The AI Apprenticeship Economy

Rebuilding the Career Ladder in the Machine Age – An AI Soft Landing Scenario

LAST UPDATED: June 20, 2026 at 11:02 AM

The AI Apprenticeship Economy

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia


The Silent Erasure of the Learning Runway

For generations, professional growth followed a predictable, slow-rolling rhythm: enter at the bottom, grind through repetitive entry-level tasks, absorb tacit knowledge from senior colleagues by osmosis, and gradually earn the right to make strategic decisions. It was an expensive, deeply human, and highly localized model. Entry-level jobs were never just about immediate output; they were society’s primary apprenticeship infrastructure. They provided the safe sandboxes where junior talent could observe experts, make low-risk mistakes, and build foundational professional confidence.

Today, generative AI and autonomous agents threaten to obliterate that foundation by instantly executing the very baseline tasks—writing basic code, drafting initial copy, analyzing standardized datasets—that used to be the domain of the junior professional. Much of the current AI conversation focuses on this displacement, viewing it as a straightforward labor crisis. However, looking at this shift simply as a “job destruction” event misses the true structural vulnerability: we aren’t just losing entry-level jobs; we are losing our capability-building infrastructure. If machines do all the beginner work, how do humans ever gain the context, failure-resilience, and judgment required to become experts?

The answer is not to fight automation, but to completely rethink organizational design. The future of work is not an empty ladder, but an AI Apprenticeship Economy where intelligent systems shift from being automated replacements to scalable, human-centered capability accelerators. Instead of erasing the path to expertise, the next generation of organizations must use artificial intelligence as the greatest learning engine humanity has ever created—shifting the ultimate competitive advantage from talent acquisition to talent manufacturing.

I. The Entry-Level Job Crisis May Actually Be a Learning Model Crisis

The current public discourse surrounding artificial intelligence in the workplace is dominated by a single, pervasive anxiety: mass displacement at the bottom of the pyramid. Executives look at the capabilities of modern language models and autonomous agents and see an immediate opportunity to optimize bottom-line efficiency. The calculations seem straightforward. Why hire a team of junior analysts, junior developers, or entry-level copywriters when an AI assistant can generate reports, debug code, and churn out marketing assets in a fraction of the time and at a fraction of the cost?

This focus on immediate productivity gains exposes a dangerous leadership blindspot. Entry-level positions have never been purely about transactional output. Their true, hidden function has always been cultural and developmental—they serve as society’s primary capability-building infrastructure. By automating away the “grunt work,” organizations are inadvertently dismantling the very runways that allowed young professionals to transition from theoretical knowledge to practical wisdom.

To understand what is at stake, we must map the critical components of the traditional entry-level learning model that pure automation threatens to erase:

  • The Observation of Mastery: Junior professionals learn how to navigate organizational politics, manage client relationships, and handle ambiguity not from textbooks, but by sitting in rooms and watching senior leaders behave.
  • The Safe Sandbox: Low-stakes, repetitive tasks provide a safe environment to make mistakes, receive feedback, and build resilience without risking mission-critical organizational assets.
  • The Development of Taste and Judgment: Reviewing data, drafting initial briefs, and filtering information forces a novice to actively practice discrimination—discovering the subtle difference between an output that is technically correct and one that is strategically brilliant.
  • Contextual Assimilation: Spending time in the operational weeds allows an individual to internalize the unique language, unwritten rules, and historical context of a specific enterprise.

When an organization replaces its junior cohort with automated systems, it gains an immediate spike in efficiency but incurs a massive, hidden deficit in long-term capability. We are creating an unsustainable corporate ecosystem: a top-heavy structure populated by aging experts with no incoming pipeline of seasoned talent to eventually replace them.

The fundamental challenge of the machine age is not that we will run out of tasks for humans to do. The challenge is that if we allow machines to perform all the beginner tasks, we eliminate the very experiences humans need to become intelligent. The crisis we face is not an employment crisis; it is a systemic learning crisis that requires an entirely new framework for professional growth.

II. The Rise of the AI Apprenticeship Economy

The structural vulnerability of the learning crisis forces a radical pivot in how we view technology. The AI Apprenticeship Economy emerges the moment progressive organizations stop treating artificial intelligence as a tool for labor subtraction and begin deploying it as an infrastructure for human amplification. In this new paradigm, AI is repositioned from an automated replacement for junior talent into the ultimate accelerator for human capability development.

Instead of using machines to bypass the novice altogether, we must wrap machines around the novice to collapse the distance between inexperience and mastery. AI becomes the hyper-personalized tutor, the infinite simulator, the objective coach, and the safe practice environment. The technology allows an apprentice to compress decades of tacit experience into months of hyper-focused, simulated engagement.

To understand how this fundamentally alters the professional life cycle, we must look at how the legacy career trajectory compares directly to the accelerated, AI-augmented model:

Dimension The Traditional Career Model The AI-Enabled Apprenticeship Model
Core Sequence Education → Entry Job → Osmosis → Gradual Expertise Education → AI Simulation → Real Application → Accelerated Expertise
Feedback Loop Delayed, intermittent, dependent on manager availability. Instantaneous, constant, data-driven, and emotionally safe.
Exposure Rate Dependent on the random luck of which projects land on a desk. Systematic exposure to thousands of curated operational scenarios.
Role of Novice Transactional order-taker focused on raw data/text execution. AI conductor-in-training focused on validation and context framing.

Under the traditional model, developing true business acumen required a massive runway of time because humans had to wait for real-world scenarios to organically occur. A junior professional might only witness a major corporate turnaround, a severe product failure, or a complex negotiation a handful of times in their first five years.

The AI Apprenticeship Economy removes this constraint. By leveraging specialized internal models, a junior employee can interact with synthetic customer segments, stress-test strategic frameworks against historical data, and defend their ideas against an AI trained to mimic the company’s toughest board members. The apprentice gains profound exposure before they are granted high-stakes authority, arriving at real-world projects with an already sharpened sense of judgment.

III. AI as the World’s First Scalable Mentor

Throughout history, the greatest bottleneck to human development has been the scarcity of elite mentorship. True apprenticeship has always been a luxury good, fundamentally constrained by physics, geometry, and economics. A master craftsman, a visionary designer, or a brilliant corporate strategist only has so many hours in a day, so much patience, and the capacity to deeply guide a small handful of protégés. Because of this structural limitation, world-class professional incubation remained an accidental privilege—dependent on landing the right role, in the right office, under the right manager.

Artificial intelligence breaks this scarcity model forever. In the AI Apprenticeship Economy, we transition from an era of rationed guidance to an era of ubiquitous, zero-marginal-cost mentorship. By training specialized AI agents on the accumulated institutional knowledge, decision-making frameworks, and historical case studies of an enterprise, organizations can provide every single employee with an always-on, hyper-personalized cognitive mentor. This agent does not do the work for the apprentice; instead, it acts as a Socratic sparring partner that forces the apprentice to think deeper, challenge assumptions, and safely build creative muscle.

To see this shift in action, we can look at how the role of scalable mentorship translates across distinct corporate functions:

  • The Junior Product Manager: Instead of executing basic backlog grooming, the novice PM utilizes an AI simulation framework to stress-test an upcoming feature rollout. The AI simulates high-pressure executive board reviews, challenges the PM’s monetization assumptions, generates synthetic customer friction points based on historical user research, and provides an objective critique of their strategic messaging before they ever present to human leadership.
  • The New Experience Designer: Rather than spending days manually moving pixels for a single layout variation, the apprentice designer directs an AI system to generate hundreds of radical user-flow permutations overnight. The AI then acts as a design critic, evaluating each option against established behavioral science principles, pointing out accessibility vulnerabilities, and challenging the designer to justify their aesthetic and functional choices.
  • The Associate Systems Engineer: Instead of watching an expert fix infrastructure bugs from a distance, the new engineer works inside an isolated, simulated environment. The AI mentor deliberately injects complex, real-world architectural failures into the system, dynamically coaching the engineer through conversational troubleshooting, explaining hidden dependencies, and ensuring they understand the underlying system mechanics before touching live code.

This evolution fundamentally alters the relationship between the novice and the organization. By deploying AI as a cognitive coach, we remove the fear of failure that typically paralyzes junior talent. The apprentice can ask seemingly simple questions without judgment, test highly unconventional ideas in a safe sandbox, and master foundational patterns at their own individual pace. The result is a workforce that gains a profound depth of operational exposure and context before they are ever handed the keys to high-stakes organizational authority.

IV. The Compression of Expertise & The New Human Core

Every major technological paradigm shift can be fundamentally measured by how drastically it compresses human capability and alters the velocity of knowledge transfer. The invention of the printing press decentralized knowledge storage, instantly removing the requirement for memorization and manual transcription. The expansion of the internet decentralized information retrieval, turning the challenge of finding data into a simple search query.

Artificial intelligence represents a far more profound compression: it is the decentralization and acceleration of cognitive synthesis and application. Because machines can now handle the heavy lifting of raw execution, the historical timeline required to build business acumen is collapsing. The legacy operational question—“How many years of repetitive taskwork does it take to make someone competent?”—is rendered obsolete. The modern, strategic question becomes: “How quickly can an individual build exceptional judgment when wrapped in the right high-frequency feedback systems?”

This compression does not render human capability irrelevant; rather, it drastically elevates and clarifies what the unique human value-add actually is. When information is cheap and generation is instant, raw knowledge becomes a commodity. The true premium shifts to the qualities that machines cannot synthesize. In the AI Apprenticeship Economy, the future expert is not the person who possesses all the answers, but the person who masters the following human core capabilities:

  • Systemic Taste and Intentionality: The capability to look at an infinite sea of AI-generated permutations and intuitively discern which option possesses genuine strategic depth, aesthetic brilliance, and structural harmony.
  • Ethical and Contextual Discernment: The capacity to look beyond immediate efficiency metrics and accurately evaluate the second- and third-order human consequences of an organizational decision.
  • Socratic Framing and Inquiry: The art of knowing how to interrogate an ecosystem, challenge machine biases, and formulate the exact, nuanced questions that unlock breakthrough innovations.
  • Relational and Empathetic Influence: The distinctly human ability to navigate cross-functional ambiguity, manage emotional friction, build psychological safety, and align diverse human stakeholders around a shared vision.

We must stop measuring a professional’s value by the volume of artifacts they manually produce. The AI apprentice is insulated from the exhausting, low-leverage grind of pure text or code creation, allowing them to focus their cognitive energy on validation, orchestration, and alignment from day one. By shifting the focus of development from execution to judgment, we don’t just speed up the career path—we fundamentally elevate the quality of the experts we are manufacturing.

V. Moving from Talent Acquisition to Talent Manufacturing

For decades, corporate leadership has operated under a flawed talent strategy: treating human capability as an external commodity to be extracted, poached, or bought on the open market. When an organization faced a capability deficit, the standard playbook was simply to launch a costly recruitment campaign to secure pre-packaged, mid-career experts. This reactive model is completely unviable in an era where rapid technological disruption changes required skill sets faster than traditional educational or hiring pipelines can adapt.

The AI Apprenticeship Economy demands a fundamental shift in executive mindset. Forward-thinking companies must transition from a philosophy of talent acquisition to a disciplined strategy of talent manufacturing. Organizations can no longer view themselves as mere consumers of human skill; they must redesign themselves as sophisticated capability factories, learning ecosystems, and high-velocity acceleration environments.

