, like, a supervillain that was designed to, like, irritate everything and, like, disagreed with everything that I believe in the world, right? And so it was, like, it even created a fun little sidekick that was, you know, the meeting that could have been an email and, like, all these, like, little characters. But it was just a fun way to, like, how do you take your existing written CV or bio, upload it into an AI, and ask it to create a supervillain that would be your arch nemesis? Or what is your, like, superhero persona? And I think it just gives you that different perspective. We're used to looking at it through the lens of, like, this is what I'm good at. This is what I do. And when you flip the perspective to, like, who would arch nemesis be of this character in the story, it gives us that different perspective, which is why superhero movies have arch nemesis and villains. It shows us a different side or a weakness of a character. And I think using the AI to have fun to run those experiments, you know, everyone was doing it for a while when they were all creating their own little action figures, right? And I think that was close because everyone was making their action figure, but that was more based on, like, what we already knew. I love challenging it with, like, what you didn't know or what was unexpected. And I think that's a really great use of AI, trying to elicit those unexpected outcomes.
Molly - 00:33:27:
I just created a big, like, bio for myself in my career, and I had a whole war room chat going on. I'm gonna go back and ask it to make my nemesis. I don't know. I feel like I might not like her, but I feel like she would also be, like, pretty badass.
Garret - 00:33:45:
You won't like her at all, and it'll make you wanna double your own efforts. Right? You'll feel so motivated to, like, do what you're good at to make sure that this arch nemesis doesn't succeed.
Molly - 00:33:54:
Yeah. Okay. Well, man, maybe, yeah, she sounds like a pain. Garret, this has been such a wonderful and enlightening conversation, and it's taking even a lot of my own assumptions and flipping them on its head. So, thank you so much for playing with us and having some fun here today on the show. I wanna pivot now to what we call our ongoing reoccurring segment, Current 101. And we ask all of our guests the same question. So, what is one assumption about research or one practice in research that you think the industry should stop doing completely? And what's something that maybe we should start doing that we need a lot more of right now?
Garret - 00:34:32:
So, at the risk of sounding too controversial, I think that I've really become very anti-trend. I don't like this idea of trends. I think the assumption with trends is that things are linear. And I think what I have really learned through some of this true insights work is that things are not always linear, and that it's really hard for research to capture things that are not linear. So, when you're looking at trends, and we want to say, like, it's going in this direction, right? Like, the graph either went up a little bit or it went down a little bit, or it's moving fast, or it's moving slow. The assumption is that it's still operating on that plane. And I think what I don't like about trends research and our reliance on it is that it already forces our users into this box where we are making assumptions that the trend still exists at all. Not to go, like, to matrix, like, there is no spoon, but, like…
Molly - 00:35:24:
Very meta.
Garret - 00:35:25:
I think, your earlier example, I think, was very right off. You and I still remember Blockbuster. So, like, our perspective is that we're on this continuum that includes Blockbuster. And, like, my kids have no context for Blockbuster whatsoever. And, frankly, the way they think about search is only audio, right? Like, the idea of typing into a search instead of saying, “Hey, Google”, right? Like, they engage with search in this purely auditory way, and the idea of typing something in search to them makes no sense. So, I think trends research limits us because it puts us on an existing continuum that's based on our own assumptions of what was there before or what our users were doing before. And so, you know, my big thing that I think we should do away with is trends. I think that it puts unnecessary boundaries around users and limits the insights that we're able to gather from users, instead of being really open-ended. I assume nothing is real, right? Like, back to the Matrix. Like, there is no spoon, the whole thing is an illusion. Clearly, this is one of the movies I watched with my kid. But, like, you know, what happens in the freedom that is created from not assuming that you're just another point on a trend line when we just have a conversation around your experience or your impression of something?
Molly - 00:36:45:
I know you're gonna say what we should start doing, but I have a side question on that. What about this thinking that trends are cyclical and we're always seeing this thing that's, like, bell bottoms are back? Like, because they went away, and then now 20 years later, 30 years later, they're back. Somebody wore it on the Met Gala runway, and now it's back.
