Author Archives: Chateau G Pato

About Chateau G Pato

Chateau G Pato is a senior futurist at Inteligencia Ltd. She is passionate about content creation and thinks about it as more science than art. Chateau travels the world at the speed of light, over mountains and under oceans. Her favorite numbers are one and zero. Content Authenticity Statement: If it wasn't clear, any articles under Chateau's byline have been written by OpenAI Playground or Gemini using Braden Kelley and public content as inspiration.

Talent Acquisition as Futurology

Hiring for Skills That Don’t Exist Yet

LAST UPDATED: December 21, 2025 at 6:34PM

Talent Acquisition as Futurology

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

The future of work is arriving faster than our hiring systems can adapt. Roles are dissolving, technologies are converging, and customer expectations are in constant motion. In this environment, talent acquisition must become less about matching resumes to roles and more about sensing the future.

As a human-centered change and innovation practitioner, I see talent acquisition as a form of applied futurology. It is the practice of anticipating emerging capabilities and building human systems resilient enough to evolve.

Why Prediction Is the Wrong Goal

Many organizations attempt to predict future skills with precision. This approach creates false confidence. The better strategy is to hire for people who can thrive amid uncertainty.

Curiosity, systems thinking, and learning agility consistently outperform narrowly defined technical skills when environments shift.

Reimagining the Talent Signal

Resumes and job titles are poor indicators of future capability. Human-centered organizations look for signals such as self-directed learning, cross-disciplinary experience, and the ability to make meaning from complexity.

This shift requires new assessment tools and interviewer training focused on how candidates learn and adapt.

Case Study One: IBM’s Capability-Centered Hiring Model

IBM’s move away from degree requirements in many roles was not about lowering standards. It was about aligning hiring with reality. Many emerging roles simply did not have established educational pathways.

By investing in internal learning and apprenticeships, IBM built a workforce capable of evolving with technology rather than chasing it.

Hiring as an Inclusion Strategy

Future-oriented hiring naturally expands access. When organizations focus on potential instead of pedigree, they unlock overlooked talent and improve diversity of thought.

Inclusion becomes a structural outcome rather than a stated goal.

Case Study Two: Spotify’s Culture of Adaptation

Spotify’s emphasis on mindset and mission alignment enables teams to reorganize without constant disruption. People are hired with the expectation that their roles will change.

This cultural clarity reduces friction and increases resilience as the organization experiments and scales.

Leadership Responsibilities

Leaders must reward learning, not just execution. Performance systems should recognize capability growth and collaboration across boundaries.

Talent acquisition cannot do this alone. It must be supported by culture, incentives, and leadership behavior.

“The organizations that win the future will not be the ones that predict it best, but the ones that build people capable of adapting fastest.”

— Braden Kelley

Conclusion

Hiring for skills that do not yet exist is not reckless. It is responsible. It acknowledges uncertainty and invests in human adaptability as the ultimate competitive advantage.

Talent acquisition as futurology is not about seeing the future clearly. It is about preparing people to meet it with confidence.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why are traditional job descriptions failing?

Because they assume stability in roles that are constantly evolving.

What capabilities matter most for future roles?

Learning agility, systems thinking, collaboration, and sense-making.

How can leaders support future-oriented hiring?

By aligning incentives, performance metrics, and learning investments with adaptability.

Extra Extra: Because innovation is all about change, Braden Kelley’s human-centered change methodology and tools are the best way to plan and execute the changes necessary to support your innovation and transformation efforts — all while literally getting everyone all on the same page for change. Find out more about the methodology and tools, including the book Charting Change by following the link. Be sure and download the TEN FREE TOOLS while you’re here.

Image credit: Google Gemini

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

Building the Team Habit of Learning and Pivoting

Continuous Calibration

LAST UPDATED: December 17, 2025 at 11:49AM

Building the Team Habit of Learning and Pivoting

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

The pace of change has exposed a dangerous illusion in modern organizations: the belief that certainty is achievable if we plan hard enough. In reality, performance today depends on how quickly teams can sense change, learn from experience, and adapt. This is the discipline I call continuous calibration.

Continuous calibration is not about abandoning strategy or creating instability. It is about treating learning as a core operating capability rather than a retrospective activity. Teams that calibrate continuously do not panic when conditions shift. They pivot with intention.

Why Planning Alone Is No Longer Enough

Traditional planning assumes a relatively stable environment. But markets, technologies, and customer expectations now evolve faster than planning cycles. When teams cling too tightly to static plans, they confuse consistency with effectiveness.

Continuous calibration replaces rigid adherence with disciplined learning. Teams set direction, test assumptions, observe outcomes, and adjust course. The goal is not to change constantly, but to change deliberately.

Case Study One: Pixar and Learning Before It Is Too Late

Pixar’s creative success is powered by its commitment to early and frequent learning. Through the Braintrust, filmmakers receive candid feedback at multiple stages of development. Problems are surfaced while they are still solvable.

Because the Braintrust cannot impose decisions, teams remain accountable for outcomes while benefiting from diverse perspectives. This creates a powerful calibration loop that improves quality without eroding ownership.

The Human Conditions for Calibration

Calibration fails when people feel unsafe speaking honestly. Psychological safety is the foundation that allows teams to share weak signals, question assumptions, and admit when something is not working.

Leaders who reward transparency and curiosity create conditions where learning outpaces fear. Without this foundation, teams default to defending decisions instead of improving them.

Case Study Two: Microsoft’s Cultural Recalibration

Microsoft’s resurgence under Satya Nadella was driven by a shift in mindset. The organization embraced learning as a core expectation, not a remedial activity. Teams were encouraged to experiment, reflect, and adjust quickly.

This cultural recalibration enabled Microsoft to pivot effectively toward cloud platforms and ecosystem partnerships. Learning velocity became a competitive advantage.

Turning Calibration into a Team Habit

Continuous calibration is sustained through simple, repeatable behaviors. Effective teams hold regular retrospectives, define clear success criteria, and shorten feedback loops wherever possible.

What matters most is frequency. Small, regular adjustments outperform dramatic pivots made too late.

Leadership in a Calibrating Organization

In calibrating teams, leaders shift from being decision authorities to sense-making partners. They ask better questions, surface patterns, and help teams interpret signals.

This does not weaken leadership. It strengthens it by distributing intelligence across the organization.

Conclusion: Learning Is the Strategy

Continuous calibration is not a process you install. It is a habit you cultivate. Organizations that embed learning into daily work adapt faster, waste less effort, and build greater resilience.

In an unpredictable world, the most reliable strategy is the ability to learn and pivot together.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is continuous calibration?

Continuous calibration is the ongoing practice of learning from results, adjusting direction, and realigning team behaviors based on real-world feedback.

How does continuous calibration improve performance?

It allows teams to identify problems early, adapt deliberately, and avoid costly late-stage corrections.

What role do leaders play in continuous calibration?

Leaders create the conditions for learning by encouraging honesty, asking reflective questions, and supporting informed pivots.

Extra Extra: Because innovation is all about change, Braden Kelley’s human-centered change methodology and tools are the best way to plan and execute the changes necessary to support your innovation and transformation efforts — all while literally getting everyone all on the same page for change. Find out more about the methodology and tools, including the book Charting Change by following the link. Be sure and download the TEN FREE TOOLS while you’re here.

Image credit: Pexels

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

Innovating the Post-Pandemic Office Experience

The Connected Workspace

LAST UPDATED: December 17, 2025 at 11:49AM

Innovating the Post-Pandemic Office Experience - The Connected Workspace

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

The pandemic did not eliminate the office. It eliminated complacency. For decades, organizations treated the workplace as static infrastructure rather than a dynamic system shaping behavior, culture, and innovation. As a human-centered change and innovation practitioner, I see the post-pandemic moment as a rare inflection point: a chance to intentionally design the connected workspace.

The connected workspace recognizes that work happens across physical, digital, and social environments simultaneously. It is not a return-to-office strategy or a remote-work manifesto. It is an experience strategy that aligns space, technology, and leadership behaviors around human needs.

Reframing the Office as a Platform for Value Creation

In the past, offices were optimized for presence. Today, they must be optimized for purpose. This means designing environments that support collaboration, learning, and innovation rather than default individual work. The connected workspace functions as a platform where people come together intentionally to create value that cannot be easily generated alone.

When organizations fail to make this shift, they create friction. Employees question why they are commuting, meetings exclude remote voices, and culture becomes fragmented. Connection must be designed, not assumed.

