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.

4 Simple Rules That Make You Exponentially More Effective and Productive

Leave a reply

4 Simple Rules That Make You Exponentially More Effective and Productive

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

Shortly after I first arrived at college, my wrestling coach told my teammates and me that we would all be attending a freshman technique camp. It turned out to be something quite different than what I had expected. He didn’t teach us any advanced or esoteric method, but instead demonstrated the basics.

It was incredibly humbling. The fact that we were there in the first place, competing for a Division 1 program, meant that we had all demonstrated outstanding accomplishment. And now we were supposed to revisit the stuff we learned in peewee programs? It seemed insulting at first, but turned out to be one of the best lessons I’ve ever learned.

The truth is that in any endeavor, you are only as good as your fundamentals. While it’s easy to get enamored with grand strategies and fancy tactics, whether you succeed or fail is far more likely to depend on doing simple, basic things consistently well. In much the same way, I’ve found that simple rules can, if applied sensibly, help make you incredibly effective.

1. Play, “Hey Jude”

Paul McCartney wrote hundreds of songs in his career. Many were hits, but others were more obscure. One that was sure to please crowds was the classic “Hey Jude.” He first wrote the song in 1968, to comfort five-year old Julian Lennon during his parent’s divorce and I’m sure that over the years the former Beatle got tired of singing it. But he continued to perform it because he knew that’s what his fans wanted.

Clients often ask me whether I can create a new keynote or a workshop for them. Michael Port, a top coach in the speaking industry, explains why that is almost always a bad idea. Would you like a doctor to perform the same surgery on you that she has successfully done hundreds of times before, or try something different this time?

One of the things that has amazed me over the years, in myself and in others, is our urge to do something different for difference’s sake. Doing the same old thing time and time again gets boring, which is why as successful high school wrestlers we wanted to learn fancier techniques and didn’t focus on our fundamentals as we should have.

We need to learn to play our own personal “Hey Jude’s.” It may seem old and tired, but it’s what we’re good at and, if it does the job we need it to, we should keep at it. That doesn’t mean we don’t continue to experiment and learn new things. But we have to remember to always play the hits.

2. Talent Is Overrated

One of the most common questions I get asked by senior managers is “How can we find more innovative people?” I know the type they have in mind. Someone energetic and dynamic, full of ideas and able to present them powerfully. It seems like everybody these days is looking for an early version of Steve Jobs.

Yet the truth is that today’s high value work is not done by individuals, but teams. It wasn’t always this way. The journal Nature noted that until the 1920’s most scientific papers only had a single author, but by the 1950s that co-authorship became the norm and now the average paper has four times as many authors as it did back then.

To solve the kind of complex problems that it takes to drive genuine transformation, you don’t need the best people, you need the best teams. That’s why traditional job descriptions lead us astray. They tend to focus on task-driven skills rather than collaboration and human skills. We need to change how we evaluate, recruit, manage and train talent.

Talent isn’t something you hire or win in a war, it’s something you empower. It depends less on the innate skills of individuals than how people are supported and led. As workplace expert David Burkus puts it, “talent doesn’t make the team. The team makes the talent.” Skills and teamwork are developed over time.

So if you’re disappointed with the level and talent in your organization, the questions you need to ask are: “How can I better empower people to do their best work?” “What do I reward and what do I punish?” “Am I asking people to do what I want or inspiring them to want what I want?”

3. Find A “Hair on Fire” Use Case

Good operational managers learn to identify large addressable markets. Bigger markets help you scale your business, drive revenues and allow you to invest back into operations to create more efficiency. Greater efficiencies lead to fatter profit margins, which allow you to invest even more on improvements, creating a virtuous cycle.

Yet when you are doing something new and different, trying to scale too fast can kill your business even before it’s really gotten started. A truly revolutionary product is unpredictable because, by its very nature, it’s not well understood. Charging boldly into the unknown is a sure way to run into unanticipated problems that are expensive to fix at scale.

