Author Archives: Greg Satell

About Greg Satell

Greg Satell is a popular speaker and consultant. His latest book, Cascades: How to Create a Movement That Drives Transformational Change, is available now. Follow his blog at Digital Tonto or on Twitter @Digital Tonto.

Why Networks Can Outperform Hierarchies

Leave a reply

(And Vice Versa)

Why Networks Can Outperform Hierarchies

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

I still remember the bright autumn day in 2014 when I turned off of the main road in Exton, Pennsylvania onto a remote path. I was going to meet Brian J. Robertson, the creator of a hot new “flat” management approach called Holacracy. I was skeptical, because it seemed to be a cumbersome way to go about governance, but I was open to learning about it.

Many companies, most famously Zappos, were enthusiastically adopting it and there was no shortage of hype among the punditry about abolishing hierarchies. Brian, for his part, was gracious and patient with me, explaining how and why everything worked. Still, I had my doubts and remained unconvinced.

Recently, Stanford’s Bob Sutton pointed to Ronnie Lee’s research that confirmed my (and his) suspicions. While flatter structures can promote creativity, we need hierarchies to execute well. The truth is that hierarchies form naturally and, rather than trying to ignore that basic fact, we need to design enterprises with hierarchical networks in mind.

Evolution, Religion and Leadership

It’s become common today for many, especially in the academic world, to dismiss religion as the product of ancient superstition. Yet in The Righteous Mind, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt makes a powerful case that it plays an important evolutionary role. “There is now a great deal of evidence that religions do in fact help groups to cohere, solve free rider problems and win the competition for group-level survival,” he wrote.

So while many pundits often portray bureaucratic hierarchies as an anachronistic byproduct of the industrial revolution, it seems significant that religions tend to have hierarchical structures. Even religious activities that can be done individually, such as Buddhist meditation, are often led by someone who has an elevated group status.

So it stands to reason that hierarchy plays a similar governance role in organizations, helping to coordinate group activity by setting priorities, establishing basic rules and norms and, when needed, providing impetus to change direction and adapt to external events. Clearly, these are essential governance functions in any enterprise.

Many would say that, in an increasingly digital environment that helps us communicate and coordinate across boundaries of time and space, we simply don’t need the same levels of bureaucratic governance that we used to. However, what Professor Lee found in the startups he researched was that the levels of hierarchy increased significantly over the last 50 years, most probably due to the greater levels of complexity involved in work.

It’s important to note that, even after years of hype, it’s hard to find examples of successful non-hierarchical organizations. Even the rare exceptions, such as the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra, aren’t quite as flat in how they organize work as it would first seem. Zappos would eventually back away from Holacracy as would other early adopters, such as Medium.

Hierarchies Are Networks

The term “network” is often misconstrued. In management circles, it is often used to mean an organic, unfathomable, amorphous structure, but really a network is just any system of nodes connected by links. So, in that sense, any conceivable organizational structure is a network, even a typically hierarchical organizational chart.

The important question is what kind of networks do we want our organizations to be? If we look at the evidence from thousands of years of human civilization, we’d have to conclude that some sort of command and control mechanism is needed. At the same time, as our competitive environment becomes more complex, we want information to be able to go to where it is needed without getting stuck in leadership bottlenecks.

A bit of network science can be helpful here. For functional purposes, networks have two salient characteristics: clustering and path length. Clustering refers to the degree to which a network is made up of tightly knit groups while path length is a measure of social distance—the average number of links separating any two nodes in the network.

Ideally our organizational networks would have a high degree of clustering—to promote close collaboration and teamwork—as well as short path lengths so that information can get from one part of the enterprise to any other part with speed and efficiency. Intuitively, it seems like those two priorities are in conflict. However, thanks to some breakthroughs in network science in the late 90s, we know that such “small world” networks are not only achievable, but common.

What’s really important isn’t how your organizational chart is constructed, but how you design for connection and there are some common sense ways to do that.

Understanding Formal And Informal Structures

Every organization has both formal and informal structures. For example, while ostensibly open source communities have little formal organization, in practice they are very hierarchical, with high-status individuals driving the direction of the project. At the same time, even in a formal organization, there are informal relationships as when, say, you work in sales and your brother-in-law works in logistics in a very different part of the company.

Network scientists call people who link disparate networks in an organization boundary spanners and they are crucial for maintaining culture as an organization grows. Once you understand the importance of boundary spanners, you can start redesigning programs and platforms to optimize for connection.

There are a number of ways to network your organization by optimizing organizational platforms for connection. Facebook’s Engineering Bootcamp found that “bootcampers tend to form bonds with their classmates who joined near the same time and those bonds persist even after each has joined different teams.” At Experian, leadership found that a biking club led to boundary spanning collaborations at work, so they helped more clubs to get organized.

One striking example of how even small tweaks can improve connectivity is a project done at a bank’s call center. When it was found that a third of variation in productivity could be attributed to informal communication outside of meetings, the bank arranged for groups to go on coffee break together, increasing productivity by as much as 20% while improving employee satisfaction at the same time.

Perhaps most famously, Steve Jobs designed the headquarters both at Apple and Pixar to encourage random collisions among employees. It seems we’ve been asking the wrong question. The problem isn’t how we dismantle hierarchies, but how we connect them.

Leading Hierarchical Networks

For decades we’ve been hearing that we need to eliminate bureaucracy and break down silos. Yet there is little evidence of any success. In fact, when management guru Gary Hamel, who has been leading the call to “bust bureaucracy,” surveyed readers at Harvard Business Review he found that levels of organization had increased, not decreased.

The inescapable conclusion is that we’ve failed to do away with hierarchies because they serve a useful purpose. We need them. In much the same way, the much maligned “silos” form around centers of capability as a result of close collaboration. These are good things. We don’t want to eliminate them, we want to support and empower them.

So instead of trying to break down silos, we need to connect them. Network science tells us that it takes just a small amount of boundary spanning “random connections,” in order to bring social distance crashing down. We can’t just look at organizational charts, but need to focus on how meaningful relationships form in the real world.

The role of leadership in organizations has changed. It is no longer merely to plan and direct work, but to inspire meaning and empower belief. As I wrote in Cascades, the key to transformational change is small groups, loosely connected by united by a shared purpose. The job of leaders today is to help those groups connect and forge a common purpose.

If we are to lead effectively in an increasingly ecosystem-driven world, we need to empower networked hierarchies.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credit: Google Gemini

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

Change Starts with Empathy

Leave a reply

(Even for Your Enemies)

Change Starts With Empathy

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

On September 17th, 2011, protesters began to stream into Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan and the #Occupy movement had begun. “We are the 99%,” they declared and as far as they were concerned, it was time for the reign of the “1%” to end. The protests soon spread like wildfire to 951 cities across 82 countries.

It failed miserably. Today, a decade later, it’s hard to find any real objective that was achieved except some vague assertions about “building awareness” and Bernie Sanders’ two failed presidential campaigns. Taking into the count the billions of dollars worth of resources expended in terms of time and effort, that is abysmal performance.

As I explained in Cascades, there were myriad reasons for #Occupy’s failure. One of the gravest errors, however, was the insistence on ideological purity and the lack of any effort to understand those who had different ideas from their own. If you expect to bring change about, you need to attract, rather than overpower. Empathy is a good place to start.

Finding Your Tribe

In 1901, before he became employed by the patent office, a young Albert Einstein put out an advertisement offering tutoring services in math and physics. Maurice Solovine, a Romanian philosophy student, responded to the ad but, after a brief discussion, Einstein told him that he didn’t need lessons. Still, he invited Solovine to come and visit him whenever he wished.