Case Study One: Microsoft’s Human-Centered Hybrid Evolution

Microsoft approached hybrid work as a design challenge rather than a policy problem. By combining qualitative employee research with quantitative work-pattern data, the organization gained insight into how collaboration, focus, and well-being intersect.

Offices were redesigned to prioritize collaboration, while technology investments ensured remote participants were equally visible and heard. Teams were empowered to define norms that fit their context, reinforcing autonomy and trust. Microsoft’s approach demonstrates that a connected workspace is a living system requiring continuous learning and adaptation.

Technology Should Disappear, Not Dominate

In a truly connected workspace, technology becomes invisible. Tools exist to support human interaction, not to dictate it. When employees spend more time managing tools than solving problems, connection erodes.

Human-centered organizations evaluate technology through the lens of experience outcomes: clarity, inclusion, and reduced cognitive load. Surveillance-driven metrics may promise control, but they undermine trust, which is the foundation of connection.

Case Study Two: Atlassian’s Intentional Distribution Model

Atlassian’s Team Anywhere strategy illustrates that connection is not dependent on proximity. By explicitly designing for asynchronous collaboration and redefining offices as collaboration destinations, the company avoided the hybrid trap of unequal experiences.

Clear documentation, transparent decision-making, and shared rituals ensured that employees remained aligned regardless of location. Atlassian’s success underscores a critical insight: connection is behavioral before it is spatial.

Inclusion as a Core Design Principle

Hybrid work amplifies inequities when inclusion is an afterthought. A connected workspace must be designed to support diverse working styles, abilities, and life circumstances. This includes equitable meeting practices, flexible schedules, and environments that support focus as well as interaction.

Inclusion is not achieved through statements or training alone. It is experienced daily through systems and behaviors. When people feel they belong, they contribute more fully.

Leaders as Stewards of Connection

Leadership in the connected workspace is less about supervision and more about stewardship. Leaders shape connection through how they communicate, how they listen, and how they respond to uncertainty. They must be willing to experiment and to treat the workplace as a prototype rather than a finished product.

The most effective leaders understand that connection is a competitive advantage. It fuels innovation, resilience, and trust.

Final Thoughts

The future of work will not be decided by floor plans or mandates. It will be shaped by organizations willing to design experiences that honor human needs while enabling high performance. The connected workspace is not a trend. It is the next evolution of how we work together.

Those who invest in connection will not just adapt to the future of work. They will help define it.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What defines a connected workspace?

A connected workspace intentionally integrates physical environments, digital tools, and cultural practices to support meaningful collaboration and inclusion.

2. Is a connected workspace the same as hybrid work?

No. Hybrid work describes where work happens, while a connected workspace focuses on how people experience work across locations.

3. What is the biggest risk in post-pandemic office design?

The biggest risk is recreating old office models without intentionally designing for connection, inclusion, and purpose.

4. What is the most common mistake companies make in hybrid work?

The biggest mistake is Proximity Bias. This occurs when leaders unconsciously favor employees who are physically present in the office with better assignments, more mentorship, and faster promotions. A true connected workspace must actively implement protocols to ensure visibility and equity for remote participants.

5. How can we maintain office culture when people are rarely together?

Culture is not created by free snacks or ping-pong tables; it is created by shared purpose and consistent communication. In a connected workspace, culture must be maintained through intentional digital rituals, transparent documentation, and “Deep Connection Days” where teams gather physically specifically for relationship building, not just routine tasks.

6. What technology is essential for a connected workspace?

Beyond standard video conferencing, the most essential tools are Persistent Digital Canvases (like Miro or Mural) and Asynchronous Communication Hubs (like Notion or Slack). These tools act as the “connective tissue” that holds projects together when people are working at different times and in different locations.

Extra Extra: Because innovation is all about change, Braden Kelley’s human-centered change methodology and tools are the best way to plan and execute the changes necessary to support your innovation and transformation efforts — all while literally getting everyone all on the same page for change. Find out more about the methodology and tools, including the book Charting Change by following the link. Be sure and download the TEN FREE TOOLS while you’re here.

Image credit: Pixabay

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

The Art of Watching What People Do, Not What They Say

Observational Research

LAST UPDATED: December 16, 2025 at 3:10PM

The Art of Watching What People Do, Not What They Say

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

In the quest for true innovation, most organizations fall prey to one fatal flaw: they rely too heavily on explicit feedback. They ask customers, “What do you want?” or “What would you pay?” The result is incremental change, not disruption. The truth is that people are often terrible predictors of their future behavior and frequently rationalize their current habits. If Henry Ford had only asked customers what they wanted, they would have requested a faster, more comfortable horse. The key to discovering latent needs — the unmet desires people don’t even know they have—lies in the deliberate practice of Observational Research.

Observational research, or ethnography, is the bedrock of Human-Centered Innovation. It requires innovators to step out of the boardroom and into the context of the user’s real life, watching them interact with products, processes, and environments. This discipline is essential because it allows us to identify the workarounds, friction points, and gaps that people endure but never articulate. We must unlearn the reliance on surveys and focus groups and embrace the art of the silent witness.

The Three-Step Framework for Observational Insight

Effective observation is not passive looking; it is structured, intentional work built around three core questions:

1. Watch for the Workarounds

A workaround is the user’s innovation—a creative, often frustrating, solution they implement when a product or process fails them. These are not flaws in the user; they are flaws in the design. Watching a warehouse worker bypass a safety protocol to save 30 seconds, or seeing an employee email a critical file instead of using the complex mandated CRM system, reveals deep systemic pain. The workaround identifies a true point of friction and points directly to the highest-value innovation opportunity.

2. Identify the Unspoken “Jobs to Be Done”

The “Jobs to Be Done” framework, popularized by Clayton Christensen, suggests people don’t buy products; they hire them to perform a specific job. Observation helps us understand the true job. A person buying a drill isn’t hiring it for the drill itself; they are hiring it to create a hole. But why do they need the hole? Maybe it’s to hang a family photo. The job is creating memories or status, not drilling. Observation helps us move beyond the functional job to the deeper emotional and social job.

3. Look for Environmental and Emotional Triggers

Context is everything. We must observe the environment — the lighting, the noise level, the interruptions — and the emotional state — frustration, confusion, momentary relief — of the user as they perform a task. If a user only uses a service when they are stressed and under a tight deadline, the innovation must prioritize speed and cognitive ease, regardless of their stated preferences in a calm interview setting. Observing the emotional cycle provides the empathy needed for human-centered design.

Case Study 1: The Kitchen Counter Conundrum

Challenge: Designing a Better Home Organization System

A major home goods retailer (“HomeLife”) consistently received high survey scores for their kitchen storage products, yet sales growth was stagnant. Focus groups praised the products’ features, but the underlying customer behavior was still chaotic. They wanted to understand why customers consistently failed to maintain a tidy kitchen.

Observational Intervention: Deep Contextual Inquiry

A small ethnographic team spent a week observing five families in their homes, focusing on the five minutes after they arrived home and the five minutes before leaving. They watched not just the kitchen, but the landing strip — the kitchen counter and adjacent areas.

  • Observation: They saw that every family member, without exception, dropped keys, mail, phones, and wallets directly onto the counter as the default transition point. The existing organization products were in cabinets, requiring effort and a conscious choice to use them.
  • Unspoken Need: The job to be done was not “storage” but “frictionless triage” — a system that managed immediate incoming clutter at the point of entry.

The Innovation Impact:

HomeLife stopped innovating inside the cabinets. They created a new line of “Landing Zone” organizers — attractive, open-faced trays and charging stations designed to live permanently on the counter, managing the immediate daily dump. This product line became their fastest-growing category, proving that solving the observed habit was more powerful than meeting the stated desire for more efficient hidden storage.

Case Study 2: Re-engineering the Healthcare Workflow

Challenge: High Administrative Error Rates in Patient Intake

A large hospital system (“HealthPath”) faced continuous, costly errors during patient intake. Nurses and administrators complained in interviews that the software was slow and complex, leading the IT department to recommend a costly software overhaul.

Observational Intervention: Silent Shadowing

A Human-Centered Innovation team chose to silently shadow nurses and intake staff for full shifts, documenting every mouse click, every sigh, and every manual note taken outside the system. They were looking for the workarounds.

  • Observation: The team discovered that the nurses rarely used the “slow and complex” patient history tabs during intake. Instead, they quickly printed the old, paper patient history forms, scribbled updates by hand during the interview, and only entered the minimum required data into the new software hours later.
  • The Friction: The real bottleneck wasn’t the software speed; it was the nurses’ need for quick, physical access to cross-reference data while simultaneously making eye contact with the patient. The software forced sequential digital entry, which contradicted the natural conversational flow.