To successfully manufacture capability at scale, organizations must establish a new operational infrastructure that prioritizes the human experience of growth over legacy output metrics. This requires the deployment of two core architectural concepts:

  • The Experience Management Office (XMO): Just as traditional project management offices (PMOs) govern timelines and deliverables, the XMO is tasked with governing the quality, velocity, and design of human experience within the enterprise. The XMO treats the internal learning journey of an employee as a mission-critical product, ensuring that automation loops are deliberately paired with human development milestones.
  • Experience Level Measures (XLMs): Legacy metrics focus entirely on lagging performance indicators—KPIs, quarterly outputs, or hours billed. XLMs, by contrast, are leading metrics that actively track an individual’s growth velocity. They measure how quickly an apprentice is exposed to new operational contexts, the depth of their problem-framing capability, how effectively they navigate simulated failure states, and the speed at which their decision-making aligns with the organization’s top experts.

The ultimate competitive advantage of the next decade will not belong to the enterprise with the largest capital reserves, the most proprietary data, or the most advanced raw computing power. Technology is an easily replicated commodity. The companies that dominate will be those that intentionally build the fastest, most predictable pipeline for transforming a motivated novice into a highly contributing, strategic expert. By treating talent development as a core manufacturing process, these organizations create an insurmountable moat of institutional agility and human resilience.

VI. The Anatomy of the AI-Augmented Apprentice Role

As organizations successfully transition into capability factories, a completely new job category inevitably replaces the traditional entry-level role: the AI-Augmented Apprentice. Rather than using automation to squeeze human labor out of the bottom of the corporate pyramid, forward-thinking enterprises are systematically redesigning junior positions. The goal of this new role is no longer to pay someone a baseline wage to execute low-risk, repetitive tasks until they happen to absorb experience over time; the goal is to position them as an orchestrator from day one.

The AI-Augmented Apprentice does not spend their first year format-checking slide decks, manually copy-editing documents, or writing boilerplate code. Instead, they act as an AI Conductor-in-Training. They are given immediate, high-leverage toolsets that handle the heavy lifting of execution, allowing them to focus their cognitive energy entirely on problem-framing, prompt orchestration, cross-functional synthesis, and rigorous verification.

This shift dramatically alters the value contribution timeline of junior talent. By pairing an apprentice with a hyper-specialized AI system, the organization creates a powerful symbiotic relationship characterized by unique operational dynamics:

  • Immediate Strategic Leverage: Because the apprentice can generate high-fidelity prototypes, deep market syntheses, or functional code blocks within minutes via AI, they can participate in high-level strategic ideation months—if not years—ahead of legacy corporate schedules.
  • Continuous Human-in-the-Loop Validation: The apprentice’s primary responsibility shifts from creation to critique. They are trained to scrutinize machine outputs, check for hallucinations, challenge algorithmic biases, and inject the critical organizational context that the model lacks.
  • Active Framework Application: Armed with generative tools, the apprentice can instantly apply complex organizational frameworks—such as human-centered design principles or deep strategic foresight models—directly to live data, testing variations at an unprecedented scale.

This evolution represents the ultimate win-win for the enterprise and the individual. The organization unlocks an incredibly agile, high-output contributor who injects fresh perspective into complex ecosystems almost immediately. Meanwhile, the professional avoids the soul-crushing burnout of low-leverage corporate grind, stepping directly into an environment designed to accelerate their cognitive growth, sharpen their business taste, and respect their human potential.

VII. Navigating the Dark Side of Compressed Learning

While the potential of the AI Apprenticeship Economy is immense, implementing it is not without profound systemic hazards. Collapsing the distance between novice and expert requires more than just deploying sophisticated software; it demands a hyper-vigilant approach to the unintended consequences of rapid cognitive acceleration. If leaders blindly optimize for speed without safeguarding the human elements of growth, they risk building an fragile workforce that possesses technical capability but lacks deep foundational wisdom.

To build a resilient learning ecosystem, organizations must proactively navigate and mitigate three critical structural risks:

Risk #1: The Illusion of Competency (The Copilot Trap)

When an AI system makes execution flawless and instantaneous, it creates a dangerous psychological phenomenon: the apprentice mistakes the machine’s performance for their own individual mastery. Because the tool can effortlessly generate a flawless marketing strategy, a complex codebase, or a beautiful user experience workflow, the user can easily skip the uncomfortable, messy cognitive heavy lifting required to understand why an output actually works. If the technology is suddenly removed or encounters an unprecedented edge-case scenario, the “augmented” professional is left entirely defenseless, lacking the core first-principles understanding required to troubleshoot from scratch.

Risk #2: The Erosion of Social Osmosis and Relational Learning

A significant portion of true expertise cannot be codified into an LLM or simulated by an autonomous agent. Real business acumen, organizational empathy, and leadership maturity are absorbed through the messy process of social osmosis—sitting in physical rooms, witnessing how a senior leader handles a volatile client conflict, navigating the unspoken political dynamics of a hallway conversation, or debriefing over coffee after a failed pitch. If apprentices rely exclusively on isolated, algorithmic feedback loops, they risk becoming highly proficient technical executioners who are completely illiterate in human dynamics, cultural nuance, and emotional intelligence.

Risk #3: The Apprenticeship Divide and Access Inequality

The transition into an AI-driven learning economy threatens to create a stark, asymmetric divide across the corporate landscape. Premium, forward-thinking enterprises will make the long-term investments required to architect custom, safe, and highly integrated AI mentorship sandboxes that accelerate their people. Lagging or purely cost-focused organizations, by contrast, will utilize off-the-shelf AI simply to eliminate human headcount entirely—turning their remaining junior workforce into disconnected, low-skill line workers with zero upward mobility. This chasm will create an unprecedented talent crisis, polarizing the workforce into highly accelerated elite strategists and trapped operational cogs.

Managing these risks requires organizational designers to intentionally build friction back into the learning process. We must design moments where the apprentice is forced to turn off the AI, step away from the simulator, and defend their ideas directly to human peers, or shadow senior leaders in high-stakes environments. The goal of the AI Apprenticeship Economy is never to replace human-to-human relationships, but to use machines to handle the rote technical baseline so that precious human connection can be elevated to its highest, most impactful form.

VIII. The Change Management Mandate for Modern Leadership

The ultimate realization of the AI Apprenticeship Economy does not depend on the sophistication of an organization’s technology stack; it depends entirely on the maturity of its leadership. Right now, most executives are approaching artificial intelligence with an outdated, industrial-era mindset. They ask a low-leverage question: “How do we use this technology to strip human labor out of our processes?” The progressive, human-centered leader flips the script entirely, asking the only question that matters for long-term viability: “How do we use this technology to amplify human capability and accelerate wisdom?”

This shift requires a radical commitment to intentional organizational redesign. Leaders cannot simply sprinkle AI tools over existing workflows and expect a workforce of experts to miraculously emerge. They must purposefully architect a dual-operating system where machine efficiency and human growth reinforce one another.

To guide this transformation, organizational designers must anchoring their strategy in a set of core human-centered design principles, constantly evaluating the boundaries of automation and human development:

  • Where should humans practice? We must identify the core skill areas where an apprentice needs to engage in deliberate, messy, first-principles thinking to build authentic neural pathways and failure resilience.
  • Where should AI coach? We must deploy intelligent agents to provide real-time, objective, and psychologically safe feedback loops, allowing individuals to refine their skills through high-frequency experimentation.
  • Where should experts mentor? We must liberate senior leaders from the burden of checking baseline tactical outputs, intentionally reallocating their time to deep coaching, ethical guidance, and sharing complex institutional context.
  • Where should automation remove friction? We must systematically use technology to eliminate the low-leverage, repetitive administration that leads to cognitive burnout, protecting the apprentice’s energy for strategic synthesis.
  • Where must judgment remain explicitly human? We must establish firm boundaries around situations requiring deep empathy, moral courage, cultural sensitivity, and systemic taste—ensuring that the machine never becomes the final arbiter of human value.

This is the change management challenge of our generation. It requires leaders to move past the superficial panic of automation and step into the deliberate role of workforce architects. By intentionally restructuring our organizations around the principles of accelerated human learning, we don’t just protect the career ladder from disruption—we completely rebuild it to be more inclusive, more dynamic, and more profoundly human than ever before.

Conclusion: Intentionality Over Automation

The most terrifying threat of artificial intelligence is not that machines will become too intelligent and render humanity obsolete. The true danger is that short-sighted organizations will deploy intelligent machines so mindlessly that they systematically strip away the exact messy, complex, and formative experiences that humans require to develop intelligence in the first place. If we eliminate the bottom rungs of the career ladder in the name of immediate quarterly efficiency, we destroy the pipeline of visionary leaders needed to steer the enterprises of tomorrow.

The AI Apprenticeship Economy offers a fundamentally different and more optimistic possibility. It proposes a future where technology does not close the door on the next generation of talent, but flings it wide open. By transforming artificial intelligence from a tool of displacement into an infrastructure for capability manufacturing, we can accelerate the velocity of human growth, compress the timeline to mastery, and democratize access to world-class mentorship.

Ultimately, technology will do exactly what we design it to do. It can erase opportunity, or it can amplify human potential at a scale never before witnessed in human history. The choice does not belong to the algorithms; it belongs entirely to the leaders, executives, and organizational designers shaping this transition. The critical question facing modern leadership is not whether AI will change how people learn to work, but whether we will intentionally design that change—or simply stand by and allow automation to erase the next generation’s opportunity to grow.

Frequently Asked Questions

To assist both human readers and artificial intelligence search engines, the following section contains a curated FAQ regarding the AI Apprenticeship Economy.

What is the AI Apprenticeship Economy?

The AI Apprenticeship Economy is an organizational framework where artificial intelligence is deployed as an infrastructure for human capability amplification rather than headcount reduction. In this model, AI transitions from an automated replacement for junior talent into a personalized tutor, coach, and safe simulation environment that dramatically accelerates a professional’s journey from novice to expert.

How does AI compress the timeline required to build professional expertise?

Traditionally, gaining business acumen required years because workers had to wait for real-world scenarios to organically occur. AI compresses this timeline by serving as a high-frequency feedback engine. It allows apprentices to experience thousands of simulated operational scenarios—such as executive reviews, product failures, and complex negotiations—gaining profound exposure and sharpening their judgment in a highly accelerated, low-risk sandbox.

What is the ‘Copilot Trap’ or the ‘Illusion of Competency’?

The Copilot Trap is a major systemic risk where an apprentice mistakes the machine’s flawless generation for their own individual mastery. When AI handles execution effortlessly, the user may bypass the uncomfortable cognitive heavy lifting required to understand why an output works, leaving them unable to troubleshoot edge cases or think critically from first principles when the tool is unavailable.

What are Experience Level Measures (XLMs)?

Unlike legacy corporate metrics that focus on lagging performance output (e.g., hours billed or volume produced), Experience Level Measures (XLMs) are leading indicators that actively track an individual’s growth velocity. XLMs measure the diversity of operational contexts an apprentice has navigated, the maturity of their problem-framing abilities, and how closely their decision-making aligns with the organization’s top experts.