The two began meeting regularly and were soon joined by another friend of Einstein’s, a young Swiss mathematician named Conrad Habicht, and the three would discuss their own work as well as that of luminaries such as Ernst Mach, David Hume and Henri Poincaré. Eventually, these little gatherings acquired a name, The Olympia Academy.

Einstein had found his tribe and it became a key factor in the development of his “miracle year” papers that would turn the world of physics on its head in a few years later. It gave him a safe space to let his mind wander over the great questions of the day, formulate his ideas and get feedback from people that he trusted and respected.

This is a common pattern. Similar tribes, such as, the Vienna Circle, the Bloomsbury Group and the “Martians” of Fasori have, if anything, led to even greater achievement. So it’s easy to understand how those protesters descending on Zuccotti Park, finding themselves amongst so many who saw things as they did, felt as if they were on the brink of a historic moment.

They weren’t. And that’s what’s dangerous about tribes. Although they can lend support to a fledgling idea that needs to be nurtured, they can also blind us to hard truths that need to be examined.

Developing A Private Language

A tribe is a closed network that, almost by definition, is an echo chamber designed to develop its own practices, customs and culture. Perhaps not surprisingly, it is common for these networks to develop their own vocabulary to describe these unique aspects of the tribal experience and to make distinctions between members of the tribe and outsiders.

Consider what happened when Congressman John Lewis, the civil rights legend, showed up at an #Occupy rally in Atlanta. The protesters refused to let him speak. He left quietly and issued a polite statement, but an opportunity was lost and real damage was done to the movement and its cause. If John Lewis wasn’t welcome, what about the rest of us?

Later, the man who led the charge to prevent Congressman Lewis from speaking explained his reasons. He cited his suspicion of Lewis as part of the “two-party system,” which he felt had betrayed the country. Yet even more tellingly, he also explained that his main objection was due to the “form” of the event, which he felt was being violated.

It is common for tribes to fall into this kind of private language trap. The function of communication is inherently social and, if the customs and vernacular that you develop becomes so archaic and obscure that it is unable to perform that function, you have undermined the fundamental purpose of the activity.

Clearly, in any dialogue both the speaker and the listener have a responsibility to each other. However, if you consistently find that your message is not resonating outside your tribe, you probably want to rethink how you’re expressing it.

Shifting From Differentiating Value To Shared Values

Once you start separating yourself off and creating a private language for your adherents, it’s easy to fall into a form of solipsism in which the only meaningful reality is that of the shared experience of the tribe. Many aspiring revolutionaries seek to highlight this feeling by emphasizing difference in order to gin-up enthusiasm among their most loyal supporters.

That was certainly true of LGBTQ activists, who marched through city streets shouting slogans like “We’re here, we’re queer and we’d like to say hello.” They led a different lifestyle and wanted to demand that their dignity be recognized. More recently, Black Lives Matter activists made calls to “defund the police,” which many found to be shocking and anarchistic.

Corporate change agents tend to fall into a similar trap. They rant on about “radical” innovation and “disruption,” ignoring the fact that few like to be radicalized or disrupted. Proponents of agile development methods often tout their manifesto, oblivious to the reality that many outside the agile community find the whole thing a bit weird and unsettling.

While emphasizing difference may excite people who are already on board, it is through shared values that you bring people in. So it shouldn’t be a surprise that the fight for LGBTQ rights began to gain traction when activists started focusing on family values. Innovation doesn’t succeed because it’s “radical,” but when it solves a meaningful problem. The value of Agile methods isn’t a manifesto, but the fact that they can improve performance.

You Never Have To Compromise On Common Ground

One of the things that sticks in my head about my experiences during and after the Orange Revolution in Ukraine was an interview with Viktor Pinchuk. who is not only one of the country’s richest oligarch’s, but also the son-in-law of the former President and, at the time, a member of the Rada, the Ukrainian Parliament.

He was, by any definition, a full-fledged member of the “1%” that #Occupy took to the streets to protest. Before reading the article I would’ve expected him to be bitter about the abrupt shift in power. Yet he wasn’t. In fact, he explained that his biggest concern during the protests was that his own children were in the streets, and he feared for their safety.

The insight underlines one of the fundamental fallacies of failed change efforts like #Occupy and others, both in the streets and in the corporate world. They imagine change as a Manichean struggle between two countervailing forces in which we must either prevail or accept defeat and compromise. That is a false choice.

The truth is that any change we win by vanquishing our opponents is bound to be fleeting. Every revolution inspires its own counter-revolution. Lasting change is always built on common ground. The best place to start is by building empathy for your most ardent adversaries, not to give in to them, but to help you identify shared values.

After the Orange Revolution was over, we would learn that Pinchuk’s father-in-law, Leonid Kuchma, who was still in power, ordered the most reactionary forces in his regime to stand down. As it turned out, there were some places that even the famously corrupt leader would not go. In the end, he understood that his legacy, and therefore his interests, lay with the protesters in the streets.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credit: Google Gemini

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

Four Things I Have Learned About Ideas

Leave a reply

Four Things I Have Learned About Ideas

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

I’ve always been inspired by ideas. Some, like Aristotle’s logic, shape the world for millennia. Others, like Einstein’s relativity, completely change our conceptions of what is possible. Still others, like mRNA vaccines, seem to emerge at just the right time. Ideas are what have marked humanity’s progress from living in caves to civilizations.

Yet bad ideas can destroy just as completely as good ideas can create. Fascism led Europe to effectively wipe itself out in little more than a decade. Communism relegated hundreds of millions of people to poverty and struggle. Corporate debacles like like Enron, WeWork and Theranos, have shown us that the wrong idea can cost billions.

We need to handle ideas with care, being open enough to new ones so that we don’t miss out on opportunities, but skeptical enough that we don’t get taken in by ones that do harm. What I’ve learned researching innovation and change is that creating, parsing and evaluating ideas is a skill that must be practiced and honed over time. Here are 4 things to keep in mind.

1. Ideas Can Come From Anywhere

Albert Einstein was an outcast in the world of physics when he unleashed four papers on the world that would change the field forever. When Jim Allison discovered cancer immunotherapy, it took him three years to find anyone who would invest in it. Katalin Karikó was told to abandon her research into mRNA vaccines or be demoted.

In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, science historian Thomas Kuhn explained why breakthroughs so often happen this way. As the world changes and evolves, flaws in existing models become more evident, eventually becoming untenable. That’s what sets the stage for a paradigm shift. “Failure of existing rules is the prelude to a search for new ones,” he wrote.

Yet new paradigms almost always need to be championed by outsiders or newcomers rather than acknowledged experts. As the physicist Max Planck put it “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

In Mapping Innovation, I showed how data and real-world experience bear this out. On the innovation platform Innocentive (now Wazoku Crowd), problems tend not to be solved within the domain in which they arose, but by a practitioner in an adjacent field. In fact, a study analyzing 17.9 million papers found the most highly cited work tended to come from highly specialized experts partnering with an outsider.

2. Ideas Need To Develop Over Time

In 1891, Dr. William Coley had an unusual idea. Inspired by an obscure case, in which a man who had contracted a severe infection was cured of cancer, the young doctor purposely infected a tumor on his patient’s neck with a heavy dose of bacteria. Miraculously, the tumor vanished and the patient remained cancer free even five years later.

It was a breakthrough, of sorts, but for more than a 100 years Coley’s work was viewed with skepticism and, in truth, there were serious problems with it. Coley couldn’t explain the underlying mechanism by which an infection could cure cancer and he couldn’t replicate his results with any consistency. When radiation therapy began showing success, most people forgot about Coley’s and his work.