The Innovation Impact:

HealthPath avoided the expensive software replacement. Instead, they implemented a cheap, innovative solution: the software was updated to include a “Quick View” contextual panel that displayed the most recent four critical patient history points on a separate, simplified screen. This allowed nurses to maintain flow and quickly verify key facts. The error rate dropped by 28% in three months, proving that human-centered observation leads to surgical, low-cost solutions, not just massive overhauls.

Conclusion: The Observational Mandate

The innovation mandate in the 21st century is clear: stop interviewing for validation and start observing for revelation. Observational research is your empathy engine. It forces you to move beyond the clean, rational world people describe in an interview and into the messy, emotional reality of their daily struggles. By systematically looking for workarounds, unspoken jobs, and environmental triggers, you shift your entire organization from merely responding to complaints to proactively solving the invisible problems of your users. This is the difference between incremental improvement and Human-Centered Disruption. The greatest insights are rarely spoken; they are shown.

“If you truly want to understand why people don’t use your solution, you must watch them live without it.” — Braden Kelley

Frequently Asked Questions About Observational Research

1. What is the key difference between observational research and an interview?

An interview captures what people say they do, often filtered by memory, social desirability, or self-rationalization. Observational research captures what people actually do in their natural context, revealing unconscious habits, workarounds, and friction points that are rarely articulated.

2. What is “latent need” and how does observation help find it?

A latent need is an unmet desire or problem that a user is not aware of or has simply learned to live with. Observation finds it by highlighting the user’s constant frustration or workaround, which they have normalized. The innovator sees the workaround and realizes the latent need is a superior, non-existent solution.

3. What is the biggest bias to avoid during observational research?

The biggest bias to avoid is the confirmation bias — seeing only what confirms your existing hypothesis about the problem. A good observer must practice suspending judgment and documenting everything, even behaviors that seem unrelated or counter-intuitive, to ensure the discovery of a truly novel insight.

Your first step into observational research: Take one hour next week to silently observe an employee or a customer interacting with your most critical process. Do not speak. Simply document every point where they pause, sigh, or deviate from the intended path. Use those observations, not their stated problems, to define your next innovation project.

Extra Extra: Because innovation is all about change, Braden Kelley’s human-centered change methodology and tools are the best way to plan and execute the changes necessary to support your innovation and transformation efforts — all while literally getting everyone all on the same page for change. Find out more about the methodology and tools, including the book Charting Change by following the link. Be sure and download the TEN FREE TOOLS while you’re here.

Image credit: Pixabay

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

Fostering Innovation Across Physical and Digital Walls

Leading the Hybrid Team

LAST UPDATED: December 13, 2025 at 10:09AM

Fostering Innovation Across Physical and Digital Walls

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

The innovation challenge in a hybrid world is not about technology; it’s about equity of collaboration. When some team members are physically together and others are virtual, a crucial information gap emerges. Those in the room benefit from body language, side conversations, and spontaneous moments—the very things that fuel informal innovation. Remote participants, however, often become second-class collaborators. This asymmetry kills the diverse thinking necessary for truly radical ideas. Hybrid leaders must address this proximity bias head-on.

In the framework of Human-Centered Innovation, we view the hybrid environment as a design problem. We are tasked with intentionally designing processes and utilizing tools to ensure that every participant—regardless of location—has an equal voice and equal access to information. We must unlearn the default reliance on impromptu, analog collaboration and replace it with structured, asynchronous digital processes that prioritize inclusion. The goal is to move from managing where people work to managing the quality of the collaboration they engage in.

The Three Pillars of Hybrid Innovation Leadership

To lead an innovative hybrid team, we must focus on three strategic areas:

1. The Doctrine of Digital-First Documentation

Innovation thrives on shared, persistent knowledge. In a hybrid setting, if an idea is discussed verbally in an office meeting room, it is effectively lost to the remote team when the meeting ends. The Digital-First Doctrine mandates that all work artifacts—brainstorming notes, idea sketches, mock-ups, and decision matrices—must live in a shared digital space (Miro, Figma, shared docs) that is accessible, editable, and visible to everyone, always. The physical whiteboard is dead; the digital canvas is the common ground.

  • Action: Leaders must insist that all meetings, even internal co-located ones, use a shared digital board as the single source of truth. If it isn’t documented digitally, it didn’t happen.

2. Intentionality in Serendipity and Spontaneity

The “water cooler moments” are where informal innovation often happens. You can’t replicate spontaneous encounters, but you can design for intentional serendipity. This involves allocating specific, non-work time for unstructured interaction.

  • Action: Schedule short, recurring “Idea Coffee Breaks” where participants are randomly assigned to small virtual breakout rooms with no agenda other than to discuss current projects or personal interests. Use a hybrid work day for “Deep Co-Creation Days” where co-located teams come in specifically to work on complex, generative tasks together, while remote teams join via high-quality video links optimized for collaborative tools.

3. The Principle of Time Zone and Asynchronous Equity

Hybrid teams often span time zones, making mandatory real-time meetings a productivity killer and a source of burnout. Asynchronous work — where teams collaborate over time rather than simultaneously—is the innovative advantage of the hybrid model.

  • Action: Shift the innovation pipeline to leverage asynchronous tools. For example, instead of a two-hour brainstorming session, implement a 24-hour Digital Brainstorm where team members contribute ideas over a full day in their preferred working window. Use short, recorded video updates instead of live status meetings, allowing teams to consume information when it is most convenient. This is the Human-Centered approach to global teamwork.

Case Study 1: Re-designing the Global Product Launch

Challenge: Staggered Innovation and Decision Paralysis in a Multi-National Hybrid Team

A global consumer electronics firm (“ConnectCorp”) needed to launch a new product line. Their teams were spread across three continents (US, EU, Asia) and were struggling with decision-making due to time zones and a reliance on US-centric, real-time meetings. Decisions made in the US often felt like directives to the Asian and European teams.

Hybrid Innovation Intervention: Asynchronous Decision Making

The innovation lead, embracing Human-Centered Innovation, introduced a “Decision Document” protocol. All key decisions were documented asynchronously (e.g., via a shared Notion or Confluence page) that clearly outlined:

  • The Context and Problem (1-page maximum).
  • The Options Considered and their data-backed pros/cons.
  • The Proposed Decision and the deadline for final input.

The Innovation Impact:

By forcing decisions into an asynchronous, digitally documented format, the team eliminated unnecessary meetings. The European and Asian teams had ample time to contribute thoughtful, written critiques before the decision was finalized. This change not only saved thousands of hours of meeting time but led to a 35% reduction in post-decision rework because regional insights were fully incorporated before launch. The process became more efficient, more transparent, and radically more inclusive.

Case Study 2: Designing the Inclusive Brainstorm

Challenge: Dominating Voices and Proximity Bias in Hybrid Brainstorming Sessions

A marketing agency (“IdeaForge”) found that in hybrid brainstorming sessions, the four or five people in the office consistently dominated the conversation, leaving the eight virtual participants as passive observers. The quality of idea generation suffered due to a lack of diversity.

Hybrid Innovation Intervention: Parallel Digital Brainwriting

The team adopted a strict protocol for all ideation sessions: the first 20 minutes were dedicated to Parallel Digital Brainwriting. All participants—local and remote—were required to submit their first five ideas silently and anonymously onto a shared digital canvas. No one was allowed to speak until all ideas were submitted.

  • This technique eliminated anchoring bias (where the first idea mentioned shapes all subsequent thinking) and proximity bias (where the loudest voice or the person closest to the facilitator wins).
  • The anonymous digital submission ensured introverted, virtual, and junior team members had equal input from the start.

The Innovation Impact:

The agency saw an immediate 40% increase in idea volume and a noticeable jump in the originality of the ideas generated. They successfully moved from an environment where innovation was an accidental performance (dominated by those physically present) to one where it was a structured, equitable process for every member, fully embodying the principles of Human-Centered Change.

Conclusion: Leadership Through Intentional Design

Leading the innovative hybrid team is a masterclass in organizational design. It is not about forcing people back into the office or simply tolerating remote work; it is about intentionally designing collaboration systems that overcome the physics of distance and the biases of proximity. The best hybrid leaders use the constraints of physical and digital walls to build stronger, more equitable processes. By adopting a Digital-First Doctrine, designing for intentional serendipity, and leveraging asynchronous equity, organizations can ensure that their innovation engine is powered by the talent of all their people, not just those who happen to share a common zip code. Innovation in the hybrid age is a conscious, inclusive act of design.

“If you want true innovation in a hybrid world, stop waiting for the hallway conversation and start designing the digital town square.”