A better strategy is to identify a hair on fire use case — someone who needs a problem fixed so badly that they are willing to overlook the inevitable glitches. They will help you identify shortcomings early and correct them. Once you get things ironed out, you can begin to scale for more ordinary use cases.

For example, developing a self-driving car is a risky proposition with a dizzying amount of variables you can’t account for. However, a remote mine in Western Australia, where drivers are scarce and traffic nonexistent, is an ideal place to test and improve the technology. In a similar vein, Google Glass failed utterly as a mass product, but is getting a second life as an industrial tool. Sometimes it’s better to build for the few than the many.

4. Anticipate Failure

Starting a new venture or initiative is always exciting. Pregnant with possibility and hope, the sky seems like the limit and the last thing you want to think about is things going wrong. Yet neglecting to anticipate failure is one sure way to decrease your chances of success.

That’s why when we first start working with a team on an organizational transformation, we ask them to imagine someone possessed by an evil demon. How would such a person try to derail the initiative? What dirty tricks might they pull? What would they lie about? We ask this not because we think that there’s actually people possessed by evil demons, but because it helps executives imagine things that could go wrong

There is, in fact, no shortage of tools that can help to uncover flaws in your plans. Pre-mortems force you to imagine specific ways a project could fail. Red Teams set up a parallel group specifically to look for flaws. Howard Tiersky, CEO of the digital transformation agency From Digital and author of the Wall Street Journal bestseller Winning Digital Customers, often uses de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats to help the team take different perspectives.

When we deconstruct failed initiatives, the problem is rarely one of ambition, energy, hard work or even acumen, but rather a lack of imagination. You can evaluate and analyze all you want, but chances are what kills your venture or initiative will be something that you didn’t see coming and didn’t account for.

For any significant endeavor, learning to anticipate failure is a key success skill. Or, as Andy Grove put it: “Success breeds complacency. Complacency breeds failure. Only the paranoid survive.”

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

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

Take an Evidence-Based Approach for Transformation and Change

Leave a reply

Take an Evidence-Based Approach for Transformation and Change

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

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

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

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

The Diffusion Of Innovations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing Societies As Well As Organizations

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

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

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

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

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

A Network Mechanism For Spreading Change

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

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

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

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

Acting On What We Know

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why VUCA is a Myth

Leave a reply

Why VUCA is a Myth

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

“Imagine, if you will, a factory as clean, spacious and continuously operating as a hydroelectric plant. The production floor is barren of men,” Fortune magazine declared in its November 1946 issue. Soon the world entered a new world of mass production and mass retail. Then came a green revolution, a space race, genomics, computers, the Internet and now artificial intelligence.

Today it’s become an article of faith that everything moves faster. Business pundits tell us that we’re living in a VUCA world (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous). These are taken as basic truths that are beyond questioning or reproach. Yet are things actually moving any faster than in earlier eras? The evidence is surprisingly scarce.

The inescapable truth is that some things move faster today and others move slower. We don’t have—nor should we want—more change today than before. We need to be more thoughtful about change, more deliberate about the ones we undertake and more tenacious in our pursuit of them. We should aim to have less disruption and more progress.

An Era of Industrial Stability

Since Jack Welch took over GE in the 1980s, the management ethos has been taken over by a cult of disruption. Pundits say we must “innovate or die.” Managers feel pressure to launch new initiatives, to pivot and then pivot again, because the competition has become so rabid that “only the paranoid survive.”

The data, however, tell a very different story. A report from the OECD found that markets, especially in the United States, have become more concentrated and less competitive, with less churn among industry leaders. The number of young firms have decreased markedly as well, falling from roughly half of the total number of companies in 1982 to one third in 2013.

A comprehensive 2019 study from the National Bureau of Economic Research found two correlated, but countervailing trends: the rise of “superstar” firms and the fall of labor’s share of GDP. Essentially, the typical industry has fewer, but larger players. Their increased bargaining power leads to more profits, but lower wages.