Yet a small cadre of supporters kept the faith alive. His daughter, Helen Coley Nauts, would establish the Cancer Research Institute in 1953 to support immune-based approaches to cancer treatment. Over the next four decades, glimmers of hope would appear from time to time, but no one could make Dr. Coley’s idea work.

Then, in 1995 there was a breakthrough. Following a hunch, Jim Allison figured that maybe the problem wasn’t that our bodies couldn’t identify and fight cancer cells, but that something was switching the immune response off. If we could switch it back on, we would have a completely new tool to fight cancer. Allison would win the Nobel Prize for his work on the development of the first cancer immunotherapy drug in 2018.

Dr. Coley had the right idea from the start, but it wasn’t enough. It would take over a century to develop better understanding of cancer, genomics, as well as tools like recombinant DNA to make it work. Literally thousands of researchers worked around the globe for decades to make good on an initial insight.

3. Ideas Need Ecosystems

When Jim Allison was finishing up graduate school in the early 1970s, they had just discovered T cells and he was fascinated. He would later tell me how he was amazed about how all these things could be flying around our bodies killing things and somehow not hurt us. He decided to focus his career on figuring out how it all worked.

Over the next decade, Jim and his colleagues started piecing together a larger picture of how the immune system worked through a vast array of signals and receptors that regulate our immune response, triggering it to increase activity and to shut down once the threat has dissolved. A colleague had noticed that one of these molecules inhibited tumor growth.

Dr. Coley and Jim Allison occupied world’s. To Coley, the immune system was like an on/off switch and, triggering the immune system should lead directly to an immune response to fight cancer. Yet Allison was part of a much larger ecosystem that led to a different understanding that allowed him to target a specific receptor in the regulation system. That opened the floodgates and now cancer immunotherapy is a major field of its own.

The simple fact is that ideas need ecosystems. Look at any major technology and it’s not the initial invention that creates the impact, but the secondary and tertiary technologies. Electricity needed appliances to change the world. The internal combustion engine needed vehicles. Computers needed software and the Internet.

We can’t just look at nodes, but must consider networks. It’s through those connections that we create the combinations that can help us solve important problems.

4. You Need To Let The Muse Know You’re Serious

One of the toughest things about ideas is that they can only be validated forward, never backward. You never know if you have the right idea until it’s been tested in the real world and, even then, there could be some confounding factor you may be missing. As Kevin Ashton put it, “Creation is a long journey, where most turns are wrong and most ends are dead.”

That’s tough work. You can’t just expect lightning to strike. Truly creative people know you have to work at it every day. Sometimes it goes easier and sometimes it’s a bit tougher. There are constant disappointments and true epiphanies are rare. But if you keep with it you’ll find that most days you can come up with something, even if it’s something small.

Somebody told me once that you have to let the muse know that you’re serious. Producing ideas leads to more ideas, which allows you to start creating connections between them. The more you produce, the better the chances are that some of those connections will be novel and lead to something important. That’s how you produce an idea that matters.

But even then the work isn’t over, because the world your idea enters into keeps evolving and changing. That’s why you need to share it and encourage others to build on it so that it can grow and reach its true potential. Ideas must combine and recombine so that they can memetically evolve. For our ideas to succeed, we need to serve them well.

As Daniel Dennett put it, “A scholar is just a library’s way of making another library.”

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credit: Google Gemini

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

Innovation Should Always Serve the People

Leave a reply

Innovation Should Always Serve the People

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

The global activist Srdja Popović once told me that the goal of a revolution should be to become mainstream, to be mundane and ordinary. If you are successful it should be difficult to explain what was won because the previous order seems so unbelievable. That’s what true transformation looks like.

Yet many leaders approach innovation and change as if they were swashbuckling heroes in their own action movie. Companies like Theranos, WeWork and Uber squandered billions of dollars on business models that never made any sense. People post their latest ChatGPT prompts on social media while Elon Musk trolls Twitter.

These days, innovation has become, far too often, solipsistic and self-referential, pursued for the glory of the innovators themselves rather than for the benefit of everyone else and there is increasing evidence the venture-funded entrepreneurship model is crowding out more productive investments. We need to move away from hype and focus on impact.

The Eureka Moment Myth

In 1928, Alexander Fleming, a brilliant but sometimes careless scientist, arrived at his lab after a summer holiday to find that a mysterious mold had contaminated his Petri dishes and was eradicating the bacteria colonies he was trying to grow. Intrigued, he decided to study the mold. That’s how Fleming came to be known as the discoverer of penicillin.

Fleming’s story is one that is told and retold because it reinforces so much about what we love about innovation. A brilliant mind meets a pivotal moment of epiphany and—Eureka!— the world is forever changed. Unfortunately, that’s not really how things work. It wasn’t true in Fleming’s case and it won’t work for you.

The truth is that when Fleming published his results in 1929, few took notice. It wasn’t until 1939, a decade later, that Howard Florey and Ernst Chain came across Fleming’s long forgotten paper, understood its significance and undertook the hard work to transform it into a viable treatment that could actually help people.

Yet even then, to make a significant impact on the world, penicillin had to be produced in massive quantities, something that was far out of the reach of two research chemists. Florey reached out to the Rockefeller Foundation for help and moved to the US to work with American labs. In 1943 the U.S.’s War Production Board enlisted 21 companies to produce supplies for the war effort, saving countless lives and ushering in the new age of antibiotics.

The truth is that innovation is never a single event and is rarely achieved by a single person or organization. Rather, it is a process of discovery, engineering and transformation that typically takes decades to complete.

The Rise Of So-So Innovations

It’s been clear for some time now that we’ve been in the midst of a second productivity paradox. The first one, which lasted from the early 1970s to the mid 1990s, saw diminished productivity gains amid increased investment in information technology and prompted economist Robert Solow to note, “You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics.”

In 1996, with the rise of the Internet, productivity growth began to boom again but then disappeared just as abruptly in 2004 and hasn’t returned since. Despite the hype surrounding things such as Web 2.0, the mobile Internet and, most recently, artificial intelligence, productivity growth continues to slump.

Part of the answer may have to do with what economists Daron Acemoglu and Pascual Restrepo refer to as so-so technologies, such as automated customer service, which produce meager productivity gains but displace workers nonetheless. In effect, they give the appearance of progress but don’t really improve our lives.

Consider an airport bar where ordering has been automated through the use of touchscreens. It’s hard to see how, given the high rent, food preparation and other costs, this technology would have a dramatic effect on productivity akin to, say, replacing a horse with a tractor in an agricultural economy. In fact, given that the technology hasn’t been widely deployed outside airports, the major effect seems to be inconveniencing patrons.

Acemoglu and Restrepo argue that a large-scale version of this phenomenon has been occurring since the late 80s. Digital technologies, to a large extent, have displaced labor, but have not had the same offsetting productivity impact as earlier technologies so the overall effect is to decrease wages rather than to raise living standards.
What Innovation Really Looks Like

Katalin Karikó, published her first paper on mRNA-based therapy way back in 1990. Unfortunately, she wasn’t able to win grants to fund her work and, by 1995, things came to a head. She was told that she could either direct her energies in a different way, or be demoted. Katalan chose to stick with it and, if the Covid pandemic had never hit, her name might very well be lost to history.

This type of thing is not unusual. Jim Allison, who won the Nobel Prize for his work on cancer immunotherapy, had a very similar experience when he had his breakthrough, despite having already become a prominent leader in the field. “It was depressing,” he told me. “I knew this discovery could make a difference, but nobody wanted to invest in it.”