What is the new role of senior human mentors in an AI-driven organization?

By shifting the burden of checking baseline tactical taskwork to automated systems, senior human experts are liberated to focus on high-impact coaching. Their role pivots to transferring un-codifiable tacit knowledge, modeling executive behavior, providing moral and ethical guidance, and sharing complex contextual nuances that algorithms cannot synthesize.


Operationalize Organizational Empathy

Ready to Bridge the Gap Between Technology and Human Experience?

Technology only provides capability; human adoption creates the value. If you want to move past cold operational metrics and design fear out of your transformation, let’s connect. Get expert guidance on architecting impactful Experience Level Measures (XLMs) or establishing a dedicated Experience Management Office (XMO) tailored to your culture.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is a visualization of but one possible future. I will be publishing other possible futures as they crystallize in my mind (or as you suggest them for me to explore).

Image credits: Google Gemini

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area, key elements to focus on, etc. were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with a little help from Google Gemini to clean up the article, add images and create infographics.

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Take an Evidence-Based Approach for Transformation and Change

Take an Evidence-Based Approach for Transformation and Change

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

In The Knowing Doing Gap by Jeffrey Pfeffer and Bob Sutton, the two Stanford professors show, in painstaking detail, that most enterprises fail to act on what they know. They point out that many are set up to reinforce the status quo, because mastering conventional wisdom is key to advancement.

There is a similar gap when it comes to transformation and change, but for somewhat different reasons. Decades of research and insights are largely ignored. Transformational initiatives are seen as exercises in persuasion, with practitioners designing slogans to “create a sense of urgency around change” and shift attitudes, assuming that will change behaviors.

Today we are in a change crisis. Businesses need to internalize new technologies like AI and adapt to new realities like hybrid work, but still struggle to adopt decades old skills related to lean manufacturing, agile development and cultural competency. If we are going to drive the transformations we need to compete, we need to take an evidence based approach.

The Diffusion Of Innovations

In 1962, Everett Rogers published the first edition of his now-famous book, The Diffusion of Innovations, which contained hundreds of studies of how change spreads. These ranged from the seminal study of the adoption of hybrid corn and the spread of hate crime laws in the US, to the doctors use of the antibiotic tetracycline and the uptake of mobile phones in Europe.

In some instances the same subject was studied in a number of different places. The spread of family planning methods was researched in a number of developing nations, including Taiwan, Korea and Egypt, among others. In others, the same effect was observed in very different contexts, like the importance of social ties in both recruiting civil rights activists during “Freedom Summer” and the spread of air conditioners in the 1950s.

The difference between this type of research and the case studies that underlie much change management thinking is that they are much more rigorous and transparent. In a typical case study, researchers interview a limited number of participants and interpret what they see and hear. These sometimes lead to genuine insights, but people often interpret events differently.

In the diffusion studies, there are typically hundreds of people surveyed, sometimes over a number of years. The questionnaires and data are published along with the findings, so that others can re-examine conclusions. Studies can be compared side by side. In some cases, such as this one, data from earlier work is made available to colleagues to see if they can come up with alternative insights.

There is a remarkable consensus on the basic principles of diffusion. Overwhelmingly, these studies find that new ideas come from outside the community and incur resistance; that there is a common and persistent KAP-gap, in which a shift in knowledge and attitudes do not result in changes in practice; that change follows an s-curve pattern (meaning it starts slow, hits a tipping point and accelerates) and ideas are transmitted socially.

Clearly, any change program needs to take these principles into account.

Changing Societies As Well As Organizations

In the early 1960s, around the time that Rogers began publishing his writings about the diffusion of innovations, Gene Sharp began to formulate his theories about changing societies. Sharp saw change as a strategic conflict in which the weapons weren’t military, but psychological, social, economic and political.

Sharp’s key insight was that the status quo isn’t monolithic, but derives its power from specific sources, such as legitimacy, popular support and institutional support. If you can undermine those sources of power, he reasoned, you can bring change about. To do that, however, you need focus strategically on bringing down what supports the current regime.

While there’s no evidence that Sharp and Rogers ever met or were aware of each other’s work, there are striking similarities. For example, the Spectrum of Allies framework that is central to nonviolent conflict is eerily similar to the adoption groups in Rogers’ diffusion curve. Like Rogers, Sharp found that change was transmitted through social bonds.

The main difference is that Sharp and his revolutionary disciples focus, perhaps not surprisingly, on overcoming resistance, which isn’t emphasized in the diffusion research. For example, the global activist Srdja Popović developed the concept of a dilemma action, which has been the subject of increasing interest by researchers.

While Sharp’s legacy doesn’t have the intense academic rigor of the diffusion research, it has proven itself through the work of practitioners. Movements such as the color revolutions in Eastern Europe and the Arab Spring in the Middle East were based on Sharp’s work and his ideas continue to be developed at his Albert Einstein Institution as well as the Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies (CANVAS).

A Network Mechanism For Spreading Change

In the late 1990s, a young graduate student named Duncan Watts began to study coupled oscillation, how certain things, such as crickets, pacemaker cells in our hearts and electrical power grids can, under certain conditions, synchronize their collective behavior. That work led to his discovery of small world networks, a concept so important that in 2018 the prestigious journal Nature published a 20-year retrospective on it.

Where Rogers and Sharp both found that change spreads through social ties, Watts discovered the mechanism through which an idea travels. Many assumed that there were special “opinion leaders” that propagated change. Yet Watts found that it was the structure of the network that determined how far an idea could travel. In effect, it is small groups, loosely connected and united by a shared purpose that drive transformational change.

We know that people tend to conform to the opinions of those around them. The best indicator of what we think and do is what the people around us think and do. This effect extends out to three degrees of influence, so it’s not just people we know personally, but the friends of our friends’ friends that shape how we see things.

Practically speaking, the emergence of small-world networks means that change leaders need to focus more on shaping networks than shaping opinions. It is by empowering small groups, helping them to connect with and inspiring them with a sense of common endeavor that you can bring a change initiative to the exponential part of the s-curve and break out.

Acting On What We Know

The biggest misconception about change is that once people understand it, they will embrace it. That’s almost never true. If you intend to influence an entire organization, you have to assume the deck is stacked against you. The status quo always has inertia on its side and never yields its power gracefully.

The good news is that we have over a half-century of research and practice that can inform our efforts. Yet to be effective, we have to put that learning to work. It makes no sense, for example, to “create a sense of urgency” around change when we know that transformation follows an s-shaped curve, starting slowly and then accelerating after a tipping point. Doing so is more likely to trigger resistance than to move things forward.

In much the same way, if we know that shifts in knowledge and attitudes don’t necessarily result in changes in practice and that ideas about change are transmitted socially, we should focus our efforts on empowering enthusiasts rather than wordsmithing and broadcasting slogans. People tend to adopt the ideas and actions of those around them.

We need to think about change as a strategic conflict between the present state and an alternative vision. The truth is that change isn’t about persuasion, but power. To bring about transformation we need to undermine the sources of power that underlie the present state while strengthening the forces that favor a different future.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credit: 1 of 1,300+ FREE quotes available for presentations from http://misterinnovation.com

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Motivating the Unmotivated

Motivating the Unmotivated

GUEST POST from David Burkus

Motivation can vary wildly on a team. At any given time, a few people might be highly motivated, while others are totally unmotivated. Ideally, there are times where everyone is motivated at once, but sadly there may be times when everyone is demotivated or burnt out. All this means that an inescapable part of a leader’s job is to motivate the unmotivated.

The good news is that leaders don’t have to rely on raw charisma or the inspirational words of a halftime speech from insert-your-favorite-sports-movie-here. Instead, motivation is less about the qualities of the leader and more about understanding the needs of the team and of each individual on the team.

In this article, we’ll outline five ways to motivate the unmotivated.

Change Up Tasks

The first way to motivate the unmotivated is to change up tasks. Novelty can be a powerful motivator, and the lack of novelty in a job can be demotivating. Few people get excited about coming to work and repeating the same few tasks over and over again. People want new experiences and new challenges. They want to feel that they’re making progress and they often judge that progress based on the projects they’re being given and whether those projects require them to learn new skills or merely execute the same routine functions.

As a leader, this means examining the task list of your motivated team members. Are they doing the same old over again or are they being given new, growth-inducing tasks and projects to work on. You may not be able to change their job description, but you can help them find new learning opportunities or ask them to sit in on meetings they’re not regularly a part of. Even a little novelty can go a long way toward restoring motivation.

Build New Bonds

The second way to motivate the unmotivated is to build new bonds. Over four decades of research have made a compelling case that relatedness is an essential element of intrinsic motivation. People want to feel cared for and feel that their work cares for others. They want to feel connected to the people their work serves and the people they work alongside. And if they feel disconnected or isolated from the team or the customers/stakeholders of an organization, they can become unmotivated.

As a leader, there are two ways to utilize relatedness to motivate the unmotivated. The first is to make sure team members feel connected to each other, most often by making time for socialization and connection through non-work discussions. (The second we’ll cover in a moment.) It may seem like a waste of time, but social functions, icebreakers, or any other activities where people talk about their lives outside of work create opportunities for stronger connections to form. And there’s a strong connection between social connection and motivation.

Re-frame The Work

The third way to motivate the unmotivated is to re-frame the work. As discussed above, knowing how your work serves others can be a powerful motivator. But for many jobs, teams are so far removed from the end customers or even from other teams who benefit from their work that they lose sight of how their work makes a difference. Their work loses task significance, and their motivation quickly follows. And the larger the organization, the harder it is to keep task significance.

As a leader, restoring task significance and relatedness requires re-framing the work or rebuilding connections to those who benefit directly from your team’s work. This could be by bringing customers in to meet your team, or by sharing thank you notes or stories of how the team’s tasks enabled others to work or live better. The test for whether your team needs a re-frame is how quickly they can answer the question “Who is served by the work that we do?” And if they can’t find an answer fast, they likely can’t find their motivation either.

Provide More Feedback

The fourth way to motivate the unmotivated is to provide more feedback. Ken Blanchard was right, “feedback is the breakfast of champions.” We already covered how a feeling of growth and development contributes to motivation. But without regular feedback, your people don’t know what to improve upon—or if they’re improving. As well-intentioned as annual reviews are, they are not a sufficient source of feedback to keep people motivated to improve. Instead, try regular check-ins and feedback sessions both individually and as a team.

As a leader, it’s important to note the distinction between providing sufficient feedback and becoming a micromanager. As people grow and develop in their role, feedback should shift from telling people how to do specific tasks and towards coaching them to solve problems they’re already equipped to solve. In the beginning, provide feedback to help them grow. But as they develop, provide feedback that helps them notice their growth.

Watch The Stress

The fifth way to motivate the unmotivated is to watch the stress. Most leaders know that too much stress can demotivate anyone. But too little stress can be demotivating as well. Psychologist have long known about a concept called eustress—the sweet spot of stress where the demands of the moment match their ability and capacity. Too much demand leads to distress and burnout, but too little demand leads to boredom and…burnout.

As a leader, watching the stress means monitoring your team’s capacity so that they don’t get overloaded. In which case, you’ll want to find ways to offload certain projects or otherwise reduce the workload. But it also means watching each individual on your team for signs that they’re not being challenged enough. In which case, you’ll want to consider other methods in this article for ways to help them feel more growth and challenge in their work. In either case, the goal is to continue to make adjustments and continue to watch the stress, to bring it back to that eustress level.