Frequently Asked Questions About Hybrid Team Innovation

1. What is “proximity bias” and how does it kill hybrid innovation?

Proximity bias is the unconscious tendency to favor those who are physically closer to you (the manager). In a hybrid setting, this means co-located employees are often given more spontaneous access, better mentorship, and more visibility into key decisions, which starves remote teams of the crucial informal information needed for continuous innovation.

2. How does asynchronous work actually foster innovation, rather than slowing it down?

Asynchronous work fosters innovation by enabling deep work and reflection. Instead of being rushed into generating ideas live, team members have time to consume information, conduct research, and contribute high-quality, well-thought-out ideas when they are most focused. It trades the speed of live discussion for the depth and quality of measured contribution.

3. What single technology is most critical for an innovative hybrid team?

The most critical technology is the persistent, shared digital canvas (e.g., Miro, Mural, advanced shared docs). This tool acts as the central hub for all generative work—brainstorming, mapping, prototyping. It is the only way to ensure all team members, regardless of location, are working from the exact same, real-time visual information and have the ability to contribute equally.

Your first step toward hybrid innovation: Audit your last three brainstorming sessions. Document every idea and note, and then ask your remote participants to rate their perceived influence on the final outcome on a scale of 1-10. If the average rating is below 7, immediately implement the Parallel Digital Brainwriting technique for your next session.

Extra Extra: Because innovation is all about change, Braden Kelley’s human-centered change methodology and tools are the best way to plan and execute the changes necessary to support your innovation and transformation efforts — all while literally getting everyone all on the same page for change. Find out more about the methodology and tools, including the book Charting Change by following the link. Be sure and download the TEN FREE TOOLS while you’re here.

Image credit: Pixabay

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

Chief Intrapreneur – A New Role for the Modern C-Suite

LAST UPDATED: December 13, 2025 at 10:09AM

Chief Intrapreneur - A New Role for the Modern C-Suite

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

In most established organizations, the C-Suite is designed for execution, optimization, and defense. The CEO drives overall vision, the COO manages efficiency, the CFO controls resources, and the CMO owns the market message. But who owns the necessary creative destruction? Who is the executive dedicated not just to sustaining today’s business, but to building the profitable version of the business five years from now? The traditional Chief Innovation Officer (CIO) role often gets bogged down in R&D or incremental IT improvements. What we need is an executive champion of the internal entrepreneur: The Chief Intrapreneur (CInO).

The CInO’s mandate is not product development, but cultural orchestration. They function as the internal venture capitalist, allocating seed funding, securing resources, and, most crucially, shielding disruptive projects from the antibodies of the core business. This role is the organizational answer to the reality of Human-Centered Innovation, recognizing that the biggest barrier to innovation is not external competition, but internal bureaucracy, short-term financial pressure, and political turf wars. The CInO ensures that the organization not only tolerates internal challenges but actively cultivates them. We must unlearn the habit of punishing failure and replace it with a system that rewards calculated, iterative risk-taking.

The Three-Part Mandate of the Chief Intrapreneur

The CInO’s responsibilities extend beyond the traditional R&D lab and into the core operations and culture of the enterprise:

1. The Barrier Breaker: Cultural and Political Shielding

The most important function of the CInO is to act as the executive shield. New ventures are fragile and can be easily destroyed by core business metrics (e.g., demands for unrealistic quarterly returns). The CInO reports directly to the CEO, giving them the authority to push back on operational leadership and create dedicated, protected spaces — “skunkworks” or innovation sandboxes — where new ideas can be measured by learning speed, not profit alone. This requires strong political capital to override the objections of department heads who see innovation as a threat to their budgets or control.

2. The Resource Orchestrator: Internal Venture Capitalist

Unlike a traditional CIO who manages the IT budget, the CInO manages an internal Venture Fund. They allocate capital based on lean experimentation models, prioritizing small, rapid funding rounds over large, slow appropriations. They treat internal ideas as a portfolio of startups, measuring success by the validated learning generated. This requires fluency in venture capital metrics like speed of validation, pivot capacity, and option value, not just traditional financial forecasting.

3. The Competency Builder: Unlearning and Re-Skilling

Innovation requires new ways of working (Design Thinking, Lean Startup, Agile). The CInO is responsible for fostering a culture of intrapreneurial competence across the entire organization. This means creating rotational programs, mentorships (connecting internal entrepreneurs with executive sponsors), and training pathways that teach employees how to identify white space, run disciplined experiments, and communicate failure as a valuable learning outcome. The goal is to embed intrapreneurial DNA into the workforce, making innovation a shared capability, not a siloed department.

Case Study 1: Transforming a Legacy Financial Institution

Challenge: Stagnation and Fear of Regulatory Disruption

A large, centuries-old investment bank (“CapitalCore”) suffered from Status Quo Bias and political resistance to change. Teams were generating good ideas for fintech platforms, but these projects were consistently killed by the Compliance and IT departments, which prioritized regulatory safety and system stability over growth.

CInO Intervention: The Innovation Sandbox and Direct Reporting Line

CapitalCore appointed a CInO with a direct reporting line to the CEO. The CInO established a fully compliant “Innovation Sandbox” — a ring-fenced technology and regulatory environment where new platforms could be tested with real customer data but without risking the core system. The CInO had the authority to compel the Head of Compliance and the CIO to provide resources for the sandbox, turning them from internal blockers into necessary partners.

  • The CInO’s team, using the sandbox, successfully launched three new products in 18 months, compared to zero in the previous three years.
  • The success was achieved because the CInO de-risked the regulatory challenge politically and technically, protecting the intrapreneurs from the inevitable friction of the core business.

The Innovation Impact:

By establishing the CInO role, CapitalCore shifted its culture from one of fear-based gatekeeping to one of controlled experimentation. The CInO did not invent the products; they invented the process and authority structure that allowed the internal teams to succeed — the essence of Human-Centered Innovation.

Case Study 2: The Intrapreneurial Talent Pipeline

Challenge: High Turnover of High-Potential Talent Seeking Autonomy

A large manufacturing firm (“ManuFuture”) kept losing its best young engineers and marketers to startups because these employees felt their ideas were too slow to implement and that the organization offered no path for autonomy and internal ownership.

CInO Intervention: The Internal Incubation Fund and Equity System

The CInO at ManuFuture established an Internal Incubation Fund (IIF) with clear criteria for submission and funding. Crucially, the CInO worked with HR to create a new compensation structure: if an intrapreneurial project spun out into a successful new business unit, the founding team members were granted a phantom equity stake tied to the new unit’s performance.

  • This created a clear, financial incentive for employees to take risks internally, directly mirroring the startup environment’s reward system.
  • The CInO personally mentored the IIF teams, providing air cover and brokering access to existing suply chain and distribution resources that a true startup could never access.

The Innovation Impact:

ManuFuture saw a dramatic decrease in the attrition of high-potential employees, and the IIF successfully launched two new product lines that targeted adjacent markets the core business was ignoring. The CInO became the executive champion who provided both the capital and the career path necessary for internal entrepreneurs to succeed, transforming talent retention into a disruption engine.

Conclusion: The CInO as the Integrator of Change

The creation of the Chief Intrapreneur role is a strategic acknowledgment that innovation is a political act that requires C-Suite authority to overcome organizational gravity. The CInO is the architect of the environment, not just the ideas. By shielding projects, orchestrating resources, and building true intrapreneurial competency across the firm, this executive ensures that the organization remains capable of self-disruption. In an era of accelerating change, having an executive whose success is measured by the growth of tomorrow’s revenue — even if it competes with today’s — is not optional. It is the core requirement of sustainable Human-Centered Innovation. The CInO is the future of corporate longevity.

“Innovation dies not from lack of ideas, but from lack of executive air cover.”

Frequently Asked Questions About the Chief Intrapreneur (CInO)

1. How is the CInO different from a traditional Chief Innovation Officer (CIO)?

A traditional CIO often focuses on technology implementation, R&D, and incremental process improvements. The CInO has a broader, higher authority mandate focused on internal disruption and cultural change. They act as a cross-functional venture capitalist and political shield, ensuring new business models can scale without being suffocated by the core business.

2. To whom should the Chief Intrapreneur report?

The CInO must report directly to the CEO. This is crucial because their primary function is to resolve cross-departmental conflict and override the objections of other executives (CFO, COO, CMO) who prioritize short-term returns. Without the direct authority of the CEO, the CInO’s disruptive projects will be easily marginalized or defunded.