The truth is that the next big thing always starts out looking like nothing at all. Things that really change the world always arrive out of context for the simple reason that the world hasn’t changed yet. Kevin Ashton, who himself first came up with the idea for RFID chips, wrote in his book, How to Fly A Horse, “Creation is a long journey, where most turns are wrong and most ends are dead.”

Because digital technology has become so pervasive, offering a substantial architecture that lends itself to tweaking, we’ve lost the plot. Innovation isn’t about Silicon Valley billionaires peacocking around on social media, but solving important problems. We need to shift our focus from disrupting industries to tackling grand challenges.

Building Collaborative Networks And To Tackle Grand Challenges

While researching my book Mapping Innovation, I had the opportunity to interview dozens of great innovators, from world-class scientists to super-successful entrepreneurs and top executives at some of the world’s largest corporations. I was surprised to find that, in almost every case, they were some of the most thoughtful, generous people I’d ever met.

The truth is that, for innovation, generosity is often a competitive advantage. By actively sharing their ideas, innovators build up larger networks of people willing to share with them. That makes it that much more likely that they will come across that random piece of information and insight that will help them crack a really tough problem.

The digital revolution has been, if anything, a huge disappointment and Silicon Valley’s tendency to be solipsistic and self-referential probably has a lot to do with that. The simple fact is that the developers banging away at their laptops can achieve little on their own. To tackle our most significant challenges, such as curing cancer, climate change and global hunger, they need to work effectively with specialists with different skills and perspectives.

What we need today is to build collaborative networks to solve grand challenges. The recent CHIPS Bill is a good start. It not only significantly increases our investment in basic research and development, but also allocates billions of dollars of investments into building regional ecosystems and advanced manufacturing.

Yet the most important thing we need to change is our mindset. We need to focus less on disruption and more on creation and, to create for the world we need to focus on what it means to live in it. We can no longer measure progress in terms of how many billionaires a technology creates. We need to focus on making a meaningful impact on people’s lives.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credit: Google Gemini

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

Why Change Doesn’t Have to Start at the Top

Leave a reply

Why Change Doesn't Have to Start at the Top

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

In 2004 I found myself running a major news organization during the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. It was one of those moments when the universe opens up, reveals a bit of itself and you realize the world doesn’t work the way you thought it did. What struck me at the time was that nobody with any conventional form of power had any ability to shape events at all.

One of the myths that is constantly repeated is that change needs to start at the top. Clearly that is not true. It wasn’t true of the Color Revolutions that spread across Eastern Europe. Nor was it true of social movements like the fight for LGBT rights. Despite what you may have heard, it doesn’t hold true for organizations either.

What is true is that if you are going to bring about genuine change you need to influence institutions and that means you need, at some point, to involve senior leaders, but it rarely starts with them. The myth that change has to start at the top is a copout — a reason to do nothing when you can do something. Make no mistake. Change can come from anywhere.

Weaving Webs of Influence

Movements, as the name implies, are kinetic. They start somewhere and they end up somewhere else. That’s one reason why why so many successful change efforts become misunderstood. People look back at an event like the 1963 March on Washington and think that’s what made the civil rights movement successful. Nothing could be further from the truth. That wasn’t what built the movement, it was part of the end game.

Consider that the first “March on Washington,” the Woman Suffrage Procession of 1913, was a disaster. None of the others since 1963 did much either. The civil rights march came after nearly a decade of boycotts, sit-ins, Freedom Rides and other tactics that built the movement before it finally found its moment. Still, it’s the moment that people remember.

In much the same way, whenever we see a successful transformation we look to the actions of leaders. We see a CEO who gave a speech, a marketer who came up with a big product idea or an engineer who took a project in a new direction. These events are real, but they rarely, if ever, appear out of nowhere. They are products of webs of influence.

When we look more closely, we inevitably find that the CEO was inspired to give the pivotal speech from a conversation he had with his daughter. The marketer got the initial idea for the campaign from a junior team member. Or the engineer changed the direction of the project after a fateful encounter he had in the cafeteria.

Our decisions are the product of complex systems. Anything can start anywhere. Don’t let anyone tell you differently.

Going to Where the Energy Is

Transformations, in retrospect, often seem inevitable, even obvious. Yet they don’t start out that way. The truth is that it is small groups, loosely connected, but united by a common purpose that drives transformation. So the first thing you want to do is identify your apostles — people who are already excited about the possibilities for change.

For example, in his efforts to reform the Pentagon, Colonel John Boyd began every initiative by briefing a group of collaborators he called the “Acolytes,” who would help hone and sharpen the ideas. He then moved on to congressional staffers, elected officials and the media. By the time general officers were aware of what he was doing, he had too much support to ignore.

In a similar vein, a massive effort to implement lean manufacturing methods at Wyeth Pharmaceuticals began with one team at one factory, but grew to encompass 17,000 employees across 25 sites worldwide and cut manufacturing costs by 25%. The campaign that overthrew Serbian dictator Slobodan Milošević started with just 5 kids in a coffee shop.

One advantage to starting small is that you can identify your apostles informally, even through casual conversations. In skills-based transformations, change leaders often start with workshops and see who seems enthusiastic or comes up after the session. Your apostles don’t need to have senior positions or special skills, they just have to be passionate.

There’s something about human nature that, when we’re passionate about an idea, makes us want to go convince the skeptics. Don’t do that. Start with people who want your idea to succeed. If you feel the urge to convince or persuade, that’s a sign that you either have the wrong idea or the wrong people.

“You have to go where the energy is,” John Gadsby, who built a movement for process improvement inside Procter & Gamble that has grown to encompass 60,000 employees, told me. “We’ll choose energy and excitement and enthusiasm over the right position, or the person at the right leadership level, or the person whose job it is supposed to be to do that.”

Mobilizing People To Influence Institutions

In the early 1990s, writer and activist Jeffrey Ballinger published a series of investigations about Nike’s use of sweatshops in Asia. People were shocked by the horrible conditions that workers — many of them children — were subjected to. In most cases, the owners lived outside the countries where the factories were located and had little contact with their employees.

At first, Nike’s CEO, Phil Knight, was defiant. “I often reacted with self-righteousness, petulance, anger. On some level I knew my reaction was toxic, counterproductive, but I couldn’t stop myself,” he would later write in his memoir, Shoe Dog. He pointed out that his company didn’t own the factories, that he’d worked with the owners to improve conditions and that the stories, as gruesome as they were, were exceptions.

The simple truth is that change rarely, if ever, starts at the top because it is people with power that create the status quo. They are attached to what they’ve built and take pride in their accomplishments, just like the rest of us. That’s why, to bring about genuine change — change that lasts — you need to mobilize people to influence institutions (or those, like Knight, who yield institutional power).

Eventually, that’s what happened at Nike. The protests took their toll. “We had to admit,” Knight remembered, “We could do better.” Going beyond its own factories, the company established the Fair Trade Labor Association and published a comprehensive report of its own factories. Today, the company’s track record may not be perfect, but it’s become more a part of the solution than a part of the problem.

Change Is Never Top-Down Or Bottom-Up

At a pivotal moment during the height of the civil rights movement, Robert Kennedy, Attorney General of the United States and brother to the President, would turn to the activist John Lewis and say, “’John, the people, the young people of the SNCC, have educated me. You have changed me. Now I understand.”

Lewis, just a young kid in his twenties at the time, was himself the product of webs of influence. He was shaped by mentors like Jim Lawson and Keller Miller Smith, as well as by peers such as Diane Nash, Bernard Lafayette and James Bevel. They, in turn, influenced others to get out, protest and shape the minds of people like Robert Kennedy.