With all of the hype around things like artificial intelligence, this may seem hard to believe. However, once you start to think about where you actually spend your money, food, shelter healthcare, travel and so on the reality sets in that most of the economy involves atoms and not bits and, if you do a bit more research, you’ll find that those industries are, for the most part, less competitive.

The truth is that we don’t really disrupt industries anymore. We disrupt people. Economic data shows that for most Americans, real wages have hardly budged since 1964. Income and wealth inequality remain at historic highs. Anxiety and depression, already at epidemic levels, worsened during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Limits Of Digital Dominance

Over the past several decades, innovation has become largely synonymous with digital technology. When the topic of innovation comes up, somebody usually points to a company like Apple, Google or Facebook rather than, say, a car company, a hotel or a restaurant. Today, seven out of the ten most valuable companies in the world are digital firms.

This is largely because of two forces converging. The first is Moore’s Law, the exponential doubling of the number of transistors we have been able to cram onto a silicon wafer. Yet our ability to do that is coming up against the constraints of physics. Advancement in conventional chips has already slowed and, at some point, it will stop altogether.

The other force driving the digital economy has been increasing returns. As the economist W. Brian Arthur explained in a 1996 article in Harvard Business Review, certain conditions, such as high upfront investment, negligible marginal costs and network effects, lead to “winner take all markets where the fastest firm reaps incredible benefits.

Yet consider that information and communication technologies only make up about 6% of GDP value added in advanced economies and you begin to see the problem. The Silicon Valley model simply doesn’t work outside of software and consumer gadgets. In industries that have a low tolerance for failure, such as manufacturing and healthcare, you can’t simply move fast and break things because you’ll likely break something important.

Moving Slow To Go Fast

When Covid hit in the winter of 2020, it was a mysterious disease with no known cure. Yet in a mere matter of months vaccines were developed and being tested. By the end of the year two firms, Pfizer and Moderna received emergency authorization and people started getting their shots. Given that before Covid it took more than a decade to develop and test a vaccine, this was almost unheard of speed.

Yet look a little closer and it becomes clear that the real story is somewhat different. Katalin Karikó, published her first paper on the mRNA technology used to make the vaccines in 1990. She wasn’t able to win grants to fund her work and, in 1995, was told that she could either direct her energies in a different way, or be demoted. She took the demotion, worked through it and, a decade later, began to see some success.

Today, of course, mRNA technology is moving very quickly. Funding is flooding into labs to potentially cure or prevent a wide range of diseases, from cancer to malaria, vastly more efficiently than anything we’ve ever seen before. There are similar slow moving revolutions underway in quantum computing, drug and materials discovery and other things.

There’s nothing usual about any of this. It’s long been known that technology follows an s-curve pattern, starting slowly, then hitting an exponential phase in which it moves very quickly before leveling off again. For example, after penicillin became commercially available in 1945, we entered a golden age of antibiotics and scientists quickly uncovered dozens of compounds that could fight infection, before things slowed to a crawl.

At any given time, there are many s-curves going on at once. Some are just beginning to crawl, others speeding up and still others slowing down. Pointing out the ones that are speeding up and ignoring everything else that’s going on may be exciting, but it’s not the way to get the best results.

Rethinking The Change Gospel

It’s no accident that VUCA is a military term. The ever-present mantra that we are living in a time of volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity makes corporate executives feel like swashbuckling heroes. The truth is that there is very little evidence that is the case and a veritable mountain to the contrary.

There is also evidence that all the hype around change is doing real damage. Leaders conjure up dramatic images of “burning platforms” to justify launching ambitious initiatives, which rarely succeed. These failures then are given as confirmation for how dire the need for change really is and more initiatives are launched with similar results.