3. What is the most critical cultural shift the CInO must achieve?

The most critical shift is moving the organization from punishing failure to rewarding validated learning. The CInO must establish metrics that celebrate rapid, low-cost failure when it generates high-value insights, ensuring that internal entrepreneurs are incentivized to test risky assumptions quickly, rather than concealing problems until it’s too late.

Your first step toward intrapreneurship: Identify the top two most promising new ideas currently stuck in political or budgetary limbo. Assign them an executive sponsor (ideally the CEO or a CInO if one exists) whose formal job description now includes removing the next three barriers for that idea to progress.

Extra Extra: Because innovation is all about change, Braden Kelley’s human-centered change methodology and tools are the best way to plan and execute the changes necessary to support your innovation and transformation efforts — all while literally getting everyone all on the same page for change. Find out more about the methodology and tools, including the book Charting Change by following the link. Be sure and download the TEN FREE TOOLS while you’re here.

Image credit: Pixabay

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

Beyond the Prototype – How to Test and Iterate on a Business Model

LAST UPDATED: December 10, 2025 at 12:12PM

Beyond the Prototype - How to Test and Iterate on a Business Model

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

The journey of innovation often starts with a flash of insight, proceeds through design thinking, and culminates in a beautiful, working prototype. Unfortunately, too many organizations mistake this technical milestone for ultimate validation. They assume that because the product works, the business model — the economic engine that funds and scales that product — will also work. This is the most dangerous assumption in the innovation lifecycle.

The business model itself is the largest, most complex hypothesis we launch. It encompasses everything from how we acquire customers and what they are willing to pay, to the cost of our key resources and the nature of our partnerships. If your revenue streams are a guess, your cost structure is a hope, and your channels are a pipe dream, your product, however well-designed, is destined for the scrap heap. In the realm of Human-Centered Innovation, we must unlearn the product-first mentality and embrace the model-first testing philosophy. This requires shifting from testing product usability to testing business viability using model-specific metrics.

The Three Hypotheses in Business Model Testing

Testing a business model means breaking it down into its core, measurable assumptions. We focus on three interconnected areas:

1. The Value Hypothesis (Customer/Value Proposition Fit)

This is the foundation: Does the product or service actually solve a problem for a defined customer segment? While prototyping addresses product usability, model testing addresses willingness-to-pay and actual usage patterns. We test whether the perceived value aligns with the revenue model.

  • Test Focus: A/B test pricing tiers (monthly vs. annual, premium vs. basic), run “smoke tests” to gauge initial sign-ups for a non-existent product, or use Concierge MVPs where services are manually delivered to deeply understand the customer journey and price sensitivity before automation.
  • Key Metric: Willingness-to-Pay (WTP), Net Promoter Score (NPS) for the specific value exchange.

2. The Growth Hypothesis (Channel/Acquisition Fit)

A great product fails if you cannot affordably get it into the hands of customers. This hypothesis tests the efficiency and scalability of your customer acquisition channels and your key partners.

  • Test Focus: Run small, contained experiments across different channels (e.g., paid social vs. SEO vs. strategic partnership referrals) to compare costs and conversion rates. Test various partner roles — do they act as distributors, co-creators, or merely service providers?
  • Key Metric: Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC), Lifetime Value (LTV), and LTV/CAC ratio. This ratio is the ultimate test of viability.

3. The Operational Hypothesis (Cost/Resource Fit)

This tests the internal engine: Can we deliver the value proposition at a cost that is significantly lower than the price we charge? This involves testing key activities, resource assumptions, and supply chain scalability.

  • Test Focus: Create a “Shadow P&L” for the new model, tracking variable costs associated with early customer acquisition and service delivery. Run controlled pilots focused on simulating the Key Activities (e.g., if a new service requires 24/7 support, test that support capability with real, paying customers for a month).
  • Key Metric: Contribution Margin, Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) as a percentage of revenue, and scalability metrics (e.g., cost to serve the 10th customer vs. the 100th customer).

Case Study 1: The Subscription Anchor That Was Cut

Challenge: Failed Launch of a Health-Tech Diagnostic Device

A medical device company (“MedTrack”) developed a portable diagnostic device. The initial prototype was technically perfect, but the business model relied on a mandatory high-cost monthly subscription for data analysis software. The subscription revenue stream was designed to create recurring revenue and offset the low upfront device cost.

Model Testing Intervention: Value Hypothesis Pivot

Initial pilot testing revealed that while customers loved the device, the high subscription created massive churn after the first year. MedTrack tested the Value Hypothesis:

  • Hypothesis 1 (Failed): Customers will pay $150/month for comprehensive data analysis.
  • Test: Offer three options: $150/month (current model), $25/month for basic data (new tier), and a $1,500 one-time software license.

The Innovation Impact:

The test showed that the $25/month basic data tier attracted 80% of new customers and had 95% retention. The $1,500 one-time fee also proved attractive to institutional buyers. By iterating on the Revenue Stream (a key business model block) from a rigid subscription to a tiered and licensed model, MedTrack dramatically improved its LTV/CAC ratio. They realized their innovation wasn’t the device; it was the flexibility of the pricing model tailored to different customer segments, a critical element of Human-Centered Innovation.

Case Study 2: Testing the Delivery Channel of Services

Challenge: Scaling an Expensive B2B Consulting Service

A strategy firm (“StratX”) wanted to scale a high-value, bespoke market entry strategy service without proportionally increasing its headcount — a severe constraint in its Cost Structure block. Their initial Growth Hypothesis relied on high-touch, senior consultant sales.

Model Testing Intervention: Growth and Operational Hypothesis Test

StratX decided to test replacing the expensive consultant delivery with a technology-augmented channel. They ran an A/B test on their target customer segment:

  • Group A (Control): Full senior consultant engagement (high Cost Structure, high Revenue Stream).
  • Group B (Test): A “Hybrid Model” where the initial 80% of the strategy report was generated by AI/data science tools (saving Key Activities cost), followed by a single senior consultant review session (low Cost Structure, slightly reduced Revenue Stream).

The Innovation Impact:

The Hybrid Model achieved an LTV/CAC ratio that was300% higher than the Control Group. Customers in Group B were highly satisfied with the speed and data quality, accepting a slightly lower consultant touchpoint for a lower price and faster delivery. StratX had successfully validated a new, highly scalable Key Resource (the data science platform) and a new Channel, allowing the firm to expand its addressable market and free up expensive senior consultants for truly bespoke, complex client needs. This proved that innovation in service delivery is a critical component of the business model.

Conclusion: Business Model Validation is the Ultimate De-Risking

The successful launch of any new initiative, particularly in the realm of radical innovation, is determined long after the prototype is functional. It is determined by the rigor with which you test and iterate on your business model hypotheses. By dissecting your model into its core assumptions — Value, Growth, and Operational — and designing measurable experiments (MVPs, A/B tests, Shadow P&Ls), you move from guessing to knowing. This structured approach, rooted in Human-Centered Innovation, shifts the risk from catastrophic failure at launch to manageable learning throughout development. Stop perfecting the product; start proving the model.

“If your product is a masterpiece but your business model is a mystery, you have a hobby, not an innovation.”

Frequently Asked Questions About Business Model Testing

1. What is the difference between testing a product and testing a business model?

Testing a product focuses on usability, functionality, and desirability (e.g., does the app work, do people like the color?). Testing a business model focuses on viability and scalability (e.g., are people willing to pay enough for the app to cover the cost of acquiring them and running the service?).

2. What is a “Shadow P&L” in the context of innovation?

A Shadow P&L (Profit and Loss) is a separate, simulated financial statement created specifically for an innovation project. It tracks the real-world costs and simulated revenues associated with the new business model during the testing phase. It helps the team validate their Cost Structure and Revenue Stream hypotheses before integrating the project into the main corporate finances.

3. How do you test a distribution channel without a full launch?

Distribution channels can be tested using small, contained experiments. For instance, testing a partnership channel can involve a single pilot partner with clear, measurable KPIs (conversion rates, lead quality). Testing a direct-to-consumer channel can use A/B testing of targeted digital ads to measure Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC) without building out the entire logistics infrastructure.

Your first step toward model testing: Take your most promising new idea, map it onto a Business Model Canvas, and circle the three riskiest assumptions in the “Revenue Streams,” “Cost Structure,” and “Key Activities” blocks. Design one small, cheap experiment for each of those three assumptions next week.

Extra Extra: Because innovation is all about change, Braden Kelley’s human-centered change methodology and tools are the best way to plan and execute the changes necessary to support your innovation and transformation efforts — all while literally getting everyone all on the same page for change. Find out more about the methodology and tools, including the book Charting Change by following the link. Be sure and download the TEN FREE TOOLS while you’re here.