As I explain in Cascades, transformation isn’t top-down or bottom-up, but happens from side-to-side. You can find the entire spectrum — from active support to active resistance — at every level. The answer doesn’t lie in any specific strategy or initiative, but in how people are able to internalize the need for change and transfer ideas through social bonds.

Change never happens all at once and can’t simply be willed into existence. The best way to do that is to empower those who already believe in change to bring in those around them. That’s what’s key to successful transformations. A leader’s role is not to plan and direct action, but to inspire and empower belief.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credit: Unsplash

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

Values Always Cost You Something

Leave a reply

That’s What Makes Them Different From Platitudes

Values Always Cost You Something

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

When I was in Panama a couple of years ago for a keynote I had the opportunity to speak with Erika Mouynes, the country’s former Foreign Minister, about the war in Ukraine. Her ministry had strayed from its traditionally neutral stance by calling for “respect for the sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine based on international law.”

She told me that when she later met with Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, he asked her why she cared about a country thousands of miles away where Panama has no tangible interests. What did she expect to gain? She told him that sometimes you need to make decisions based on values that are important to you.

Her position was not without risk. Panama depends on broad international support for its canal. Yet many of the executives at the event told me how proud they were of her support for sovereignty, an issue that Panama has sometimes struggled with in its history. The truth is that, to mean something, values always cost you something. Otherwise they’re just platitudes.

Gandhi’s Ahimsa

Today, many dismiss Mohandas Gandhi as guileless and quixotic. He himself once said, “Men say that I am a saint losing myself in politics. The fact is I am a politician trying my hardest to be a saint.” He was, in truth, a master strategist, luring opponents into a dilemma that would put them in an impossible position of choosing either surrender or damnation.

One of the first principles of his philosophy of Satyagraha was ahimsa, or nonviolence, which was rooted in the quest for truth. If no one could claim to have absolute knowledge of the truth, then it followed that using violence—or any other means for that matter—to compel people to accede to your will would be to undermine, rather than support truth.

To the modern ear, Gandhi’s views seem idealistic at best, if not completely naive, yet there was much more to his philosophy than met the eye. His aim was to undermine his opponents’ legitimacy. He sought to back them into a corner in which both action and inaction would yield essentially the same result —an upending of the existing order.

As General Jan Smuts, Gandhi’s chief adversary in South Africa, put it, “It was my fate to be the antagonist of a man for whom even then I had the highest respect… For me—the defender of law and order—there was the usual trying situation, the odium of carrying out the law, which had not strong popular support.” Smuts had not only been defeated; he had been won over and lost any rationale to keep fighting.

Gerstner’s Devotion To The Customer

When Lou Gerstner took over as CEO of IBM in 1993, the company was near bankruptcy. Many thought it should be broken up. Yet Gerstner saw that its customers needed the firm to help them run their mission-critical systems and the death of IBM was the last thing they wanted. He knew that to save the company, he would have to start with its values.

“At IBM we had lost sight of our values,” Irving Wladawsky-Berger, one of Gerstner’s chief lieutenants, told me. “IBM had always valued competitiveness, but we had started to compete with each other internally rather than working together to beat the competition. Lou put a stop to that and even let go some senior executives who were known for infighting.”

Gerstner had been a customer and knew that IBM did not always treat him well. At one point the company threatened to pull service from an entire data center because a single piece of competitive equipment was installed. So as CEO, he vowed to shift the focus from IBM’s “own “proprietary stack of technologies” to its customers’ “stack of business processes.”

Yet he did something else as well. He made it clear that he was willing to forego revenue on every sale to do what was right for the customer and he showed that he meant it. Over the years I’ve spoken to dozens of IBM executives from that period and virtually all of them have pointed this out. Not one seems to think IBM would still be in business today without it.

“Lou refocused us all on customers and listening to what they wanted and he did it by example,” Wladawsky-Berger, remembers. “We started listening to customers more because he listened to customers.”

The World’s Debt To Katalin Karikó

In the early ’90s, Katalin Karikó was trying to solve a tough problem. A young researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, she had been working on an idea to hijack the protein manufacturing machinery in our cells (called ribosomes) to directly produce things that could help our bodies fight disease. Yet despite her best efforts, she was making little progress.

To understand the problem, imagine you want to hijack someone else’s factory to make your own product. Because the factory is automated, it is just a matter of installing software at the factory, but to do that you need to get past security. Replace “software” with genetic instructions and “security” our body’s immune system and, in a nutshell, that is what Katalin had to overcome.

By 1995, things came to a head. Unable to secure grants to fund her work, the university told her that she could either direct her energies in a different way, or be demoted. “I thought of going somewhere else, or doing something else,” Katalin would later recall. “I also thought maybe I’m not good enough, not smart enough. I tried to imagine: Everything is here, and I just have to do better experiments.”

She decided to stick it out and eventually struck up a partnership with Drew Weissman, an immunologist who had some ideas about how to slip the genetic instructions past the cell’s natural defenses. Their work led to a breakthrough and, when the Covid pandemic broke out in 2020, the mRNA technology they invented led to life saving vaccines in record time.

Today, mRNA is being used to develop a number of therapies beyond vaccines, including cures for cancer and other diseases. Sticking to her values certainly cost Katalin Karikó, but the rest of us benefited enormously.

Values Are How An Organization Honors Its Mission

Values are essential to how an enterprise honors its mission. They represent choices of what an organization will and will not do, what it rewards and what it punishes and how it defines success and failure. Perhaps most importantly, values will determine an enterprise’s relationships with other stakeholders, how it collaborates and what it can achieve.

When we sit down with executive teams to help them drive transformation and change, one of the first things we ask them is to define their values. Usually, they can easily rattle off a list such as, “the customer,” “excellence,” “integrity,” and so on. Then we ask them what those values cost them and we get blank stares.

The problem is that values are often confused with beliefs. When you’re sitting around a conference table, it’s easy to build a consensus about broad virtues such as excellence, integrity and customer service. True values, on the other hand, are idiosyncratic. They represent choices that are directly related to a particular mission.

Make no mistake. Real values always cost you something. They are what guides you when you need to make hard calls instead of taking the easy path. They are what makes the difference between looking back with pride or regret. Perhaps most importantly, they are what allows others to trust you.

Without genuine commitment values there can be no trust. Without trust, there can be no shared purpose.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credit: Unsplash

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

Your Feelings Are Often Triggers That Mislead You

Leave a reply

Your Feelings Are Often Triggers That Mislead You

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

The social psychologist Jonathan Haidt developed the metaphor of the Elephant and the Rider to describe the relationship between our emotional and cognitive brains. While the rider (representing our cognitive brain) may feel in control, it is the elephant (our emotions) that is more likely to determine which direction we will go.

That’s why it feels so good to act on our emotions. Rather than struggling with the reins to get the elephant to go where we want it to, we can just give in and race with abandon towards our destination. It’s usually not until we’ve run off a cliff that we realize that we should have exercised more restraint. By that time, it’s often too late to undo the damage.

The truth is that our brains are wired for survival, not to make rational decisions for a modern, industrialized economy. That’s why we shouldn’t blindly trust our feelings. We should see them as warning signs to proceed with caution because, while they can alert us to unseen dangers, they can also be triggers that others use to manipulate us.

The Thrill Of The Shift & Pivot

As Eric Ries explained in The Startup Way, when General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt wanted to implement a more entrepreneurial approach he asked Ries to help him implement “Lean Startup” methods at the company. The resulting program, called Fastworks, trained 80 coaches and launched a hundred projects in its first year. Pretty soon, Immelt was calling his company a 124 year-old startup.