That is the change gospel. Transformation has, all too often, become an end in itself rather than a means to an end. We end up pivoting so much that we end up right where we started. The problem with cheerleading change is that it puts the cart before the horse. People don’t embrace change because you came up with a fancy slogan, they adopt what they find meaningful, that creates genuine value to their lives and their work.

We need to have more reverence for the mundane and ordinary. When you look at previous eras in which more genuine transformation took place and far more economic value was produced, there was much less talk about disruption and much more focus on improving the human condition.

The truth is that we’re not really disrupting industries anymore as much as we are disrupting ourselves and fairy tales and living in a VUCA era will not change those basic facts. We need to think less about disruption and more about tackling grand challenges that will impact the world in significant ways. Innovation should serve people, not the other way around.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

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

What Defines a Good Strategy?

Leave a reply

What Defines a Good Strategy?

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

One of the most frustrating statements I come across is that “we had a good strategy, but just couldn’t execute it.” That’s nonsense. Obviously, if you couldn’t execute, there were some important factors that you didn’t take into account. You miscalculated in some significant way. So how was that a good strategy?

This raises an important question: What makes a strategy good? The concept of strategy gets thrown around so much and so incompetently, few stop to define the term. Strategy often becomes self-referential, a consensus-driven story that no one dares to question, but everyone is duty bound to carry out, for better or worse.

One helpful concept is the German military principle of Schwerpunkt, which roughly translates to “focal point.” You need to pick the battles that will prove decisive, the ones that matter and which you can win. Or, as Richard Rumelt has put it, good strategy puts relative strength against relative weakness. Figuring that out is what makes the difference.

Choosing The Right Battles, Fighting With The Right Weapons

Che Guevara was, in many ways, the prototypical revolutionary. Charismatic and brilliant, he was a master at guerilla warfare, launching revolutions against authoritarian regimes across Africa and South America. Yet although he may have won some battles, he lost the wars and, in the end, was executed for his actions.

That’s not unusual. Violent uprisings almost always fail and studies have shown that nonviolent revolutions do much, much better. In the early 1960s a political scientist named Gene Sharp began to figure out why. Governments have significant advantages in the use of violence. Successful revolutionaires, he found, use alternate weapons rooted in psychology, sociology and economics, where they can build strength and regimes are vulnerable.

In much the same way, innovative firms are often poorly served by trying to identify the largest addressable market for a new product or service. Those are the customers incumbents have been serving for years, where they have vastly superior knowledge, experience and relationships. Competing for that business will inevitably be an uphill battle.

A better strategy is to identify a hair on fire use case — a customer who needs a problem fixed so badly that they are willing to overlook the inevitable glitches in a new product or service. They will help identify shortcomings early and collaborate to correct them. As things get ironed out you can gain traction and compete for bigger markets.

For example, Tesla didn’t try to sell electric cars to everyone, at least not at first. Instead it sold high performance, environmentally friendly roadsters to Silicon Valley millionaires. Rather that compete with the big automakers head on, it pursued a market they couldn’t. A good strategy is specific. It doesn’t apply to everyone, but rather to a particular context.

Undermining Sources Of Power

During the civil rights movement, activists faced an uphill battle in the deep south, where the segregationists enjoyed a monopoly on state power, controlling not only legislatures, but police departments and the courts. Black citizens were terrorized and had absolutely no legal recourse. In many cases, it was the law enforcement officers who were doing the terrorizing.

But what if the activists weren’t poor, black and vulnerable, but elite, white and connected? That was essentially the strategy of the Freedom Summer Project, which recruited students from prestigious schools to spend the summer in Mississippi working to register voters and educate poor black children.

Almost immediately three of the activists disappeared and a national crisis ensued. President Johnson sent an army of FBI agents to investigate and the media descended onto the state. Terrified parents, whose children remained in Mississippi, sent urgent letters to their representatives in Congress. Local media in upscale white communities in the north closely covered events as they unfolded.