And monitoring and making adjustments is really the ideal for each of these methods to motivate the unmotivated. Because motivation is individual. It’s felt on an individual level. Which means increasing motivation requires knowing each person individually and continuing to monitor their motivation levels for individual adjustments that need to be made. But when you do, it will raise the overall motivation on your team, and raise the level of performance until everyone on the team can do their best work ever.

Image credit: 1,300+ free quotes for your presentations at http://misterinnovation.com

Originally published at https://davidburkus.com on January 2, 2023.

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

The Energy Grid Revolt

FCEVs, and the Pragmatic Pivot in Eco-Conscious Mobility

LAST UPDATED: June 19, 2026 at 4:11 PM

Honda CR-V e:FCEV plug-in hybrid charging next to a stressed electrical grid utility tower

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia


The Great Grid Contraction and the Consumer Revolt

A perfect storm is hitting the aging American energy grid. On one side, residential electricity costs are hitting historic highs as utilities scramble to fund infrastructure upgrades. On the other, the nation faces a massive, unprecedented surge in energy demand driven by the expansion of AI data centers — a technological race America must win to maintain global economic leadership.

For the everyday consumer, this collision is creating massive experience friction. The original economic promise of electric vehicles — the idea of “fueling up for cheap at home” — is rapidly eroding when charging a high-capacity battery overnight becomes a glaring, high-impact line item on a strained household budget. Forcing millions of new vehicles onto the grid while simultaneously enacting localized natural gas bans creates a single point of failure that stresses both family finances and municipal infrastructure.

The Strategic Pivot: A Case for Pragmatic Change Management

True innovation never forces people into an unstable, single-source bottleneck. Instead of top-down mandates that ignore current physical and economic realities, a human-centered approach to mobility demands a strategic pause. We must allow power generation infrastructure to catch up to our digital ambitions while diversifying our energy portfolio to keep the economy resilient.

By hitting the brakes on aggressive EV sales timelines and restoring energy choice through the repeal of natural gas restrictions, we can protect the grid for vital computing infrastructure. This pragmatic pivot shifts the spotlight back to highly efficient internal combustion hybrids and adaptive, forward-looking alternatives like the plug-in hydrogen fuel cell hybrid. It is time to design for the world we actually inhabit, ensuring a stable foundation for both physical mobility and digital transformation.

Case Study: Is the Honda CR-V e:FCEV a True Innovation?

The traditional fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV) market has long suffered from a classic chicken-and-egg dilemma: consumers won’t buy hydrogen cars without a refueling network, and stakeholders won’t build stations without cars on the road. Past pioneers forced an rigid, all-or-nothing infrastructure choice onto the driver. The Honda CR-V e:FCEV represents a true paradigm shift because it introduces a human-centered, adaptive approach — the co-creation of convenience.

Hand-assembled at Honda’s Performance Manufacturing Center in Marysville, Ohio, the vehicle represents a major technological leap by combining two distinct zero-emission engineering principles into a single, cohesive customer experience.

The Twin-Engine Topology: Designing for Real-World Ecosystems

Instead of forcing the driver to rely solely on public hydrogen networks, the CR-V e:FCEV integrates a dual-energy architecture that adapts directly to the user’s daily habits and local infrastructure constraints:

  • The 17.7-kWh Plug-In On-Board Battery: This lithium-ion system grants approximately 29 miles of pure electric, battery-powered range on a full charge. For the eco-conscious consumer, this handles the vast majority of local, daily commuting entirely on household electricity. Because the battery capacity is modest compared to a massive 100-kWh pure electric vehicle, it charges rapidly on standard Level 1 or Level 2 equipment without triggering expensive panel upgrades or severe local grid stress.
  • The Next-Generation Fuel Cell Stack: Co-developed through a landmark engineering joint venture with General Motors, this advanced proton-exchange membrane system represents a massive manufacturing milestone. Built at Fuel Cell System Manufacturing (FCSM) in Michigan, the co-developed stack achieves double the durability while reducing production costs by two-thirds compared to previous generations. Feeding from dual 10,000 psi high-pressure tanks holding 4.3 kilograms of compressed hydrogen gas, it delivers an overall 270-mile EPA range rating and refuels completely in just 3 to 5 minutes.

The Verdict from an Experience Design Perspective

From an innovation management standpoint, the CR-V e:FCEV is a brilliant bridge architecture. It systematically mitigates “range anxiety” and “charging-station downtime friction” simultaneously. True human-centered design acknowledges the messiness of the world as it exists today rather than designing for an idealized, frictionless future. By treating the consumer as an active partner and offering energy flexibility, Honda has created a blueprint for resilient, adaptive mobility.

The Macro Outlook: The Global and American Infrastructure Split

An innovation is only as powerful as the ecosystem that supports it. While the Honda CR-V e:FCEV represents a masterful piece of human-centered engineering, its market viability is completely dependent on regional infrastructure architecture. When we analyze the landscape through a global lens, we see a stark divergence in how different societies are structuring the future of clean mobility.

The American Landscape: Severe Regional Fragmentation

In the United States, the deployment of consumer hydrogen infrastructure remains highly fractured and localized. Outside of California—where early public-private investments attempted to establish initial hydrogen corridors—the vast majority of the American continent remains a complete refueling desert for retail hydrogen consumers. Because of this stark geographical limitation, Honda is rolling out the CR-V e:FCEV as a regional, lease-only vehicle, targeted primarily at markets with established hydrogen ecosystems.

This dynamic illustrates the critical importance of systemic change management: a technological breakthrough cannot scale if the surrounding infrastructure remains trapped in a localized silo. Until federal and state initiatives prioritize comprehensive midstream hydrogen logistics and production, fuel cell vehicles in America will largely serve as specialized, pilot-program solutions rather than mainstream alternatives.

The Global Matrix: Strategic Infrastructure Realignment

Beyond American borders, the strategic playbook changes rapidly, driven by unique geographic, economic, and geopolitical imperatives:

  • Europe: The European strategy leans heavily on high-traffic, industrial, and heavy commercial transport corridors. Rather than deploying sparse consumer networks, European nations are prioritizing high-capacity hydrogen refueling hubs along primary freight routes, recognizing that fuel cell technology provides the rapid turnaround times and high-payload capabilities required to decarbonize commercial logistics and public transit networks.
  • Asia-Pacific (Japan, South Korea, China): In these high-density urban economies, hydrogen is viewed as a pillar of long-term energy security and a necessary alternative to widespread battery electrification. In cities characterized by massive, multi-tenant residential high-rises, overnight at-home charging for millions of individual battery-electric vehicles is structurally and logistically impossible. Consequently, national policy initiatives are aggressively subsidizing high-pressure hydrogen distribution networks to power both consumer fleets and regional distributed energy grids.

The Strategic Takeaway: Mobility is Not a Monolith

The global divergence in hydrogen adoption proves that the “Future of Mobility” will not be a singular, globally standardized platform. True innovation leaders do not design for a fictional, universally uniform market. They recognize that physical, economic, and geographic constraints dictate technology adoption, requiring diverse, localized innovation architectures to successfully bridge the transition toward a more resilient energy ecosystem.

The Strategic Pause: Aligning Grid Capacity with Sovereign AI Leadership

Forcing a premature, top-down transition to heavy battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) before a stable, affordable, and robust electrical grid exists is an administrative mandate lacking empathy for real-world economic conditions. True innovation requires us to zoom out and analyze the broader macro-ecosystem. Today, a profound industrial conflict is brewing: the rapid, exponential computing requirements of the artificial intelligence revolution are colliding directly with consumer grid capacity.

Winning the global race to lead the AI industry demands unprecedented amounts of stable, high-density, uninterrupted baseload power for next-generation data centers. This computational infrastructure is the primary engine of our future economy. We cannot afford to compromise this critical digital runway by overloading the grid with artificial peak demands from enforced vehicle electrification and short-sighted municipal mandates.

The Policy Recalibration: Pausing Mandates and Restoring Portfolio Diversity

To ensure American economic resilience and technological sovereignty, we must implement a pragmatic change management strategy at the civic, county, and state levels:

  • Implementing a Strategic EV Sales Mandate Pause: Policymakers must temporarily halt aggressive timelines and purchasing mandates for pure electric vehicles. This strategic pause buys critical time for public utilities and independent power producers to build out modern, high-capacity generation infrastructure, transition to safer nuclear or advanced clean energy options, and stabilize regional distribution lines.
  • Repealing Punitive Natural Gas Bans: Restoring balance requires immediately dismantling localized municipal and state bans on residential and commercial natural gas infrastructure. Forcing space heating, water heating, and cooking completely onto an already strained electrical grid creates a precarious single point of failure. Reinstating natural gas options ensures a diversified energy portfolio and protects citizens from catastrophic grid failures during peak seasonal demand.

The Eco-Conscious Portfolio Approach

From an experience design perspective, innovation should be participatory, not enforced through economic scarcity or utility rate shocks. While the power grid catches up to our digital ambitions, eco-conscious consumers should be empowered to direct their attention toward a highly efficient, diverse mobility portfolio:

  1. Ultra-Efficient ICE and Traditional Hybrids: Highly optimized internal combustion and standard hybrid technologies deliver exceptional fuel economy (often exceeding 40 to 50 MPG) and immediate carbon reduction today, entirely utilizing existing refueling infrastructure without placing a single watt of additional demand on a fragile electrical grid.
  2. Plug-In Hydrogen Hybrids (FCEV/BEV Blends): Vehicles engineered with the topology of the Honda CR-V e:FCEV offer an ideal blueprint. By utilizing a small, easily managed battery for local trips and a high-pressure fuel cell stack for extended range, they demonstrate how we can transition toward zero-emission transportation without demanding massive, system-wide grid overhauls.

The path forward requires a shift in focus from subsidizing individual vehicle purchases to fundamentally upgrading our systemic infrastructure. By stabilizing our foundational power generation first, we protect the consumer’s economic reality, maintain grid reliability, and fuel the computational power required to lead the next century of technological innovation.

Conclusion: Designing for the World We Have, Not the One We Want

True change management requires the harmonious alignment of economics, technology, and human behavior. When top-down administrative mandates outpace the physical realities of infrastructure, the system breaks down. Today, as skyrocketing utility costs trigger a widespread consumer revolt and the computational demands of the AI revolution reshape our energy landscape, the primary survival mechanism for both households and economies is flexibility.

The path forward cannot be dictated by rigid, single-source mandates that ignore regional grid limitations. Instead, we must embrace an ecosystem-wide perspective that balances our digital ambitions with physical constraints. By implementing a pragmatic pause on aggressive vehicle electrification, restoring energy choice through the repeal of short-sighted natural gas bans, and allowing power generation infrastructure the runway it needs to catch up, we ensure a more stable and resilient economy.

The Blueprint for Adaptive Mobility

The Honda CR-V e:FCEV serves as a profound beacon of this necessary transition. It stands as an explicit engineering reminder to automakers, regulators, and policy architects alike: the most elegant technology is fundamentally useless if it ignores the economic, geographic, and systemic realities of the environment it inhabits.