A key ambition was the development of Predix, an industrial software platform. No longer would GE be a boring old manufacturing company, but would make a “pivot” to the digital age. It did not go well. During Immelt’s tenure, the company’s value would fall by 30%, while the broader maker more than doubled. Eventually the firm would collapse altogether.

Pundits love to tout the change gospel, but there’s little evidence that “pivots” are necessarily a good idea. Look at the world’s most valuable companies, Apple still makes most of its money on iPhones, Microsoft’s success is still rooted in business software, Alphabet’s profits come from search and so on. There are exceptions, of course, but most organizations become and stay successful by deepening their capabilities in a few key areas.

But that’s boring. Journalists rarely write cover stories about it. Business school professors don’t get tenure for writing case studies about how Procter & Gamble stuck with soap for more than a century or how Coke continues to make money off of sugary water. “Pivots,” on the other hand, are thrilling and fun. They get people talking. They feel good. That’s why they’re so popular.

The Eden Myth

Watch pundits on cable news or on stage at conferences and you may begin to notice a familiar pattern. They tell us that once there was a period when everything was pure and good, but then we—or the organization we work for—were corrupted in some way and cast out. So to return to the good times, we need to eliminate that corrupting influence.

This Eden myth is as old as history itself and it continues to thrive because it works so well.. We’re constantly inundated with scapegoats— the government, big business, tech giants, the “billionaire” class, immigrants, “woke” society—to blame for our fall from grace. The story feeds our anger and, much like the “thrill of the pivot,” makes us want to act.

Perhaps most importantly, the Eden myth makes us feel good. The outrage it triggers stimulates the release of the neurotransmitter dopamine which affects the pleasure centers in our brain. Our adrenal glands then begin to produce cortisol, which initiates a “fight or flight” response. Our senses get heightened. We feel motivated and alive.

Who wouldn’t want to feel like that? That’s why we can become addicted to the outrage-dopamine response machine and continually look for new opportunities to get our fix. We begin to need it and tune in every night, doom scroll on social media and seek out social connections that promote it. Ultimately, we’re going to want to act on it.

People who seek to manipulate us know all about this and design their approach to trigger an emotional response.

Creating An Echo Chamber

Once our neurons are primed and our senses are tuned to respond to specific stimuli, we will begin to frame what we experience in terms that reinforce those biases. Psychologists have found that we tend to overweight information that is most easily accessible and then look for information to confirm those early impressions and ignore evidence to the contrary.

These effects are multiplied by tribal tendencies. We form group identities easily, and groups tend to develop into echo chambers, which amplify common beliefs and minimize contrary information. We also tend to share more actively with people who agree with us and, without fear of questioning or rebuke, we are less likely to check that information for accuracy.

We are highly affected by what those around us think. In fact, a series of famous experiments first performed in the 1950’s, and confirmed many times since then, showed that we will conform to the opinions of those around us even if they are obviously wrong. More recent research has found that the effect extends to three degrees of social distance.

It’s likely that some version of this is what doomed Jeffrey Immelt at General Electric. When he took over as CEO in 2001, Silicon Valley was in a process of renewal after the dotcom crash. As the startup boom gathered steam, it captured the imagination of business journalists. He brought in Ries to “cast out” the old ways of plodding, industrial firms and surrounded himself with people who believed similar things. Everything must have felt right.

The elephant was in full control and the rider just went along—all the way off the cliff.

Don’t Believe Everything You Feel

The neuroscientist Antonio Damasio believes we encode experiences in our bodies as somatic markers and that our emotions often alert us to things that our brains aren’t aware of. Another researcher, Joseph Ledoux, had similar findings. He pointed out that our body reacts much faster than our mind, such as when we jump out of the way of an oncoming object and only seconds later realize what happened.

Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman suggests that we have two modes of thinking. The first is emotive, intuitive and fast. The second is rational, deliberative and slow. Our bodies evolved to make decisions quickly in life or death situations. Our rational minds came much later and don’t automatically engage. It takes effort to bring in the second system.

There are some contexts in which we should favor system one over system two. Certain professions, such as surgeons and pilots, train for years to hone their instincts so that they will be able to react quickly and appropriately in an emergency. When we have a bad feeling about a situation, we should take it seriously and proceed with caution.

However, our feelings need to be interrogated, especially in areas for which we do not have specific training or relevant expertise. We need to gain insight into what exactly our feelings are alerting us to and that requires us to engage our rational brain.

Yes, feelings should be taken seriously. They are often telling us that something is amiss. But they are much more reliable when they are alerting us to danger than when they are pushing us to overlook pertinent facts and proceed with a course of action. When we go with our gut, we need to make sure it’s not just because we had a bad lunch.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credit: Pixabay

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

5 Simple Keys to Becoming a Powerful Communicator

Leave a reply

5 Simple Keys to Becoming a Powerful Communicator

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

Sometimes the hardest thing is merely to make yourself understood. Things that change the world, or even a small part of it, always arrive out of context because, by definition, the world hasn’t changed yet. That’s why innovators need to be great communicators, because an idea that doesn’t gain traction is an idea that fails.

That’s easier said than done. As Fareed Zakaria has put it, “Thinking and writing are inextricably intertwined. When I begin to write, I realize that my ‘thoughts’ are usually a jumble of half-baked, incoherent impulses strung together with gaping logical holes between them.” Clearly, if he struggles, we all do.

Yet the good news is that most people can immensely improve their communication skills by following a few simple rules. While, like any skill, they take a lifetime of practice to hone and perfect, you can start seeing progress within a few hours. It doesn’t matter if you’re an entrepreneur, a senior executive or just starting out, you need to communicate effectively.

1. Clarity Before Creativity, Always

Most people want their writing and speaking to be impressive. They have an idea in their heads of what a “professional” sounds like and they try to emulate those traits. They use big words, infuse acronyms and technical language or try to pluck a choice term or two out of the zeitgeist.

Yet trying to conform to some abstract notion of “professional” or “impressive” is a sure way to garble your message. Instead of trying to impress, just try to be clear. Different people have different conceptions of what they consider to be professional or impressive, but everyone knows what is clear.

The truth is that nobody cares how clever you are if they can’t understand what you’re trying to tell them and few will take the time and effort to figure it out. Most probably, they will assume you haven’t really thought things through and move on to other things.

So as you formulate your message, whether it’s an email, a pitch, a keynote or whatever, continually ask yourself, “how can I make it more clear?”

2. When In Doubt, Take It Out

Born in the late 13th century, William of Ockham was a giant of his age. As one of the few intellectual lights of medieval times, his commentaries on reason, logic and political theory are studied even today. His ideas about the separation of church and state were literally centuries ahead of their time and formed the basis for our own constitutional principle.

Yet he’s best known for Ockham’s Razor, sometimes known as the “principle of parsimony.” Often, the principle is interpreted as “Keep It Simple Stupid,” but that’s not quite right. A much more accurate translation would be, “entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.” In other words, if something doesn’t need to be there, it shouldn’t be.

A useful device I use for applying Ockham’s razor is to imagine my audience, whether that is a reader or a listener, as having an internal “cognitive budget” they are willing to devote to whatever I’m trying to tell them. Then I judge everything I include by the standard of, “is this worth using up my cognitive budget?”

So be cautious and respectful with your audience’s attention. If you have any doubts whether it needs to be there, it probably doesn’t. Take it out and see if anything meaningful is lost. If not, keep it out and don’t look back.