Of course, given that blacks were killed and tortured with complete disregard for decades, this sudden torrent of concern only underlined the inherent racism of the system. Yet still, that’s what made the strategy work. Civil rights leaders were able to put the strength of the national media and federal government, as well as the clout of industry, against the relative weakness of what passed for power in Mississippi.

The Freedom Summer’s exposure of Jim Crow would have significant ripple effects throughout the 1960s. It would help lead to the 1965 Voting Rights Act the very next year and many of the activists would go on to lead movements for women’s equality, for workers’ rights and against the Vietnam war. The country would be forever changed.

Creating A Dilemma Instead Of A Conflict

I once had a six-month assignment to restructure the operations of a troubled media company and the sales director was a real stumbling block. She never overtly objected. but was quietly sabotage progress. For example, she promised to hand over the clients she worked directly with to her staff, but never seemed to get around to it.

It was obvious that she intended to slow-walk everything until the six months were over and then return everything back to the way it was. As a longtime senior employee, she had considerable political capital within the organization and, because she was never directly insubordinate, creating a direct confrontation with her would be risky and unwise.

So rather than create a conflict, I designed a dilemma. I arranged with the CEO of a media buying agency for one of the salespeople to meet with a senior buyer and take over the account. The Sales Director had two choices. She could either let the meeting go ahead and lose her grip on the situation or try to derail the meeting. She chose the latter and was fired for cause. Once she was gone, her mismanagement became obvious and sales shot up.

Key to the success of a dilemma action is that it is seen as a constructive act rooted in a shared value. In the case of the Sales Director, she had agreed to give up her accounts and setting up the meeting was aligned with that agreement. That’s what created the dilemma. She had to choose between violating the shared value or giving up her resistance.

When you respond to an attack, you are fighting a battle in a time, place and context that your opposition has chosen. When you design a dilemma, on the other hand, you are setting the parameters, which allows you to bring relative strength to bear against relative weakness.

Mastering Strategic Conflict

We tend to think of change as a journey to bring about some alternative future state, but that’s only half of the story. The truth is that future state is in a strategic conflict with the status quo, which has inertia on its side and never yields its power gracefully. You can never bring about the desired future state until you address the status quo.

The key to doing that is to define the focal point of your efforts—the Schwerpunkt—where you can bring relative strength to bear against relative weakness. However Schwerpunkt is a dynamic, not a static, concept. As your actions impact the context, the focal point will necessarily change, requiring you to adjust with strategic agility.

In How Big Things Get Done, Bent Flyvbjerg argues that any planning big project requires experimentation and testing. You don’t start with answers, but questions. Planning consists of a series of low-cost virtual experiments in which you are exploring possibilities, identifying opportunities and exposing problems. We want to fail in planning, where it’s cheap, so we minimize failure in the real world, where it costs us dearly.

That’s why we need to take a more Bayesian approach to strategy, in which we don’t pretend that we have the “right” strategy, but endeavor to make it less wrong over time. Good strategy isn’t a master plan, but a process of discovery. It is, most of all, an iterative set of choices made about how to address meaningful challenges.

— 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.

3 Cultural Shifts That Will Reignite Change in Your Organization

Leave a reply

3 Cultural Shifts That Will Reignite Change in Your Organization

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

On a cold November day in 2013, frustrated by recent events in Ukraine, a journalist named Mustafa Nayyem posted to Facebook, “Okay guys, let’s get serious. Who’s ready to go to the Maidan today at midnight? ‘Likes’ will not be counted. Only comments under this post with the words ‘I’m ready.’ Once there are more than a thousand, we will organize it.”

Nothing needed to be explained. Everyone knew exactly what he meant. Nine years earlier, hundreds of thousands of people flooded Independence Square in Kyiv, locally known as “the Maidan,” to protest a falsified election in a movement called the Orange Revolution. Mustafa was now calling on his fellow citizens to do the same.