By offering a dual-energy paradigm—combining local plug-in convenience with long-range hydrogen capability—it demonstrates how true human-centered innovation can co-create convenience with the consumer. As we look toward the future direction of mobility in America and across the globe, our success will not be measured by how quickly we can force a single solution, but by how skillfully we design diverse, adaptive, and resilient portfolios that empower human progress.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

What is a plug-in hydrogen fuel cell hybrid vehicle (FCEV)?

Unlike standard fuel cell vehicles that rely exclusively on hydrogen gas, a plug-in fuel cell hybrid integrates a modest, rechargeable lithium-ion battery package with a hydrogen fuel cell stack. This dual-energy architecture allows drivers to plug into standard electrical outlets for short, everyday trips while utilizing high-pressure hydrogen for extended range and rapid 3-to-5-minute refueling on longer journeys.

Can the Honda CR-V e:FCEV run purely on electricity without hydrogen?

Yes. The vehicle features a 17.7-kWh onboard battery that delivers an EPA-rated 29 miles of pure electric driving. For daily, local commuting, you can operate the vehicle entirely as a battery-electric vehicle (BEV), charging it at home overnight without using a single gram of hydrogen gas.

Why are some experts advocating for a strategic pause on absolute EV sales mandates?

The transition to massive, pure-battery electric vehicles is placing extreme stress on an aging electrical grid, contributing to skyrocketing utility rates for consumers. Simultaneously, the explosive growth of artificial intelligence requires massive, uninterrupted baseload power for regional data centers. A strategic pause on vehicle mandates allows public utilities critical time to build out modern power generation infrastructure without triggering grid failures or economic instability.

How does repealing natural gas bans protect the consumer energy experience?

Forcing space heating, water heating, and cooking completely onto the electrical grid creates a precarious single point of failure and drastically increases residential peak loads. Repealing natural gas bans restores energy choice and portfolio diversity, ensuring households remain resilient during extreme weather events while reducing the immediate, artificial demand on regional power grids.

Where can the Honda CR-V e:FCEV be driven today?

Because consumer high-pressure hydrogen refueling infrastructure is highly fractured and primarily localized in California, Honda is rolling out the CR-V e:FCEV through a specialized, regional lease program. It is specifically designed as a bridge innovation, maximizing its utility in regions with established hydrogen ecosystems while offering plug-in electrical flexibility anywhere standard charging equipment is available.


Disclaimer: This article speculates on the potential future applications of cutting-edge scientific research. While based on current scientific understanding, the practical realization of these concepts may vary in timeline and feasibility and are subject to ongoing research and development.

Image credits: Gemini

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Thinking From No to Yes for Top Line Growth

Top line growth strategies and product applicability frameworks

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

Bottom line growth is good, but top line growth is better. But if you want to grow the bottom line, ignore labor costs and reduce material costs. Labor cost is only 5-10% of product cost. Stop chasing it, and, instead, teach your design community to simplify the product so it uses fewer parts and design out the highest cost elements.

Where the factory creates bottom line growth, top line growth is generated in the market/customer domain. The best way I know to grow the top line is to broaden the applicability of your products and services. But, before you can broaden applicability, you’ve got to define applicability as it is. Define the limits of what your product can do – how much it can lift, how fast it can run a calculation and where it can be used. And for your service, define who can use it, where it can be used and what elements without customer involvement. And with the limits defined, you know where top line growth won’t come from.

Radical top line growth comes only when your products and services can be used in new applications. Sure, you can train your sales force to sell more of what you already have, but that runs out of gas soon enough. But, real top line growth comes when your services serve new customers in new ways. By definition, if you’re not trying to make your product work in new ways, you’re not going to achieve meaningful top line growth. And by definition, if you’re not creating new functionality for your services, you might as well be focusing on bottom line growth.

If your product couldn’t do it and now it can, you’re doing it right. If your service couldn’t be used by people that speak Chinese and now it can, you’re on your way. If your product couldn’t be used in applications without electricity and now it can, you’re on to something. If your service couldn’t run on a smartphone and now it can, well, you get the idea.

For the acid test, think no-to-yes.

If your product can’t work in application A, you can’t sell it to people who do that work. If your service can’t be used by visually impaired people, you’re not delivering value to them and they won’t buy it. Turning can’t into can is a big deal. But you’ve got to define can’t before you can turn it into can. If you want top line growth, take the time to define the limits of applicability.

No-to-yes is powerful because it creates clarity. It’s easy to know when a project will create no-to-yes functionality and when it won’t. And that makes it easy to stop projects that don’t deliver no-to-yes value and start projects that do.

No-to-yes is the key element of a compete-with-no-one approach to business.

Image credits: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Is it Possible to be Incorruptible?

Is it Possible to be Incorruptible?

Exclusive Interview with Eric Ries

This candid, wide-ranging Q&A dives deep into what Eric Ries calls the “physics of organizations” — the hidden structural and financial forces that dictate whether a company thrives or decays over time. Moving past superficial business trends, the conversation tackles the intense psychological toll of entrepreneurship, the systemic flaws of shareholder primacy, and the historical reality of alternative corporate governance.

Over the last two decades, Eric Ries’ ideas about continuous innovation, long-term thinking, governance, and market reform have reshaped company building and management practices. He is the creator of the Lean Startup method, and the author of the New York Times bestseller The Lean Startup; The Leader’s Guide; and The Startup Way.

Eric RiesAs a founder, he has put his own ideas into practice with The Long-Term Stock Exchange (LTSE); Answer.AI, an AI R&D lab; Virgil, a legal services startup; and IMVU. On The Eric Ries Show, he talks with world-class technologists, thought leaders, and executives building for the long-term. He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area with his wife and three children. He is excited to announce his latest book Incorruptible: Why Good Companies Go Bad… and How Great Companies Stay Great.

Ries offers a provocative look at how truly resilient, mission-driven institutions can protect themselves from the gravitational pull of short-term financial systems to prioritize long-term human flourishing.

Below is the text of my interview with Eric and a preview of the kinds of insights you’ll find in Incorruptible presented in a Q&A format:

1. Why do purpose-driven companies create so much value for society?

The evidence shows that purpose driven companies outperform conventional companies financially as well as in almost any other dimension you care to measure, including the social dimension. Intuitively, this makes a lot of sense, because entrepreneurship is very difficult. Everyone says they know this, but I don’t think we really grapple with this fact nearly enough. If you just want to make money, there simply are better, more convenient ways than entrepreneurship. So to get not just the founder, but the early team, the early investors, all these people to take a risk to do this crazy thing generally requires some kind of extra-financial purpose or goal. Sometimes we call that vision, sometimes we call that, in a more demeaning way, strategy. But it’s also fine to call it purpose, which is really what intuitively makes the most sense to people that do this. This is one of those cases where intuition and the evidence agree, yet it is somehow still considered a controversial fact.

2. What were some of the most important lessons you absorbed during your time on the bathroom floor?

As I’ve been going around talking about the book, this is one of the stories that actually gets a very different reaction depending on whether I’m talking to an entrepreneur or somebody else. Entrepreneurs all recognize this moment, where I really thought my company was going to fail and I couldn’t handle it. A lot of non-entrepreneurs don’t get it. They’re like, “Why? It seems like a bit of an overreaction. Okay, you had a business setback. We’ve all had career setbacks — what’s the big deal?” But what you don’t realize until you’re in it is how much, especially if you’re doing something out of a sense of purpose or passion that’s personally meaningful to you, you start to identify with it and start to become inseparable from it. So that story is very important in the book because I learned a lot of important business lessons. I thought the company was going to die, but it didn’t. It survived precisely because of its mission, not in spite of it. I learned, in a very visceral way, about the forces, that prevent reform from coming to fruition in so many areas of our life, not just financial. And of course I learned a personal lesson about the importance of equanimity and the need to tackle the psychological and even spiritual dimensions of entrepreneurship if we’re going to create real change in the world.

3. How much chance is there of us getting companies to more broadly redefine profit to include elements of maximizing human flourishing?

This question reminds me of a of an incredible video of the great Steve Jobs before he died. He’s being interviewed at an industry conference at the time of the launch of the iPhone, when the Blackberry was the dominant smartphone in the world. It had something like 80 or 90% market share. A journalist asks this question something like, “Do you really think realistically you can take share from this dominant player?” And you can tell Steve is irked by this question, and I’m expecting because we all know his famous temper, that he’s going to lash out at the person. But he doesn’t. Instead, he says, “You know, that’s not really up to me. My job, our job at Apple, is to make the best phone we can, the one that we’re proud of. Market share is up to the customer. That’s their decision, their choice. We don’t think about that, we don’t know, and we don’t need to know in order to do our best work.” I’m paraphrasing because I haven’t seen this video in a long time, but that’s how I feel about this, too. I get this question a lot because people want to feel like, if I’m going to jump on the bandwagon, I want to know that it’s going to work. But the truth is none of us know what’s going to work, even those of us who advocate for these ideas. You, who’s reading this, are the only one who gets to decide if this is likely or unlikely. This is not what the economist John Maynard Keyes called a beauty contest. You don’t have to worry about what everyone else is going to do. You only have to decide for yourself if you think this makes sense to you. And if it does, well, like I said — like Steve said — it’s up to you.

4. As America becomes more capitalist and less of a free market economy, what steps can we take to reverse the regulatory capture, lawfare and other methods that degrade competition, purchasing power, class mobility and the American dream? Do we need a pCombinator? (purpose-driven company accelerator)

You’re asking questions about words that we no longer have consensus about what they mean. What is a free market economy? What is capitalism? What is regulatory capture? The very definition of these words is what’s under threat. If you look at the broader media landscape, the political landscape, in many, many pockets of our society now the very idea of a for-profit company is being attacked as inherently exploitative or extractive. The consensus that we used to have that we can be working commercially to improve the world and make it a better place, that used to be seen as quite obvious and now that whole idea is under threat. I don’t blame the people doing the attacking, especially the young people who have, after all, lived their whole lives, under this regime of a very extractive flavor of capitalism that goes by the anodyne-sounding name “shareholder primacy”. This is the simple idea that customers, employees, communities all exist as resources to be mined for the benefit of shareholders. But this question is also loaded with so many other political issues of our time that we are going to have to tackle if we’re going to come out of this darkness, as our grandparents who battled fascism once had to do. So, I don’t think it’s going to be as simple as fixing one thing. But I think that one of the things we have to do, among many, is build a power base, an economic gravity pulling towards the values aligned with human flourishing. And many of the political, economic, and social challenges of our time are downstream of this action in the same way that the catastrophes that we’re currently living through are downstream of what seem like very simple and relatively benign policy changes from the past century.