3. If It Sounds Like Writing, It’s Probably Not Good

When we’re taught to write in school, we’re usually urged to follow a certain form. This often involves an academic, detached tone of voice. For many of the same reasons, when we speak to an audience, our tone takes on a “speaker’s voice. In both cases, the result is that we come off as performative and inauthentic.

Your communication, whether you’re speaking or writing, should sound like you, not someone you’re trying to be at a particular moment. Your vocabulary shouldn’t be significantly different when you write than when you speak. Your grammar and turns of phrase shouldn’t vary too much either. There’s absolutely no reason for you to come off as someone else.

Style should be invisible. If your audience is focusing on how you’re writing or speaking, then that steals cognitive energy away from concentrating on the message you’re trying to communicate. Don’t fall into the trap of trying to sound a certain way, just focus your energy on being as clear as possible.

4. Default To One Point

If you’re going to rob a bank, as a general rule anything you say after “put the money in the bag or I’ll blow your head off,” will be somewhat superfluous. That one simple point is perfectly sufficient for the job at hand. In fact, the uncomfortable pause that follows will probably accentuate the impact of your message.

Now, clearly there are exceptions to the “default to one point” rule. For example, if you kidnapped the teller’s family, that kind of time and effort might warrant adding a second point. Even then though, you might want to let your first point sink in and keep your second point in reserve in case you need to overcome an objection.

Obviously, I’m being facetious and not suggesting anyone actually rob a bank, but the point stands. In most contexts, but especially if you’re on a panel or doing a Q&A session, you’re usually, although not always, better off sticking to one point and making it well than trying to jam in a too much information

And, of course, if they like your one point they’ll be likely to ask for more. That’s how you build a conversation.

5. Dare to be Crap

The hardest thing about starting a project of any sort is that we always compare initial efforts to finished products and, not surprisingly, those efforts always seem to come up short. As Pixar President Ed Catmull wrote in his book, Creativity, Inc., “early on, all of our movies suck.” If it’s true of Pixar movies, it’s probably true of our work.

That makes it really hard to begin writing or scripting, because whatever you first put down is bound to be a disappointment. Your wording will be clumsy, your points will be unclear and you’ll begin to realize that your great idea is actually, as Fareed Zakaria put it, “a jumble of half-baked, incoherent impulses strung together with gaping logical holes between them.”

Your first efforts are always crap. Yet that shouldn’t blind you to the fact that all great works start out that way. As Vladimir Nabokov put it, “writing is rewriting.” The greatness comes not from the initial spark of inspiration, but from the long hours spent honing it down to reveal its core. But before you do that, you need to dare to be crap and produce a first draft.

The truth is that communicating even fairly simple ideas can be very hard work. As in most things, talent is overrated. You produce good work not from having a knack for a clever turn of phrase, but by putting in the effort to express your ideas clearly.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credit: Unsplash

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

Three Myths That Kill Change and Transformation

1 Reply

Three Myths That Kill Change and Transformation

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

In 1975, more than 80% of US corporate assets were tangible assets, things like factories, equipment and real estate. When leaders in an organization made decisions about change, they tended to involve tangible, strategic assets, such as building a new factory, entering a new market or launching a new line of products.

So when the modern practice of change management arose in the 1980s, that’s what it was designed to address. Managers began to recognize the need to communicate changes to the rank and file, so that they could better understand it and contribute to its success. An entire cottage industry of consultants arose to fill that need.

But now that situation has flipped and more than 80% of corporate assets are intangible. When we talk about change today we are usually talking about changes in people themselves, in how they think and how they act. Clearly, that’s a very different type of thing and we need to approach change differently. Unfortunately, too many people are mired in the past.

Myth #1: If People Understand Change, They Will Embrace It

Leaders like to be seen at the cutting edge and, to be effective, they need to believe in themselves. That’s what makes transformational initiatives so attractive. They’re much more fun than the more mundane aspects of managing an enterprise, like improving operations or cutting costs. Change gives leaders a chance to dream.

That’s what the practice of change management was designed to support. Someone high up in an organization would get an idea to, say, launch a new product line for a new market and the consultants would be brought in to help communicate the idea so that everyone could understand just how brilliant the idea was.

Of course, even if employees thought the idea was stupid there wasn’t much they could do about it. If a CEO wants to launch a new product line, invest in new factories and equipment and hire new people, there’s nothing the rank and file can do about it. Leadership has full control over tangible, strategic assets.

But today, when the vast majority of corporate assets are intangible, transformation initiatives involve changes in how people think and what they do, which leadership does not control. People have the power to resist and you can be sure they will. That’s why change fails, not because people don’t understand it, but because they don’t like it and actively sabotage it.

The truth is that humans form attachments to other people, ideas and things. When they feel those attachments are threatened, they will often lash out. That’s why when you ask people to change how they think or what they do, you will invariably offend some people’s identity, dignity and sense of self and they will act out in ways that are dishonest, underhanded and deceptive. That doesn’t make them bad people—we all do it—it just makes them human.

Myth #2: You Have To Convince The Skeptics

There is something baffling about human nature. Whenever we have an idea we are passionately about we feel intense desire to convince skeptics. Our inner marketers want to identify specific objections and then devise airtight arguments to counter them. We envision ourselves being dazzlingly persuasive and making our case.

Change management consultants encourage this type of thinking. They advise us to “provide simple, clear choices and consequences” and “show the benefits in a real and tangible way.” They also suggest that we have “open and honest conversations” and “even make a personal appeal” in order to “convert the strongest dissenters.”

This may make sense if the objections are rational, but often they are not. In fact, the most visceral dissent almost invariably has more to do with how people see themselves. That’s why change so often offends people’s dignity, because their identity is so often wrapped up in what they think and what they do. You can’t ask people to stop being who they think they are.

The good news is that you don’t have to. Consider the scientific evidence:

Sociologist Everett Rogers‘ “S-curve” research estimated that it takes only 10%-20% of a system to adopt an innovation for rapid acceptance by the majority to follow.
Professor Erica Chenoweth’s analysis of over 300 political revolutions in the past century finds that it only took 3.5% of active participation in a society to succeed, and many campaigns prevailed with less.
Recent research by sociologist Damon Centola at the University of Pennsylvania suggests that the tipping point for change is getting 25% of people in an organization on board.

There’s no need to waste time trying to convince people who hate your idea and want to undermine it in any way they can. Any engagement is very unlikely to be successful and very likely to frustrate and exhaust you. You are much better off focusing your energies on empowering those who are enthusiastic about change to succeed, so that they can bring in others who can bring in others still. That’s how you build traction.

Myth #3: Things Will Get Easier After A “Quick & Easy” Win

Change management pioneer John Kotter, who first started writing books about organizational transformation in the 1970s, has long advised to establish short-term wins. He stressed that these must be unambiguously successful, visible throughout the organization and clearly related to the change effort.

The concept is problematic for a number of reasons. First, and this isn’t really Kotter’s fault, but the idea of a “short-term win” is often understood to be a “quick and easy win,” which can backfire. If a change isn’t meaningful and relevant, then touting it can make a leader seem out of touch, discrediting the transformation effort.

More problematic is the idea that we should be shooting for projects that are unambiguously successful. That level of success is exceedingly rare. If we are going to wait for perfect projects, we may be waiting a long time. What we want to do is start with a Keystone Change and then learn from whatever successes and failures we encounter on the way.

Perhaps most dangerous of all is the notion that early projects should be visible to large numbers of people. Remember, if a change is significant and has the potential for impact, there will always be people who want to undermine it in ways that are dishonest, underhanded and deceptive. Why would we want to broadcast early efforts so they can knock them down?

The truth is that things don’t get easier after initial successes. They often get harder because those who oppose change now see it is really possible. That’s why you need to build a plan to anticipate resistance and Survive Victory from the start.