Garret - 00:37:05:
I think that's really dangerous. Right? I think that's us cheating, right? That's us, like, trying to take shortcuts and not wanting to do the actual work. And it's really easy just to be like, it's back. We've seen it before. We don't need to actually do the diligence. Because I've seen this before, I know what this is, but I don't think you do. And I think this is why so many brands and companies are struggling. Like, I'll tell you this is how I know that I don't think it's working. One of the exercises I do is I ask participants to think about a product or service that they love. And I cannot tell you the blank stares that I get from users when I say, “What is a product or service that you love?” And everyone looks at me like, product or service that I love? And they really have to work at it. And you're like, for the amount of money and time and effort that we spend trying to generate products and services for people, that we are that bad at shows me that I think even our best efforts are just adjacent to the needs of our users, and we're not actually solving their needs. And I think if we were actually meeting people's needs and really producing wow, when you asked people what they love, they would, like, rattle it off, “Be like, I love this, I love this, I love this, oh my gosh, I love this”, and instead of, like, “Oh, I like my headphones?” That's what I hear a lot of, right? And so I think I would argue that when we say this has come back again or this is cyclical, that we are taking shortcuts in part assuming that people liked it the first time, and that, like, they liked it once before, and that the fact that they're doing it again means that they’ll like it again. And I think a lot of users are out there, like, oh my gosh, could they actually get us something that works? Like, I guess, we're doing this again, right? I mean, I think that is, like…
Katie - 00:38:50:
I think people probably have an easier time, like, telling you things they don't like about products than telling you products that they do like. Everybody likes to complain or, like, tell you. And it's like, well, that speaks volumes also. So, it's a really interesting point.
Molly - 00:39:04:
And just to close that out, what was something that you would want to see the industry start doing more?
Garret - 00:39:10:
So, I think this real, deep, open-ended listening, I think we enter into too many of these conversations with assumptions, with trying to prove a hypothesis rather than being really open to something that the user shares with us that we were unprepared for. And I think that takes space, and that takes trust, and that takes time. And so many of our processes and demands don't allow for that, right? I mean, I understand that this is, like, an idyllic sense where, like, you're gonna go and play Legos with all of your participants. Sure. That sounds great. Where are we gonna do that? How are we gonna do that? But I do think that those little increments of time between filling out this survey or answering this questionnaire versus, like, let's spend five minutes building your response to this question out of LEGO bricks. Having done this side by side, I will tell you the depth and insight that you get from the building, and spending 5 minutes with someone is so much deeper than the survey data or the questionnaire that you give them. It's night and day. And I think if you played that out over the product life cycle of, like, that time spent upfront really letting the user tell you what that third brick was, and that that's, like, probably the thing they really wanted to tell you but were too afraid. And they're telling you that they liked bell bottoms and that that it's a 7 out of 10 on bell bottoms, and versus asking, and they're like, you know, actually, in the 70s, like, the denim was this weird mix that I actually really liked the denim texture back then, and that's why I wore that brand. And you're like, interesting. And you do the research and find out that we, like, changed denim, right, in the 80s or something, right, like, I think there's something to doing that additional deep dive that will get us where we need to go.
Molly - 00:41:03:
I love that.
Katie - 00:41:04:
Balbottoms are back, guys. We're here. So, hope you like them.
Molly - 00:41:08:
I just said this on another show with a different guest. I will die on the hill of skinny jeans. I'm a millennial through and through. I'll be buried in my skinny jeans, guys.
Katie - 00:41:20:
Well, thank you so much. This has been absolutely incredible. So, last question I have for you. So, for the researcher that's listening who's really curious about LEGO Serious Play to try to have more creative and inclusive approaches, what's your advice for them on how to bring this in and get people to take it seriously?
Garret - 00:41:40:
I think, you know, we'll keep it on brand here. Be curious. I think be curious about it. Lean into that curiosity. Play with it yourself. Experiment with it, be iterative with it. Don't expect to just jump in and have it work perfectly the first time, like, you're gonna have to play, and you're gonna have to do it over and over again with different groups of people. And I think, just for anyone who's in that research space, I hope they have a curiosity mindset. But I would say that, like, embrace your own curiosity and let that lead you to be more playful and more creative. And I think your users will feel it. If you are yourself curious and you are yourself playful, I think that will bring it out in your participants.
Molly - 00:42:21:
Here at aytm, our North Star is always we empower curiosity, and the limits of what you want to discover is all that's limiting you. And especially now, with ongoing tech and everything, all those additional developments help us continue to figure out where humanity is going. Well, thank you again so much, Garret, for joining us. It has been a really refreshing conversation. I know that our listeners are going to take a lot from this and maybe go home and watch The Matrix.
Garret - 00:42:52:
My pleasure. I really enjoyed joining you all today. Thanks so much for having me.
Molly - 00:42:55:
Thank you.
Katie - 00:42:56:
Thanks, guys. Bye-bye.
Stephanie - 00:43:01:
The Curiosity Current is brought to you by aytm. To find out how aytm helps brands connect with consumers and bring insights to life, visit aytm.com. And to make sure you never miss an episode, subscribe to The Curiosity Current on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks for joining us, and we'll see you next time.
.jpeg)