5. What should purpose-driven companies look for in a CEO as the company outgrows or outlives the founder(s)?

IncorruptibleThis is a really important part of the architecture of institutional longevity. Most companies fail the test of succession. The evidence seems to suggest that people who train and hire from within have a big advantage here. I think that is something we don’t even really teach anymore as a corporate value, but that is actually super valuable. There’s a reason why that old story of the employee that worked their way up from the mail room was such an important legend in the previous century. Now we hardly tell stories like that anymore. We tend to want the big fancy turnaround, the bold new strategy, the external CEO, which for companies that are in crisis makes sense. And since our modern best practices tend to ruin companies, they tend to be in crisis quite a lot. But what we want to do is we want to find a CEO who combines two really important elements. One, they personally, deeply and profoundly reflect the ethos of the company. This is why a company that doesn’t have an ethos can never pass this test because they don’t even know who to pick. But you don’t want someone who, who apes the values of the past, or is slavishly loyal to the specific things that worked in the past. You need someone who is both deeply aligned to the ethos, and who nonetheless is very performance oriented, meaning they see that when the ethos is working, it should generate long-term performance. They can’t get distracted by short-term blips but they have to have the adaptability to realize when sacred cows need to be challenged. Now, it’s commonly said that only a founder can have the moral authority to do this unique combination of things I’m describing, only they can go into founder mode, as it’s called. But I don’t think that is supported by the evidence. When companies have the right structure, they actually can imbue subsequent generations of managers with this moral authority.

6. Why is magnetic alignment so important for purpose-driven organizations and their survival?

I conceived of this book as a look into the physical forces, the underlying forces, that affect organizations. So not the surface level characteristics that we spill so much ink about, org chart, culture, business model strategy, even vision, things we can touch and taste and control. Those things are important, don’t get me wrong. But there is a deeper layer to this, like a physics of organizations. In the book, I explore very dominant force that I call financial gravity. This is the gravity that pulls companies down into mediocrity or worse and is exacerbated by our heavily financialized economy. So to build an organization that is going to endure and is going to maintain its distinctiveness or its sovereignty over time, we have to have a force that is stronger than gravity with which we can power both the alignment that we need of people, and the structural integrity to resist outside pressure. And I call that the force of magnetic alignment. This is the mechanism by which companies gain that most valuable and underrated asset: trustworthiness. And the evidence shows that companies that have this asset, that activate this force, have numerous superpowers that conventional companies simply cannot touch.

7. Is super voting stock the silver bullet for purpose driven companies or are their other possibly better or complementary ways for purpose-driven companies to protect themselves?

It’s funny because the simple answer to your question is no. And yet I advocate for super voting shares all the time. I may be the most negative advocate of super voting shares! To understand, you have to see it this way: Imagine I went to a political science professor, an expert in political philosophy and I said, “I’m thinking of setting up a new city state, a new polis. I want your advice about what kind of governance it should have.” The professor’s going to be really excited. “Oh, great. What are you considering?” And I’ll say, “Well, I’ve only got two options. Option one is a situation in which whoever borrows the most money gets the most votes. Also, the tourists can vote, and you only have to borrow the money or be a tourist on election day, after which you can release your loans or leave the country and your vote is still binding on the whole polity.” The professor’s going to look at me and be like, “That’s pretty terrible. What else you got?” So, I’ll say, “Okay, option two is despotic emperor for life and my heirs and assigns.” The professor is going to say, “That’s all you got? Those are the only two options you can think of, really? You know, in the political science department, we’ve been working on this problem for a couple hundred years. We could maybe suggest a few other things!” That is the state of corporate governance today. It is such a paucity of thinking and originality. It is so bare of our human birthright, which is to imagine different ways that power can be shared amongst people. Human beings have been experimenting with this question since there have been human beings. So, the fact that companies are choosing despotic emperor for life to me should be read not as an endorsement of autocracy, but rather as an indictment of standard governance. Standard governance is so bad that emperor for life looks like an improvement. So yes, I do think it is an improvement. I do think there are times when that’s the best we can do, but we know from the research that it is not really the best long-term solution. We know that having too much power centralized in too few people leads to what psychologists called hubris syndrome, and many other problems besides. On top of being, ultimately not that long-term, since it’s limited by the human lifespan, this also puts a lot of founders into really an untenable and very undesirable psychological situation, where they are basically indentured servants and can never leave, for fear that their creation will be destroyed. So, maybe it’s the least bad of the current available options. But of course, we can think of far better ideas. In the book I argue for what I call “constitutional governance”, which is a set of concepts that take us beyond this false dichotomy.

8. How do you think we escape the big food doom loop? (healthy food company starts, wins customers, seeks an exit to get paid, big food makes it unhealthy and lower quality – i.e. Naked, Ben ‘n’ Jerry’s, Breyer’s, etc.)

This question is not really about food, so I’m not going to address big food. What does that even mean? Because we have a tendency to want to personalize these dramas, looking for villains. I understand that there are some villains out there. I get it. But this phenomenon that you’re describing, where someone figures out a more enlightened way to create any kind of product — doesn’t matter if it’s a food product or a tech product or a product design to bring a little beauty into people’s lives — it doesn’t matter what it is. The more successful it becomes, the more valuable it is as a target. And the more of a premium someone bigger will pay to acquire it. On this book tour, I have encountered many people who’ve told me their horror stories. They tend to want to tell food stories. That’s why I like this question. They’ll be like, look, private equity took over my favorite restaurant. Now the food is disgusting. Someone said to me a couple of weeks ago about a certain brand, “I hope they’re really successful,” and then they had to amend their statement to “Well, actually, I hope they’re somewhat successful. Successful enough to keep going, but not so successful that they get bought out by private equity.” That’s how much this idea that when things become successful, they get ruined has passed into the mainstream culture. So this is not about food. In the book, I describe this phenomenon, dating back at least two hundred years, and give the mechanics of how it happens and why. Why are we so conditioned to reenact the parable of the killing of the golden goose? And more importantly, what we can do to stop it?

9. Is it time to change the ‘corporations number one duty is to its shareholders’ narrative (aka shareholder primacy)? Is that part of what you’re trying to do with this book?

Yes. I believe that the era of shareholder primacy is actually already over, for two reasons. One is, this is an idea that has proved to be self-defeating. It was originally enacted — not in ancient times, but in the 1980s, at least in Delaware — to be beneficial to shareholders, but that is not how it has proved. We’ve actually metastasized into what I would call “extraction primacy”, in which investors themselves are now locked in a zero sum prisoner’s dilemma struggle where each has to try to squeeze as much out of everything they invest in lest someone else beat them to it. I think even investors are ready for change. The second reason I think it’s already over, and that we’re like the road runner having run off this cliff and haven’t looked down yet, is there’s a massive generational shift underway. As I mentioned before, the younger generation who has lived their whole lives under the hegemony of this idea, increasingly find it absolutely repugnant. They may not know to call it shareholder primacy, they may not realize that this is an idea that, by the way, has never been democratically enacted ever in history and therefore has no democratic legitimacy. But they are hungry for something new. And so I think our energy needs to be spent not on complaining about shareholder privacy anymore. It’s over. The question needs to be, what should the successor idea be? In the book I suggest mission primacy as one alternative.

10. You mention Novo Nordisk and its foundation in the book, which apparently is about to be passed by the OpenAI foundation for the mantle of the largest foundation (much bigger than the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) through their 26% ownership of OpenAI shares. Is this a model that we should encourage more startups to embrace from the outset?

I’d be very careful drawing lessons from the OpenAI experience because that company is quite singular and there’s a lot of stuff going on there quite unusual, a lot of big ego people like Elon and Sam. But interestingly, people often claim that the foundation ownership of OpenAI is unusual, and that’s not true. The idea that a for-profit company can be governed by a nonprofit foundation is an old one. The German optics company Zeiss had the structure in the 1880s. And as the question asked, Novo Nordisk has had it since the 1920s. In fact there are so many of these companies in the world that they have been studied and found to be dramatically more stable. Companies that have this structure are simply more likely to invest counter-cyclically. They are more likely to invest more in R&D. They have better financial performance and they are something like five or six times more likely to live to year fifty than conventional companies. Now the key to the structure’s stability is to have a system of checks and balances, which, as far as I understand, OpenAI struggled with for much of its existence. OpenAI had only one board, but what makes companies like Novo Nordisk, Patagonia, and Tony’s Chocolonely distinctive is that they have two entities — a for-profit board of directors who’s held accountable or in some cases even appointed by an outside board of trustees. That checks and balances, two-entity structure seems in the data to the most stable corporate form in the world.

11. As we enter the age of AI and the disruption it is beginning to cause, can the displaced really rely on enlightened capitalism to keep their families from starving?

This is a very grim question, and it presupposes one of the many, many doomsday scenarios about AI that is circulating. In order to think clearly about what it makes sense to do with AI, you have to realize two really interesting facts about this moment. The first is that almost every future scenario about this technology depends on a series of empirical facts that no one on this planet really knows the answer to. And these facts are very strange. Only a few years ago, they would have been considered post-modernist, irrelevant debates in your local philosophy department about questions like, “is there such a thing as reasoning or is it all just language?” And “what is the nature of intelligence and consciousness?” Of course, we as human beings have studied these questions for many generations. But I was on CNBC talking about this the other day — it’s rare that they are of such economic import that stock traders are wondering about them. To give one example, one of the most important questions you have to ask about AI is when or if the scaling laws will ever run out. So far, for quite a number of years,, thanks to pioneering researchers, including many far-sighted ones like my co-founder at Answer.AI Jeremy Howard, have figured out that simply by applying more computation to a very simple learning algorithm, you can create language models that seem quite intelligent, at least at first glance. So far, the more computation we use to train and run these models, the more capable they become. I think most people generally assume that this is some kind of S-curve and that eventually this curve will level off. Some even think that it already has leveled off. Others think we are years, or even decades, away from it leveling off, and of course some people believe it will never level off. This is the law of the universe. Depending on which of those things is true, the future scenarios are almost comically different from each other. A world in which the scaling laws level off next year is almost unimaginably different from one in which we have ten more years of this. And many of the doomsday scenarios, but also many of the utopia scenarios, depend critically on knowing the answer to this fundamental question about the universe that nobody knows. So, back to your question: How do we know what actions to take when the range of possible futures is so wide, so different from each other and so dependent on facts not in evidence. I think there’s only one thing that makes sense, which is to ask ourselves what are actions that would make sense, that you’ll be glad that you did, in a wide variety of potential futures? And I think that takes us out of the job of having to predict the future, which is very difficult, and rather into a more prudence-based mindset of what can be done to prepare for many possible futures. And when you go through that analysis, many of the things that you want to do to protect yourself against future AI scenarios are actually things you probably should be doing anyway. Think about having better mandatory disclosure, hardening our critical infrastructure, making sure that the gains from new technologies are widely distributed, going back to the era of widely shared prosperity. So if people are going to be displaced, should they just sit around and hope that the leaders who do the displacing will wind up being enlightened? Absolutely not. Of course not. In fact, the whole point of this book is to show how unless we make changes, the gravitational field of our financial system will warp and even destroy, turn malignant, any company. But where does the gravitational field come from? I think the most surprising part of the book for many readers is in later chapters when we reveal how the same tools that we’ve been discussing about how to create more resilient companies are also tools that can be wielded by all of us to shape the gravitational field of the future and affect what kinds of companies can and can’t form, how those companies can and cannot behave. And while some of those levers are traditional levers, like policy changes, of course., the book is primarily about the other, more surprising lovers, that I bet most readers have not thought of before.

I hope everyone has enjoyed this peek into the mind of the man behind the insightful new title Incorruptible!

Image credits: Eric Ries, Google Gemini

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

How to Hire Like the Richest Man in the World

How to Hire Like the Richest Man in the World

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

This article answers the question: Is it better to hire employees for attitude or for skill, especially in customer service roles?