Image credit: Unsplash

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

Anchors & Biases – How Cognitive Shortcuts Kill New Ideas

LAST UPDATED: December 10, 2025 at 12:12PM

Anchors & Biases - How Cognitive Shortcuts Kill New Ideas

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

Innovation is inherently messy, uncertain, and challenging. To navigate this complexity, our brains rely on cognitive shortcuts – heuristics — to save time and energy. While these shortcuts are useful for avoiding immediate danger or making routine decisions, they become the primary internal roadblocks when attempting to generate or evaluate truly novel ideas. These shortcuts are our anchors and biases, and they consistently pull us back to the familiar, the safe, and the incremental.

In the context of Human-Centered Innovation, we must shift our focus from just generating innovation to protecting it from these internal threats. The key is to recognize the most common biases that derail novel concepts and build specific, deliberate processes to counteract them. We must unlearn the assumption of pure rationality and embrace the fact that all decision-making, especially concerning risk and novelty, is tainted by predictable cognitive errors. This recognition is the first step toward building a truly bias-aware innovation ecosystem.

Anchors & Biases - How Cognitive Shortcuts Kill New Ideas

Visual representation: A diagram illustrating the innovation funnel being constricted at different stages (Ideation, Evaluation, Funding) by three key cognitive biases: Anchoring, Confirmation Bias, and Status Quo Bias.

Three Innovation Killers and How to Disarm Them

While hundreds of biases exist, three are particularly lethal to the innovation process:

1. Anchoring Bias: The Tyranny of the First Number

The Anchoring Bias occurs when people rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered (the “anchor”) when making decisions. In innovation, the anchor is often the budget of the last project, the timeline of the most recent success, or the projected ROI of the initial idea submission. This anchor skews all subsequent analysis, making it nearly impossible to objectively evaluate ideas that fall far outside that initial range.

  • The Killer: A disruptive idea requiring a tenfold increase in budget compared to the anchor will be instantly dismissed as “too expensive,” even if the potential ROI is twentyfold.
  • The Disarmer: Use Premortem Analysis (imagining the project failed and listing the causes) before assigning any financial figures. Also, use Three-Point Estimates (optimistic, pessimistic, and most likely) to establish a range, preventing a single number from becoming the dominant anchor.

2. Confirmation Bias: Seeking Proof, Not Truth

The Confirmation Bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information that confirms or supports one’s prior beliefs or values. In innovation, this leads teams to design market research that validates their pet idea and ignore data that challenges it. This results in the pursuit of solutions nobody wants, but which the team believes they want.

  • The Killer: A team falls in love with a solution and only interviews customers who fit their narrow ideal profile, ignoring a critical segment whose objections would save the project from failure.
  • The Disarmer: Institute a Red Team/Blue Team structure. Assign a dedicated “Red Team” whose only job is to rigorously critique the idea and actively seek disconfirming evidence and data. Leadership must reward the Red Team for finding flaws, not just for confirming the status quo.

3. Status Quo Bias: The Comfort of the Familiar

The Status Quo Bias is the preference for the current state of affairs. Any change from the baseline is perceived as a loss, and the pain of potential loss outweighs the potential gain of the new idea. This is the organizational immune system fighting off innovation. It’s why companies often choose to incrementally improve a dying product rather than commit to a disruptive new platform.

  • The Killer: A new business model that could unlock 5x revenue is rejected because it requires decommissioning a legacy product that currently contributes 10% of profit, even though that product is in terminal decline. The perceived certainty of the 10% trumps the uncertainty of the 5x.
  • The Disarmer: Employ Zero-Based Budgeting for Ideas. Force teams to justify the existence of current processes or products as if they were a new idea competing for resources. Ask: “If we didn’t offer this product today, would we launch it now?” If the answer is no, the status quo must be challenged.

Case Study 1: The Anchor That Sank the Startup

Challenge: Undervaluing Disruptive Potential Due to Legacy Pricing

A B2B SaaS startup (“DataFlow”) developed an AI tool that automated a complex, manual compliance reporting process, reducing the time required from 40 hours per month to 2 hours. The initial team, anchored to the price of the legacy human labor (which cost clients approximately $4,000/month), decided to price their software at a conservative $300/month.

Bias in Action: Anchoring Bias

The team failed to anchor their pricing to the value delivered (time savings, error reduction, regulatory certainty) and instead anchored it to the legacy cost structure. Their $300 price point led potential high-value clients to view the product as a minor utility, not a mission-critical tool, because the price was too low relative to the problem solved. They were competing on cost, not value.

  • The Correction: External consultants forced the team to re-anchor based on the avoided regulatory fine risk (a $100k-$500k loss). They repositioned the product as an insurance policy rather than a software license and successfully raised the price to $2,500/month, radically improving their perceived value, sales pipeline, and runway.

The Innovation Impact:

By identifying and aggressively correcting the anchoring bias, DataFlow unlocked its true market value. The innovation was technical, but the success was achieved through cognitive clarity in pricing strategy.

Case Study 2: The Confirmation Loop That Killed the Feature

Challenge: Launching a Feature Based on Internal Enthusiasm, Not Customer Need

A social media platform (“ConnectAll”) decided to integrate a complex 3D-modeling feature based on the CEO’s enthusiasm and anecdotal data from a few early-adopter focus groups. The development team, driven by Confirmation Bias, only sought feedback that praised the technical complexity and novelty of the feature.

Bias in Action: Confirmation Bias & Sunk Cost

The internal team, having invested six months of work (Sunk Cost Fallacy), refused to pivot when the initial Beta tests showed confusion and low usage. They argued that users simply needed more training. When the feature launched, user adoption was near zero, and the feature became a maintenance drain, detracting resources from core product improvements.

  • The Correction: Post-mortem analysis showed the team needed Formal Disconfirmation. The new innovation process mandates that market testing must include a structured interview block where testers are paid to actively try and break the new feature, list its flaws, and articulate why they wouldn’t use it.

The Innovation Impact:

ConnectAll learned that the purpose of testing is not to confirm success, but to disconfirm failure. By forcing teams to seek and respect evidence that contradicts their initial beliefs, they now kill flawed ideas faster and redirect resources to validated, human-centered needs.

Conclusion: Bias-Awareness is the New Innovation Metric

The greatest barrier to radical innovation isn’t a lack of ideas or funding; it’s the predictability of human psychology. Cognitive biases like Anchoring, Confirmation Bias, and Status Quo Bias act as unconscious filters, ensuring that only the incremental and familiar survive the evaluation process. Organizations committed to Human-Centered Innovation must make bias-awareness a core competency. By building systematic checks (Premortems, Red Teams, Zero-Based Thinking) into every stage of the innovation pipeline, leaders transform cognitive shortcuts from fatal flaws into predictable inputs that can be managed. To innovate boldly, you must first think clearly.

“The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled — and often, that fire is choked by the ashes of old assumptions.” — Braden Kelley

Build a Common Language of Innovation on your team

Frequently Asked Questions About Cognitive Biases in Innovation

1. What is the difference between a heuristic and a cognitive bias?

A heuristic is a mental shortcut used to solve problems quickly and efficiently — it is the process. A cognitive bias is a systematic pattern of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment — it is the predictable error resulting from the heuristic. Biases are the consequences of using mental shortcuts (heuristics) in inappropriate contexts, such as innovation evaluation.

2. How does the Status Quo Bias relate to the Sunk Cost Fallacy?

The Status Quo Bias is a preference for the current state (a passive resistance to change). The Sunk Cost Fallacy is the resistance to changing a current course of action because of resources already invested (an active commitment to past expenditure). Both work together to kill new ideas: the Status Quo protects the legacy product, and Sunk Cost Fallacy protects the legacy project that failed to deliver.

3. Can AI help eliminate human cognitive biases in decision-making?

Yes. AI can be a powerful tool to mitigate human bias by acting as an objective “Red Team.” AI can be prompted to ignore anchors (e.g., “Analyze this idea assuming zero prior investment”), actively seek disconfirming data, and simulate scenarios free of human emotional attachment, providing a rational baseline for decision-making and challenging the human team’s assumptions.

Your first step toward mitigating bias: Before your next innovation meeting, ask everyone to write down the largest successful project budget from the last year. Collect these, then start the discussion on the new idea’s budget by referencing the highest and lowest numbers submitted. This simple act of introducing multiple anchors diffuses the power of any single number and forces a broader discussion.