It was a moment that changed history. Yet it’s not that moment we should focus on, but what came before. It was what happened in those ensuing nine years—the development of unseen networks, the learning and the cultural change—that made the moment possible. The truth is that for genuine change to take place, significant cultural shifts need to come first.

1. From Preaching To Listening

The Orange Revolution got its name because orange was the campaign color of the opposition candidate, Viktor Yushchenko. “It was not about social mobilization, it was not about political mobilization, it was mostly about the political class in Kyiv,” Mustafa would later tell me. And while it achieved its goal of putting the preferred candidate in office, it would ultimately fail to survive victory, which is what led to the call for people to revolt again nine years later.

Many organizational transformations follow a similar pattern. Convinced change has to come from the top, they start with a big kickoff campaign detailing what change will look like. In a show of force, leaders take center stage and declare their support. The goal is to create a sense of urgency and inevitability around change.

It almost always fails and it usually fails for the same reason: people resist it. The simple reality is that human beings form attachments to people, ideas and other things. When they feel those attachments are threatened, they will lash out in ways that are dishonest, underhanded and deceptive. If you are going to bring change about, that’s what you need to overcome.

There are a number of ways to overcome that kind of resistance, but in the early stages, when the idea is nascent, the simplest and most effective way is to focus on listening rather than trying to overpower with a show of force. Don’t push your idea on people or try to persuade them. Go out and find people who are enthusiastic and want it to succeed.

“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.”

2. From “Us And Them” to “We Together”

Humans are naturally tribal. In fact, decades of research has found that we will tend to form groups based on identity—even if that identity is something we are arbitrarily assigned, like a “red team” and a “blue team”—and will show loyalty to group members and hostility towards outsiders. These results have also been documented in children and even in infants.

We often trip over subtle matters of identity without realizing it. That was certainly true of the Orange Revolution, which had a regional undercurrent few appreciated at the time. Viktor Yanukovych, the thuggish politician who would trigger both the Orange Revolution and the protests that came nine years later, was associated with the Donbass region. The residents there saw an attack on him as an attack on them.

Organizational change agents commonly fall into a similar trap. In a misguided effort to gain credibility, they set themselves and their ideas apart from others. They position themselves with a credential they’ve earned or as being proponents of some school of thought, such as design thinking or agile development. Unwittingly they set up separate ”us and them” identities.

So before you can ignite change, you first need to forge a shared identity based on shared values. That’s exactly the approach Lou Gerstner took in his historic turnaround of IBM. Despite being the first CEO to come from outside the company, he made sure to explain his changes in terms of the firm’s traditional values rather than something different. His efforts led to a legendary success.

3. From Imposed Beliefs To A Co-Created Future

The Orange Revolution was a political movement with political aims. That is, in large part, why despite the initial victory it would ultimately fail in the end. The truth is that you can never base transformation on any particular person, policy or technology. It also has to be rooted in shared values. That’s the only way that you can overcome resistance, survive victory and build a common future.

When people followed Mustafa Nayem to Independence Square the protests were dubbed Euromaidan, because the proximate cause had to do with an EU Association Agreement but also because they represented a desire to adopt European Values. As things heated up, a group of prominent journalists released a video giving voice to these aspirations.

Here’s part of what they said:

There are many things that unite Rivne and Luhansk, Kyiv and Odessa. [cities in the west, east, north and south, respectively]

We want to live in an honest and fair country, where individual rights are respected, where you can freely express your views and not be afraid of the police, where courts are just and can’t be bought, where there is real competition in business and opportunity to work in an honest way.

Today, it’s common for Ukrainians to refer to the events of 2014 as the Revolution of Dignity, because as events progressed it became less about the country’s relationship with its western neighbors and more about how they saw themselves. No longer would they accept being simple pawns in the games of corrupt leaders, but would decide their own future.