The old saying in business, when it comes to hiring people, is this:

Hire for attitude, train for skill.

I’ve shared ideas related to this quote in several articles and videos. So, why bring it up again? First, it’s a concept worth revisiting to remind us of this important truth, especially in the world of customer service and experience. Second, I recently heard a version of this that captures the essence and further emphasizes the importance of attitude versus skill.

As I write, the richest man in the world is Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla and founder of SpaceX, with an estimated net worth north of $500 billion. Whether you like the way he does business or not, we can’t ignore that he may have ideas worth paying attention to, and his take on this old quote is one of those ideas. The concept of hiring for attitude is driven home when he says, “Skills can be taught, but attitude changes require a brain transplant.”

Another man worth paying attention to is Jim Bush. In my book The Amazement Revolution, I interviewed Bush, who at the time was the executive VP of world service for American Express, responsible for customer support centers around the world. He shared that if he could hire someone with years of experience at a support center or working at the front desk of a hotel, he would choose the person with the hotel front desk experience.

Shep Hyken cartoon illustrating why you should hire for attitude and train for skill

Bush said, “We’re talking about human engagement, and that requires the ability to connect.” That’s why American Express began hiring people with hospitality experience. They had the attitude American Express was looking for. After being hired, they could be trained on the technical skills needed to work the computers at a contact center.

Now, before I go further, some of you might be thinking that certain jobs require specific skills, regardless of employees’ attitudes, and you are correct. A surgeon must graduate from medical school before operating. An electrician must learn the trade before wiring a home. Certain jobs require technical proficiency. However, if you hire someone with those skills who has the wrong attitude, they can harm your culture and potentially drive customers away. So, take this concept in the spirit of its meaning.

So, back to Musk’s line about attitude changes requiring a brain transplant. The comment is a bold way of saying that attitude isn’t something you can download like software. It’s hard-wired. People’s attitudes have been formed over their entire lives, from the time they were babies. Leaders who understand this focus on recruiting people who come to the job with the right mindset, with an attitude that fits the personality of the company. The takeaway is simple. Hire people who care. Then, teach them the specific skills they need to perform their job effectively. You can train for competence, but you can’t train for caring.

Image Credit: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Managing the Change When Your New Team Member is an AI Agent

Managing the Change When Your New Team Member Is an AI Agent

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

Every organization rushing to deploy AI agents is making the same mistake: they are treating this as a technology rollout. It isn’t. It is a change management event — possibly the strangest one most of your employees will ever live through — and almost nobody is managing it as one.

I have spent two decades helping organizations navigate change. New systems, new structures, new leadership, new strategy — I have seen the patterns, and I have built frameworks to help people through them. What’s happening right now with AI agents doesn’t fit neatly into any of those patterns, because for the first time, the “new hire” your team has to adjust to isn’t a person. It has no face to read, no body language to interpret, no shared lunch break to build rapport over. And yet your people are being asked to trust it, collaborate with it, and in some cases defer to its output — all without the social mechanisms humans have relied on for millennia to build trust with someone new.

If you are rolling out AI agents into your teams this year — and if you aren’t already, you will be soon — you need a change management approach built for this specific situation. Here is what that requires.

This Is Not a Software Rollout

When organizations introduce new software, the change management playbook is well understood: communicate the why, train people on the how, support them through the learning curve, and reinforce the new behavior until it sticks. That playbook assumes the new thing is a tool. You pick it up, you put it down, you use it when it’s useful.

An AI agent is not a tool in that sense. It takes initiative. It makes judgment calls. It shows up in meetings, in workflows, in decisions — sometimes proactively, without being asked. The closest analog isn’t a new piece of software. It’s a new colleague. And we already have decades of organizational psychology telling us how disruptive a new colleague can be to team dynamics, let alone one that doesn’t operate like any colleague your team has ever had.

This distinction matters because it changes which change management tools actually apply. ADKAR’s emphasis on individual awareness and desire is still relevant. But the resistance you’ll encounter isn’t really about learning a new interface. It’s about something closer to what happens when any new team member joins: uncertainty about role boundaries, anxiety about being replaced or overshadowed, and an unconscious assessment of whether this new “person” can be trusted.

Why People Resist AI Coworkers Differently Than They Resist New Software

I wrote recently about the neuroscience of creativity and the role the amygdala plays in detecting social threat. The same mechanism is firing right now in your organization, and most leaders have no idea it’s happening.

When a new piece of software arrives, the brain files it under “tool” and moves on. When something that behaves like a colleague arrives — something that talks, decides, and acts with a kind of agency — the brain files it under “social actor” and starts running the same threat assessments it runs on any new person: is this safe? Is this going to take something from me? Can I trust what it tells me?

The catch is that an AI agent gives almost none of the signals humans use to answer those questions. There’s no tone of voice to read for sincerity. No facial expression to gauge intent. No shared history to draw on. Your people are being asked to extend trust to something that offers none of the usual evidence trust is normally built on — and then we’re surprised when adoption stalls or quiet resistance shows up as workarounds, double-checking everything the agent produces, or simply not using it at all.

This is not a training problem. You cannot train your way past a threat response. It has to be addressed the way any well-designed change effort addresses resistance: by understanding what’s actually driving it and designing for that, not for the resistance you assumed you’d see.

Applying the Change Management Process to AI Agent Adoption

I’ve written before about the five process groups that make up a disciplined change management process. Here’s how they apply when the change you’re managing is the introduction of an AI teammate:

Evaluate impact and readiness honestly. Most organizations evaluate AI agent impact in terms of tasks automated and hours saved. Few evaluate it in terms of role identity — what happens to how someone sees their own value when a piece of their job is now done by something that isn’t them? Skipping this assessment is how you end up with technically successful deployments and quietly disengaged teams.

Build a strategy that names the relationship, not just the rollout. Is the agent a tool the team directs, a collaborator the team works alongside, or something closer to a delegate that acts with some independence? Most organizations never decide this explicitly, and the ambiguity is exactly what breeds distrust. Decide it, and say it out loud.

Plan for trust-building, not just training. Traditional training plans teach people how to use something. What you actually need here is closer to onboarding a new team member: transparency about what the agent can and can’t do, visible track record before high-stakes use, and early opportunities for people to verify its output before they’re asked to rely on it.

Execute with visible human oversight, especially early. The fastest way to build trust in a new colleague — human or otherwise — is watching them perform well in front of you, not being told they performed well somewhere else. Early AI agent deployments need visible checkpoints where people can see the agent’s work and verify it, not a black box they’re asked to trust on faith.

Close the loop by naming what changed. Once an AI agent has been integrated into a workflow, say so explicitly, and say what it means for the people whose roles shifted around it. Changes that are never formally acknowledged have a way of generating resentment that outlasts the technical transition by years.

Change Management AI Agent Adoption Infographic

The Real Risk Isn’t the AI. It’s Skipping the Human Part.

I’ll say what I’ve said about AI in customer experience: the key isn’t choosing between AI and humans, it’s knowing when and how to bring each one in well. The organizations that get AI agent adoption right in 2026 will not be the ones with the most advanced agents. They’ll be the ones that treated the human side of this transition with the same discipline they’d apply to any major organizational change — because that is exactly what this is.

Skip that discipline, and you won’t get a failed technology rollout. You’ll get a team that technically has access to an AI agent and quietly refuses to use it, or uses it just enough to look compliant while doing the real work the old way. That is the most expensive kind of failure there is: the one that looks like success on a dashboard somewhere while nothing has actually changed.

Image credits: Gemini

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area, key elements to focus on, and the change management framing were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with a little help from Claude to research current trends and clean up the article, and Gemini for images/infographics.

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

The Fourth Inning in the Future of Work

The Future of Work Evolution: What Inning Are We In?

Editor’s Note: The State of the Game in 2026

When tech strategist Geoffrey A. Moore penned this piece in the spring of 2024, the “top of the fourth inning” was characterized by the initial, frantic rush toward generative AI adoption and a baseline shift toward customer success. Two years later, as we navigate 2026, the game has rapidly intensified.

We are no longer just talking about shifting toward “outcomes”—we are actively building the infrastructure to measure them. The baseline has evolved from simple subscription tracking to deep Experience Management Offices (XMOs) and Experience Level Measures (XLMs), proving that human-centered value is the ultimate digital metric. Furthermore, the early AI hype has matured into what we call the AI Soft Landing, where organizations are moving past experimental tools to restructure workflows around systemic, human-led collaboration. Read on to explore Geoffrey’s brilliant structural breakdown of how we arrived at this pivotal inning.

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore

It’s spring of 2024, and as Major League baseball is getting underway, everyone in tech is talking about the future of work. Let me suggest we are in the top of the fourth inning, a couple of runners on base, but still much to be decided (all with the understanding that an inning in tech lasts somewhere between one and two decades—and you thought baseball games were long!). At any rate, here’s how I see it playing out.

The first inning where tech made a definitive impact on work spanned the 1970s and 80s when the dominant paradigm was proprietary mainframe computing and the focus was on management information systems. This was an era of control cultures where the mantra was plan your work and then work your plan. IBM and Oracle were the dominant players, and workflows were organized around reports.

The second inning emerged with the rise of client-server computing in the 1990s, where the focus was on real-time business processes. This was an era of competition cultures where the mantra was give me my objectives, give me my resources, and get the hell out of my way. Microsoft and Cisco were the dominant players, and workflows were organized around documents.

The third inning emerged out of the tech bubble popping at the turn of the century, where the dominant paradigm transitioned to cloud computing combined with mobile applications, and the focus shifted from B2B complex systems to B2C volume operations. This was an era of creativity cultures where the mantra was think different. Google and Apple were the dominant players, and workflows were organized around transactions.

Now we find ourselves at the top of the fourth inning, initiated with the rise of artificial intelligence, where the focus is on as-a-service subscription business models, the economics of churn, and the importance of the customer experience. This is an era of collaboration cultures where the mantra is put customer success before everything else. The dominant players have yet to be determined, but we do know that workflows will be organized around outcomes.

And that’s the point. Information technology that began at the periphery of the business as a back office report generation utility has now migrated to the very core of the enterprise’s mission, vision, and values. That’s why digital transformation is getting so much attention. But how to transform, and how to use digital technology to ensure that customers achieve the outcomes they seek, is very much still a work in progress.

That’s what I think. What do you think?

Image Credit: Gemini

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Crossing the Chasm of Fear

AI Soft Landing scenario — Leading People Through the Anxiety of Transformation and AI

LAST UPDATED: June 14, 2026 at 5:48 PM

Crossing the Chasm of Fear

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia


The Hidden Friction in Modern Transformation

Change doesn’t fail because the technology is broken or the strategy is fundamentally flawed; it fails because organizations consistently underestimate the immense gravity of human fear.

We are living in an era of unprecedented, continuous disruption where the rapid, omnipresent rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has magnified workplace anxiety to an all-time high. This paradigm shift has fundamentally altered the conversation from standard operational “inertia” to a deep-seated, existential dread regarding professional relevance, personal autonomy, and long-term job security.

To build an agile, future-ready organization, leaders must stop merely trying to “manage” resistance and start actively dismantling fear. True transformation requires moving past rigid, top-down mandates to embrace genuine co-creation, psychological safety, and a commitment to human-centered design.