Extra Extra: Because innovation is all about change, Braden Kelley’s human-centered change methodology and tools are the best way to plan and execute the changes necessary to support your innovation and transformation efforts — all while literally getting everyone all on the same page for change. Find out more about the methodology and tools, including the book Charting Change by following the link. Be sure and download the TEN FREE TOOLS while you’re here.

Image credit: Pexels

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

Innovating the Path for Human Growth

Career Lattice, Not Ladder

LAST UPDATED: December 10, 2025 at 12:12PM

Innovating the Path for Human Growth - Career Lattice, Not Ladder

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

For over a century, the metaphor guiding professional development has been the career ladder: a single, vertical track where success is measured solely by climbing to the next managerial rung. This linear approach is fundamentally broken for the modern, innovation-driven economy. It forces technical experts into supervisory roles they neither want nor excel at, creates deep talent silos, and ultimately limits an organization’s adaptive capacity. The traditional ladder generates leadership bottlenecks and expertise gaps.

The solution is the Career Lattice. This model replaces simple vertical promotion with a complex, interconnected network of roles that rewards movement across functions, deepening of non-managerial expertise, and mastery of cross-disciplinary skills. This horizontal and diagonal movement is the necessary foundation for building a resilient, innovative, and human-centered workforce. The lattice acknowledges that a lateral move from marketing to product development, or a diagonal shift into a subject matter expert track, is often more valuable to the individual’s growth and the company’s innovation ecosystem than a simple management title. Organizations must unlearn the idea that management is the only path to influence and compensation and embrace the horizontal value of the expert. This is the structural requirement for true Human-Centered Innovation.

Visual representation: A diagram comparing the Career Ladder (a single vertical line with few rungs) to the Career Lattice (a broad, interconnected grid showing horizontal, vertical, and diagonal movement between different functions like Engineering, Marketing, and Strategy).

The Three Core Benefits of the Lattice

Shifting to a lattice model yields three transformative benefits that directly fuel innovation:

1. Deepened T-Shaped Expertise

The lattice explicitly supports the growth of T-Shaped Professionals — individuals who possess deep expertise in one area (the vertical bar of the ‘T’) but also broad, cross-functional knowledge (the horizontal bar). A designer who has spent a year in customer service, or a developer who has shadowed the finance team, gains the empathy and perspective necessary to create truly human-centered solutions. The lattice makes these moves desirable and compensable, creating a workforce rich in interdisciplinary context.

2. Unblocking the Expert Track

The biggest failure of the ladder is forcing valuable experts — brilliant engineers, data scientists, or regulatory specialists — into managing people just to gain a pay raise or seniority. The lattice introduces parallel, high-status, high-compensation Expert Tracks (e.g., Distinguished Engineer, Principal Architect, Master Strategist) that are non-managerial. This allows top talent to focus on complex problem-solving and mentorship without sacrificing their career ambition, keeping critical institutional knowledge and technical leadership focused on innovation, not administration.

3. Fostering Organizational Agility

A workforce with experience across multiple functions is inherently more agile. When teams need to pivot or collaborate on a complex, novel problem (the core of innovation), individuals who have worked in different departments understand the language, incentives, and constraints of their partners. This shared context dramatically reduces friction, misunderstandings, and siloed thinking, accelerating the organization’s responsiveness to market shifts. The lattice acts as an organizational glue.

Designing the Lattice: Essential Structural Elements

Simply drawing a box grid is not enough. A functional Career Lattice requires intentional structural changes:

  • Value Equivalence: Compensation and seniority must be mapped to skill mastery and organizational impact, not reporting lines. A Principal Architect (non-manager) must be demonstrably capable of earning the same as a Director (manager).
  • Internal Mobility as a KPI: The success of managers and HR should be tied to the percentage of employees making meaningful lateral or diagonal moves. Internal mobility must be prioritized over external hiring for specific roles.
  • Rotational Assignments: Formalize temporary, project-based assignments outside a person’s core function. These tours of duty expose employees to new challenges and build lattice connections without permanent job changes.

Case Study 1: Transforming a Technology Team into a Business Partner

Challenge: IT Department Viewed as a Cost Center, Lacking Business Empathy

A large financial services company (“FinNova”) had a technically excellent IT department, but it was siloed. IT projects often failed because the team lacked empathy for the daily struggles and strategic needs of the sales and operations teams. The only promotion path in IT was to become an IT manager, increasing the isolation.

Lattice Intervention: Diagonal and Horizontal Movement

FinNova implemented a Career Lattice focused on building business context. They established a “Business Architect” track — a diagonal move from IT specialist. These non-managerial roles required 18 months of embedded work in a business unit (Sales, Compliance, Operations) followed by a return to IT to lead strategic integration projects.

  • The Business Architect track was compensated equally to the IT Manager track.
  • IT staff were required to complete at least one rotational assignment (e.g., three months in a branch office) before being eligible for the top technical roles.

The Innovation Impact:

The lattice successfully broke the silo. IT projects began incorporating operational realities from the start. The quality of IT strategic advice improved dramatically, and the IT department transitioned from a cost center to a genuine business partner, directly enabling the firm’s transition to a digital-first service model. The lattice created cross-functional translators.

Case Study 2: Retaining Top Talent Through Expertise Recognition

Challenge: Loss of Senior Scientific Researchers to Competitors

A bio-technology startup (“BioLeap”) found that its top PhD-level researchers were leaving for management positions at larger firms after reaching the ceiling of the non-managerial “Senior Scientist” role. The company was hemorrhaging institutional knowledge and technical leadership.

Lattice Intervention: The Expert Track Parallel

BioLeap formally introduced a parallel Expert Track to run alongside the Management Track. They created “Research Fellow” and “Principal Investigator” titles, offering compensation and perks equivalent to Director and VP-level roles, respectively.

  • Research Fellows were given protected time for pure research and mentorship responsibilities but zero direct reports.
  • The promotion criteria for the Expert Track were focused on patent creation, publication of high-impact research, and mentoring junior scientists — not people management.

The Innovation Impact:

By explicitly valuing and rewarding technical mastery over administration, BioLeap immediately stabilized its senior research team retention. The company not only retained its most valuable minds but also leveraged them as internal consultants and mentors, significantly accelerating the development of novel therapies. The lattice allowed their best scientists to continue being scientists, directly contributing to the core mission of disruptive innovation.

Career Lattice Not Ladder Infographic

Conclusion: The Lattice is Human-Centered Strategy

The Career Lattice is more than just an HR policy; it is a fundamental shift in strategy that aligns organizational structure with Human-Centered Innovation. It rewards the natural human desire for continuous learning, diverse experiences, and deep mastery, rather than forcing everyone into the narrow, often ill-fitting, constraints of management. Leaders must champion this shift, not just to retain talent, but to build an enterprise that is inherently more versatile, empathetic, and capable of generating sustained, cross-functional innovation. Stop climbing ladders; start weaving a lattice.

“The depth of your expertise matters as much as the height of your title.” — Braden Kelley

Frequently Asked Questions About the Career Lattice

1. How is a Career Lattice different from a dual-track career system?

A dual-track system (Management vs. Technical) is a component of a lattice. A true Career Lattice is much broader: it allows for horizontal movement between different departments (e.g., Marketing to Finance) and diagonal movement from a technical track into a cross-functional role (e.g., Technical Expert to Project Strategist), rewarding diverse experience, not just vertical or single-track progression.

2. Does the Lattice eliminate the need for traditional managers?

No. The Lattice clarifies and elevates the role of the manager. Instead of being the only path to success, management becomes a distinct specialization focused on people leadership, resource allocation, and strategy execution. It ensures that those who become managers are genuinely skilled in leadership, while experts are free to focus on deep technical or strategic contributions.

3. What is the single biggest barrier to implementing a Career Lattice?

The biggest barrier is cultural—specifically, the ingrained perception that higher management titles automatically equate to higher value and compensation. Successfully implementing a lattice requires leaders to publicly, explicitly, and financially validate the equivalence of the top Expert Track roles with Director or VP-level Management Track roles. Without this cultural shift, employees will still default to chasing the traditional title.

Your first step toward building a Career Lattice: Identify your top five non-managerial experts who are nearing a career ceiling. Create a specific, high-status “Principal” or “Distinguished” title for them and publicly announce their promotion, ensuring the compensation is equal to the next level of management. This sends the clearest signal that expertise is valued horizontally.

Extra Extra: Because innovation is all about change, Braden Kelley’s human-centered change methodology and tools are the best way to plan and execute the changes necessary to support your innovation and transformation efforts — all while literally getting everyone all on the same page for change. Find out more about the methodology and tools, including the book Charting Change by following the link. Be sure and download the TEN FREE TOOLS while you’re here.