Change for the World We Live In

In the early 20th century, the great sociologist Max Weber noted that the sweeping industrialization taking place would lead to a change in organization. As cottage industries were replaced by large enterprises, leadership would have to become less traditional and charismatic and more organized and rational.

He also foresaw that jobs would need to be broken down into small, specific tasks and be governed by a system of hierarchy, authority and responsibility. This would require a more formal mode of organization—a bureaucracy—in which roles and responsibilities were clearly defined. Weber’s model reigned for a full century.

Over the past few decades we’ve undergone a similar shift from bureaucratic hierarchies to connected ecosystems and that affects how we need to approach transformation. The changes we need to implement today have less to do with decisions made about strategic, tangible assets and more to do with how people think and act. That presents a very different set of challenges and we need to adapt.

What we can’t do is pretend that the world is the same as it was 30 or 40 years ago and continue with practices that are so obviously failing. Just as Weber dispelled myths about infallible leaders a century ago, we need to break free of outdated concepts that have led to unacceptably poor results.

It’s time to leave myths behind and take a more clear-eyed approach to leading change.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credit: Pixabay

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

We Must Stop Fooling Ourselves and Get Our Facts Straight

Leave a reply

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

Mehdi Hasan’s brutal takedown of Matt Taibbi was almost painful to watch. Taibbi, a longtime muckraking journalist of some renown, was invited by Elon Musk to review internal communications that came to be known as the Twitter Files and made big headlines with accusations regarding government censorship of social media.

Yet as Hasan quickly revealed, Taibbi got basic facts wrong, either not understanding what he was looking at, doing sloppy work or just plainly being disingenuous. What Taibbi was reporting as censorship was, in fact, a normal, deliberative process for flagging problematic content, most of which was not taken down.

He looked foolish, but I could feel his pain. In both of my books, I had similarly foolish errors. The difference was that I sent out sections to be fact-checked by experts and people with first-hand knowledge of events before I published. The truth is that it’s not easy to get facts straight. It takes hard work and humility to get things right. We need to be careful.

A Stupid Mistake

Some of the most famous business stories we hear are simply not accurate. Gurus and pundits love to tell you that after inventing digital photography Kodak ignored the market. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, its EasyShare line of cameras were top sellers. It also made big investments in quality printing for digital photos. The problem was that it made most of its money on developing film, a business that completely disappeared.

Another popular fable is that Xerox failed to commercialize the technology developed at its Palo Alto Research Center (PARC), when in fact the laser printer developed there saved the company. What also conveniently gets left out is that Steve Jobs was able to get access to the company’s technology to build the Macintosh because Xerox had invested in Apple and then profited handsomely from that investment.

But my favorite mistold myth is that of Blockbuster, which supposedly ignored Netflix until it was too late. As Gina Keating, who covered the story for years at Reuters, explains in her book Netflixed, the video giant moved relatively quickly and came up with a successful strategy, but the CEO, John Antioco, left after a fight with investor Carl Icahn and the strategy was reversed.

Yet that’s not exactly how I told the story. For years I reported that Antioco was fired. I even wrote it up that way in my book Cascades until I contacted the former CEO to fact-check it. He was incredibly generous with his time, corrected me and then gave me additional insights that improved the book.

To this day, I don’t know exactly why I made the mistake. In fact, as soon as he pointed it out I knew I was wrong. Somehow the notion that he was fired got stuck in my head and, with no one to correct me, it just stayed there. We like to think that we remember things as they happened, but unfortunately our brains don’t work that way.

Why We Get Fooled

We tend to imagine that our minds are some sort of machines, recording what we see and hear, then storing those experiences away to be retrieved at a later time, but that’s not how our brains work at all. Humans have a need to build narratives. We like things to fit into neat patterns and fill in the gaps in our knowledge so that everything makes sense.

Psychologists often point to a halo effect, the tendency for an impression created in one area to influence opinion in another. For example, when someone is physically attractive, we tend to infer other good qualities and when a company is successful, we tend to think other good things about it.

The truth is that our thinking is riddled with subtle yet predictable biases. We are apt to be influenced not by the most rigorous information, but what we can most readily access. We make confounding errors that confuse correlation with causality and then look for information that confirms our judgments while discounting evidence to the contrary.

I’m sure that both Matt Taibbi and I fell into a number of these pitfalls. We observed a set of facts, perceived a pattern, built a narrative and then began filling in gaps with things that we thought we knew. As we looked for more evidence, we seized on what bolstered the stories we were telling ourselves, while ignoring contrary facts.

The difference, of course, is that I went and checked with a primary source, who immediately pointed out my error and, as soon as he did, it broke the spell. I immediately remembered reading in Keating’s book that he resigned and agreed to stay on for six months while a new CEO was being hired. Our brains do weird things.

How Our Errors Perpetuate

In addition to our own cognitive biases, there are a number of external factors that conspire to perpetuate our beliefs. The first is that we tend to embed ourselves in networks that have similar experiences and perspectives that we do. Scientific evidence shows that we conform to the views around us and that effect extends out to three degrees of relationships.

Once we find our tribe, we tend to view outsiders suspiciously and are less likely to scrutinize allies. In a study of adults that were randomly assigned to “leopards” and “tigers,” fMRI studies noted hostility to out-group members. Research from MIT suggests that when we are around people we expect to agree with us, we don’t check facts closely and are more likely to share false information.

In David McRraney’s new book, How to Change a Mind, he points out that people who are able to leave cults or reject long-held conspiracy theories first build alternative social networks. Our associations form an important part of our identity, so we are loath to change our opinions that signal inclusion into our tribe. There are deep evolutionary forces that drive us to be stalwart citizens of the communities we join.

Taibbi was, for years, a respected investigative journalist at Rolling Stone magazine. There, he had editors and fact checkers to answer to. Now, as an independent journalist, he has only the networks that he chooses to give him feedback and, being human like all of us, he subtly conforms to a set of dispositions and perspectives.

I probably fell prey to similar influences. As someone who researches innovation, I spend a lot of time with people who regard Netflix as a hero and Blockbuster as something of a bumbler. That probably affected how I perceived Antioco’s departure from the company. We all have blind spots and fall prey to the operational glitches in our brains. No one is immune.

Learning How To Not Fool Ourselves

In one of my favorite essays the physicist Richard Feynman wrote, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that,” He goes on further to say that simply being honest isn’t enough, you also need to “bend over backwards” to provide information so that others may prove you wrong.

So the first step is to be hyper-vigilant and aware that your brain has a tendency to fool you. It will quickly grasp on the most readily available data and detect patterns that may or may not be there. Then it will seek out other evidence that confirms those initial hunches while disregarding contrary evidence.

This is especially true of smart, accomplished people. Those who have been right in the past, who have proved the doubters wrong, are going to be less likely to see the warning signs. In many cases, they will even see opposition to their views as evidence they are on the right track. There’s a sucker born every minute and they’re usually the ones who think that they’re playing it smart.

Checking ourselves isn’t nearly enough, we need to actively seek out other views and perspectives. Some of this can be done with formal processes such as pre-mortems and red teams, but a lot of it is just acknowledging that we have blind spots, building the habit of reaching out to others and improving our listening skills.

Perhaps most of all, we need to have a sense of humility. It’s far too easy to be impressed with ourselves and far too difficult to see how we’re being led astray. There is often a negative correlation between our level of certainty and the likelihood of us being wrong. We all need to make an effort to believe less of what we think.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credit: 1 of 1,050+ FREE quotes for your meetings & presentations at http://misterinnovation.com

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