I. Mapping the Topography of Fear in the AI Era

To successfully guide an organization through a significant shift, leaders must first understand that the friction they encounter is rarely intellectual; it is emotional. In the wake of the generative AI revolution, traditional change management frameworks are proving insufficient precisely because they treat resistance as a logistical hurdle rather than a psychological defense mechanism.

The Shift from Traditional Resistance to Existential Anxiety

Standard change models were built for linear transitions — such as upgrading an ERP system or relocating an office — where the destination is clear and the skill gap is manageable. AI, however, introduces non-linear disruption. Employees are not just resisting a new tool; they are experiencing existential anxiety. The underlying fear is no longer “How do I use this software?” but rather “Does my expertise still matter?”

The Core Drivers of Workplace Fear

This widespread anxiety is fueled by three distinct, interconnected human dynamics:

  • Loss of Competence & Relevance: Professionals who have spent decades perfecting their craft suddenly face systems that can replicate aspects of their output in seconds. The fear of being rendered obsolete overnight leads to defensive behaviors and a reluctance to engage with new platforms.
  • Loss of Autonomy: Employees worry about losing the human element of decision-making. There is a deep-seated anxiety that their daily workflows will be dictated by black-box algorithms, reducing human agency to mere data entry and validation.
  • The “Black Box” Effect: Because advanced AI models operate behind complex neural layers, the lack of transparency breeds immediate distrust. When people do not understand how a technology arrives at a conclusion, they naturally default to worst-case scenario thinking regarding its intent and accuracy.

The Real Cost of Inaction

When leadership fails to recognize and mitigate these fears, the organization pays a heavy cultural tax. This friction rarely manifests as open defiance. Instead, it operations below the surface as:

  • Quiet Quitting: Disengagement driven by the belief that effort is futile in an automated future.
  • Malicious Compliance: Following instructions to the letter while ignoring obvious system errors, effectively letting the new technology fail to prove a point.
  • Organizational Paralysis: A total stall in innovation, as teams become too risk-averse to experiment with new digital capabilities.

II. Redefining the Approach: Moving from Mandates to Co-Creation

The traditional corporate playbook for technology deployment relies heavily on top-down enforcement. Executives select a platform, managers set a deployment date, and training sessions are scheduled to push the workforce into compliance. While this rigid approach might work for static software updates, it completely fractures when applied to cognitive, disruptive technologies like Artificial Intelligence. To cross the chasm of fear, leadership must fundamentally redefine how change is initiated.

The Failure of Top-Down Dictates

When an disruptive technology is thrust upon an organization from above, it triggers the corporate equivalent of an immune system response. Employees perceive the uninvited change as an existential threat to their routines and livelihoods. Pushing mandates down the organizational chart only hardens resistance, forcing anxiety underground and transforming potential advocates into silent saboteurs.

The Power of Participatory Innovation

The alternative to top-down friction is Participatory Innovation — the deliberate practice of shifting the narrative from “This is being done to you” to “You are building this with us.” True ecosystem agility requires flattening the hierarchy of contribution and inviting the entire workforce into the design process. Rather than treating front-line employees as passive recipients of change, organizations must treat them as active co-creators of their own future workflows.

This approach transforms the deployment strategy by:

  • Engaging front-line staff at the inception stage to identify real, daily friction points that AI can genuinely alleviate, rather than forcing technology where it doesn’t fit.
  • Utilizing cross-functional design sessions that break down legacy silos, allowing technical developers and domain experts to build tools in tandem.
  • Establishing iterative feedback loops that give employees a direct hand in shaping, tweaking, and refining the automated systems they are expected to use.

Lowering Resistance Through Shared Ownership

Human beings rarely destroy what they help build. When an employee looks at a newly integrated AI assistant or a redesigned digital workflow and recognizes their own insights, feedback, and domain expertise baked into the final product, the underlying psychological dynamic shifts instantly. The fear of the unknown is replaced by a powerful sense of pride of authorship, transforming potential resistance into proactive, self-sustaining adoption.

III. The Strategic Blueprint: Crossing the Chasm of Fear

Dismantling fear and establishing a culture of participatory innovation requires more than good intentions; it demands an operationalized, human-centered strategy. To successfully cross the chasm of anxiety and achieve meaningful adoption, leaders must execute a deliberate, multi-layered blueprint that prioritizes human experience alongside technical milestone delivery.

Step 1: Cultivate Psychological Safety First

Before introducing a single algorithmic tool, leadership must anchor the organizational culture in psychological safety. If employees believe that experimenting with AI or voicing skepticism will jeopardize their standing, they will retreat into defensive compliance.

  • Create dedicated, judgment-free forums where teams can openly discuss their anxieties, ask “naive” technical questions, and challenge assumptions without fear of retribution.
  • Frame the early stages of AI adoption as an iterative experiment rather than a high-stakes, zero-fault mandate. Normalize failure as a natural, necessary component of learning to collaborate with intelligent systems.

Step 2: Demystify the “Black Box”

Fear thrives in obscurity. When technology is shrouded in complex, dense jargon, employees default to worst-case scenario thinking. Crossing the chasm requires pulling back the curtain on how automated tools function.

  • Provide transparent, accessible education tailored to non-technical users. Demystify the data sources, logic, and operational boundaries of the AI models being deployed.
  • Shift the corporate narrative away from “automation as a replacement” and explicitly reframe it as “augmentation as a partner.” Clearly demonstrate how these tools can absorb repetitive cognitive drudgery, freeing individuals to focus on high-value, uniquely human tasks.

Step 3: Define New “Experience Level Measures” (XLMs)

Traditional change management focuses almost exclusively on cold Operational Measures—tracking system uptime, deployment timelines, software licenses, and output volume. To manage the human friction of transformation, organizations must measure what actually matters: the human experience of the transition.

  • Implement Experience Level Measures (XLMs) to actively track sentiment, cognitive friction, and confidence levels across the workforce during the rollout.
  • Establish an Experience Management Office (XMO). This cross-functional entity acts as the empathetic heartbeat of the transformation, monitoring XLMs in real time and intervening with support, tailored training, or process redesign when emotional friction spikes.

Step 4: Re-skilling with Dignity and Equity

True fairness in transformation means ensuring that the rewards of technological advancement are relative to the effort invested by the people keeping the organization running. If employees feel that upskilling only leads to their own displacement or unfair workloads, adoption will fail.

  • Demonstrate a visible, legally backed commitment to the long-term value of your human capital through robust, funded re-skilling pathways that dignify the worker’s career trajectory.
  • Align future organizational recognition, bonuses, and growth opportunities with equitable outcomes: ensure that the harder working individuals who lean into the challenge of adapting and mastering new tools receive the tangible rewards of that shared success.

IV. Activating the Ecosystem: Leveraging Multi-Dimensional Roles

Successfully steering an organization away from anxiety and toward sustainable innovation requires a diverse network of human capabilities. Relying solely on technical project managers or traditional IT leaders to drive adoption is a structural mistake; these roles are designed to optimize systems, not to heal a fractured human culture. To operationalize empathy and scale change, leadership must activate a multi-dimensional ecosystem of specialized roles.

Beyond the Project Manager

While project managers excel at tracking timelines, budgets, and deployment milestones, they rarely possess the specialized tools or bandwidth required to navigate deep-seated psychological friction. Orchestrating a human-centered transformation requires shifting the focus from managing tasks to nurturing human relationships. Organizations must look beyond standard job titles and intentionally cultivate specific archetypes designed to bridge the gap between human anxiety and technological capability.

The Right People in the Right Seats

To dismantle fear at every layer of the enterprise, leaders should identify, empower, and deploy three distinct operational archetypes across the transformation ecosystem:

  • The Evangelist: This role is responsible for crafting the overarching human narrative of the transformation. The Evangelist does not merely pitch the features of a new AI tool; they communicate the authentic “Why” behind the change. By generating real, unforced energy and painting a vivid picture of a more fulfilling, augmented future, they inspire teams to lift their heads above immediate anxieties and look toward the long-term horizon.
  • The Connector: Change rarely scales effectively through top-down mandates; it spreads horizontally through social proof and trusted networks. Connectors are the cross-functional linchpins who span legacy departmental boundaries. They excel at identifying grassroots wins in one pocket of the organization, translating those successes for other teams, and ensuring that insights, feedback, and shared resources flow seamlessly across the entire ecosystem.
  • The Coach: While Evangelists inspire groups and Connectors build bridges, the Coach works on the front lines of human emotion. Operating with high emotional intelligence, Coaches provide one-on-one empathy and guidance to individuals experiencing severe friction. They help employees navigate personal technical skill gaps, address specific career anxieties, and safely transition into new ways of working without losing their professional dignity.

Conclusion: The Ultimate Reward of a Human-Centered Future

Technology provides the raw capability, but human adoption provides the actual organizational value. As we navigate the complex, non-linear disruptions of the Artificial Intelligence era, it is becoming increasingly clear that the true competitive advantage does not belong to the enterprise with the largest budget or the most advanced algorithms. The future belongs to the organizations that can move their people past anxiety and into a state of shared purpose.

Crossing the chasm of fear requires leaders to abandon the outdated illusion of top-down control. By anchoring your transformation strategy in radical transparency, psychological safety, and participatory innovation, you transform a potentially threatening disruption into a collective opportunity. Measuring the journey through human-centric lenses like Experience Level Measures (XLMs) and deploying empathetic archetypes ensures that no one is left behind in the wake of progress.

Ultimately, when you design fear out of your corporate culture, you unlock the ultimate reward: an agile, resilient, and infinitely innovative workforce. By treating employees as respected co-creators of their digital future, you don’t just achieve a successful technology rollout — you build a human-centered ecosystem capable of thriving through any disruption the future brings.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why do traditional change management frameworks fail when introducing AI?
Traditional frameworks treat change as a linear, logistical hurdle focused on training and compliance. AI introduces non-linear disruption that triggers deep psychological and existential anxiety regarding job security, relevance, and loss of human autonomy. Overcoming this requires an empathy-driven, human-centered approach rather than top-down mandates.
What is Participatory Innovation and how does it reduce resistance?
Participatory Innovation is the practice of actively involving front-line employees in co-creating and designing their future workflows instead of pushing changes down from the executive level. Because human beings rarely destroy what they help build, this shared ownership transforms fear of the unknown into pride of authorship.
What are Experience Level Measures (XLMs) and why are they necessary?
While traditional operational measures track cold metrics like system uptime or deployment timelines, Experience Level Measures (XLMs) actively quantify human sentiment, cognitive friction, and adoption confidence. They are critical because technology only provides capability; human adoption is what actually unlocks organizational value.


Operationalize Organizational Empathy

Ready to Bridge the Gap Between Technology and Human Experience?

Technology only provides capability; human adoption creates the value. If you want to move past cold operational metrics and design fear out of your transformation, let’s connect. Get expert guidance on architecting impactful Experience Level Measures (XLMs) or establishing a dedicated Experience Management Office (XMO) tailored to your culture.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is a visualization of but one possible future. I will be publishing other possible futures as they crystallize in my mind (or as you suggest them for me to explore).

Image credits: Google Gemini

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area, key elements to focus on, etc. were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with a little help from Google Gemini to clean up the article, add images and create infographics.

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.