Image credit: Pexels

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

Talking to the Machine for Maximum Innovation Output

The New Skill of Prompting

LAST UPDATED: December 9, 2025 at 3:34PM

Talking to the Machine for Maximum Innovation Output

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

In the landscape of Human-Centered Innovation, the tools we use are constantly evolving. For decades, our focus has been on understanding human behavior, market dynamics, and organizational psychology. While these remain critical, a new, rapidly ascending skill is redefining innovation: prompting. This isn’t about esoteric coding; it’s the art and science of communicating effectively with artificial intelligence to unlock unprecedented levels of creativity, efficiency, and insight.

The rise of generative AI means that our ability to articulate needs, define constraints, and guide machine cognition will directly determine our innovation output. Those who master this skill will not merely automate tasks; they will augment human ingenuity, turning vague concepts into tangible prototypes, complex data into actionable strategies, and bold visions into executable plans. We must unlearn the idea that machines only follow rigid commands and instead embrace them as intelligent collaborators, whose effectiveness is a direct reflection of our communication clarity and intent. This is the essence of human-machine co-creation.

The New Skill of Prompting

Visual representation: A diagram showing a human figure interacting with an AI interface, with arrows depicting iterative communication between prompt and output, leading to an innovative product or solution.

The Four Principles of Effective Prompting for Innovation

Effective prompting isn’t about magic words; it’s about structured thinking and iterative refinement. Here are four core principles:

1. Be Specific and Context-Rich (The “Who, What, When, Where, Why, How” for AI)

Vague prompts yield vague results. To get innovative outputs, you must provide the AI with a rich tapestry of context, constraints, and desired outcomes. Think of it as briefing an exceptionally intelligent, but context-blind, junior consultant. Define the role of the AI (e.g., “Act as a seasoned product manager”), the target audience (e.g., “for busy small business owners”), the problem you’re solving, the format of the output, and any limitations (e.g., “no more than 3 bullet points”). The more specific you are, the less the AI has to guess, and the more relevant its innovative suggestions become.

2. Leverage Iteration and Refinement (The “Dialogue-Driven” Discovery)

Innovation is rarely a one-shot process, and neither is prompting. Treat your interaction with the AI as a dialogue. Start with a broad prompt, analyze the output, and then refine your request based on what you’ve learned. This iterative process, often called “prompt chaining” or “conversation loops,” allows you to progressively narrow down solutions, explore adjacent ideas, and course-correct in real-time. Don’t expect perfection on the first try; expect a powerful co-creative journey.

3. Define the Desired Persona (Injecting Intent and Tone)

AI models can adopt various personas, which dramatically influences the style, tone, and even the creativity of their responses. Specifying a persona—”Act as a disruptive startup founder,” “Write like a meticulous scientific researcher,” or “Brainstorm like an unconstrained artist”—can unlock entirely different modes of thinking within the AI. This is where you inject the human element of intent into the machine’s generation, ensuring the output aligns not just with the facts, but with the spirit of your innovation challenge.

4. Use Examples and Constraints (Guiding Creativity, Not Limiting It)

While AI can generate novel ideas, it excels when given examples of the type of output you’re looking for, or clear boundaries. Providing “few-shot” examples (e.g., “Here are three examples of innovative headlines; generate five more in a similar style”) can significantly improve the quality and relevance of the output. Similarly, setting negative constraints (e.g., “Do not use jargon,” “Avoid cliché solutions”) focuses the AI’s creative energy towards truly original and effective solutions. These aren’t limitations; they are scaffolding for breakthrough thinking.

Case Study 1: Accelerating New Product Ideation

Challenge: Stagnant Idea Pipeline for a Consumer Electronics Company

A leading consumer electronics firm (“InnovateTech”) struggled with generating truly novel product ideas. Traditional brainstorming sessions often reverted to incremental improvements on existing products, and market research provided limited forward-looking insights. The ideation process was slow and often led to groupthink.

Prompting Intervention: AI-Augmented Brainstorming

InnovateTech integrated a generative AI into its early-stage ideation. Product managers were trained in advanced prompting techniques:

  • Specific Context: Prompts included detailed customer personas, unmet needs, existing market gaps, and even desired technological components (e.g., “Act as a futurist product designer. Brainstorm 10 disruptive smart home devices for busy urban professionals, focusing on sustainability and ease of integration, avoiding voice assistants as the primary interface.”).
  • Iteration: Initial AI outputs were then used as a basis for further prompts: “Refine these three ideas, focusing on how they could be gamified for user engagement,” or “Generate potential risks for these ideas, along with mitigation strategies.”

The Innovation Impact:

The AI-augmented ideation dramatically increased the volume and diversity of novel product concepts. The team reported a 200% increase in “truly unique” ideas, with the AI serving as an impartial, tireless brainstorming partner, challenging assumptions and suggesting unconventional combinations. The time from concept to validated idea was reduced by 30%, demonstrating how effective prompting transformed a bottleneck into a catalyst for innovation.

Case Study 2: Rapid Market Entry Strategy Development

Challenge: Slow and Costly Market Research for a SaaS Startup

A B2B SaaS startup (“GrowthEngine”) needed to quickly identify the most promising new international markets for its niche analytics platform but lacked the resources for extensive traditional market research. The founders faced a high-stakes decision with limited data.

Prompting Intervention: Strategic AI Analysis

GrowthEngine’s strategy team, using advanced prompting, leveraged an AI model for rapid market analysis:

  • Persona & Specificity: The prompt was framed as: “Act as a global market expansion consultant for a B2B SaaS company specializing in real-time data analytics for supply chain optimization. Evaluate the top five emerging markets (outside North America/Europe) for product-market fit, considering regulatory hurdles, competitive landscape, and potential customer segments. Present a SWOT analysis for each, and rank them with justification. Focus on markets with high digital transformation potential but underserved analytics needs.”
  • Constraints & Examples: They provided examples of previous successful market entry strategies for similar companies to guide the AI’s analysis and requested the output in a structured table format for easy comparison.

The Innovation Impact:

What would have taken weeks or months of dedicated analyst time was compressed into a few hours of iterative prompting. The AI provided detailed, actionable insights that identified two unexpected, high-potential markets that traditional research might have overlooked. This accelerated GrowthEngine’s market entry decision by 75%, allowing them to seize a first-mover advantage and proving that intelligent prompting is a strategic competitive differentiator.

Conclusion: Prompting as a Core Innovation Competency

The ability to effectively “talk to the machine” through prompting is no longer an optional skill; it is a core competency for the modern innovator. Organizations dedicated to Human-Centered Innovation must invest in training their teams in these principles. It’s about empowering humans to ask better questions, to think more expansively, and to leverage AI not as a replacement, but as an indispensable partner in the journey of discovery and creation. The future of innovation belongs to those who master the dialogue with their intelligent tools. Start prompting, start innovating.

“The future of work isn’t about replacing humans with AI; it’s about amplifying human potential with AI, and prompting is the key.” — Braden Kelley

Frequently Asked Questions About Prompting for Innovation

1. What is “prompting” in the context of AI and innovation?

Prompting is the skill of formulating clear, specific, and context-rich instructions or questions for an artificial intelligence model to generate desired outputs. In innovation, it’s about guiding AI to brainstorm ideas, analyze data, create content, or simulate scenarios to accelerate problem-solving and creative development.

2. Is prompting a technical skill, or more about communication?

Prompting is primarily a communication skill, deeply rooted in critical thinking and understanding intent, rather than pure technical coding. While some technical nuances can optimize results, the core competency lies in the ability to clearly articulate a problem, provide relevant context and constraints, and iterate effectively with the AI.

3. How can organizations encourage prompting skills among their teams?

Organizations can encourage prompting skills by providing dedicated training on effective prompting principles, creating shared “prompt libraries” of successful examples, integrating AI tools into daily workflows, and fostering a culture of experimentation and iterative dialogue with AI. Leadership should actively demonstrate and reward effective AI collaboration.

Your first step toward mastering prompting: The next time you face a creative block or a complex problem, instead of staring at a blank screen, open your favorite generative AI tool. Start with a very simple prompt describing your need, then spend 15 minutes iteratively refining it based on the AI’s responses. Treat it as a rapid-fire brainstorming partner, and watch your initial idea transform.

Extra Extra: Because innovation is all about change, Braden Kelley’s human-centered change methodology and tools are the best way to plan and execute the changes necessary to support your innovation and transformation efforts — all while literally getting everyone all on the same page for change. Find out more about the methodology and tools, including the book Charting Change by following the link. Be sure and download the TEN FREE TOOLS while you’re here.

Image credit: Pexels

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