For change to succeed, everybody needs to see themselves as heroes in the story. In some cases, that means that people will have to decide to seek a different journey in another place. In other cases, they will need to be shown the way out. But the possibility for them to thrive in a shared future needs to be there.

Becoming Mundane And Ordinary

Today, few would question the dignity of the Ukrainian people. In fact, they have become such an inspiration to the world that it’s hard to remember that the country used to be a very cynical place. When I first arrived there in 2002, I was struck by the apathy. There was so little hope that anything could ever change that few saw any sense in even trying.

My friend, 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 certainly true of Ukraine today, but also true of successful organizational transformations.

Today, Apple is so associated with Steve Jobs and the Macintosh that it seems incredible that he was fired from the company, in large part due to tensions that resulted from its development. Lou Gerstner’s turnaround of IBM was so complete it seems crazy that most people assumed the company would be broken up and sold for parts. Artificial intelligence has become so embedded in our lives, it’s hard to remember that not long ago it seemed like science fiction.

One of the things that makes change so challenging is that when we hear about the successes—failures are rarely documented—the story is told in a way that makes everything seem inevitable. We have to remember that things start out much differently. There were failures along the way that needed to be learned from and overcome.

The successful path to transformation starts with culture, how people see themselves and those around them. That doesn’t just happen. Leaders must work intentionally to create shared values. The truth is that change that is imposed never sticks, because it asks those who must affect change to betray themselves. You must first change minds before you can change actions.

— 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.

Just Say No to Innovation

Leave a reply

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

Pundits tell us that the world is increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous. It’s the VUCA gospel. Under the banner of “innovate or die,” massive transformation projects are being kicked off constantly. Executives around the world scramble to reorganize and reinvent their organizations, only to reorganize and reinvent them again.

It gets worse, consider a 2014 report by PwC that revealed 65% of respondents in corporations complained about change fatigue, 44% of employees complained they don’t understand the change they’re being asked to make, and 38% say they don’t agree with it. A more recent study by Gartner in 2020 found that propensity for change fatigue doubled during the pandemic.

Executives, wanting to be seen as dynamic leaders, are launching too many initiatives, very few of which lead to positive impact, while at the same time the rest of the workforce struggles with increasing mental health challenges. The answer is less, not more. We need to focus on fewer initiatives, with more commitment to ensure their success.

Why Change Fails

It’s a familiar story we’ve seen time and time again. An ambitious new leader comes in and launches a transformational initiative. There’s a kickoff meeting and a massive internal communication campaign to rally the troops for the multi-year program. Consultants are hired and employees are told, in no uncertain terms, they must get on board.

Two years later, the leader moves on, having sold another company on the myth of his transformational leadership. Another, equally ambitious executive comes in with their own idea for change. The old initiative is dropped, there is a kickoff meeting, an internal communication campaign, consultants are hired and employees are told to get on board.

Rinse and repeat.

There’s plenty of blame to go around. But let’s face it, there is a tendency to glorify the kickoff more than genuine results. Part of this is cultural and part of it reflects other trends. An excessive adherence to quarterly benchmarks puts too much focus on short term impact. Combine this with a general decline in executive tenure means that leaders often leave before transformation projects can be completed.

All of this comes at a cost. Take a look at the economic data and you will inevitably find that productivity growth is significantly lower than in earlier generations. In the US in particular, the White House has found that competition, across a wide variety of metrics, has declined significantly in the past few decades.

The Power Of No

When people remember Steve Jobs’ tenure at Apple, they remember the products that were launched. Yet arguably, the most important thing he did at Apple was kill products. When he returned to the company in 1997, he found that years of undisciplined management led to a bloated product line. The first thing Jobs did was not to launch new innovations, but to do an extensive review in which he cut 70% of the product line.

“One of Jobs’s great strengths was knowing how to focus.” Walter Isaacson, his biographer, would later write. “Deciding what not to do is as important as deciding what to do,” he quotes the legendary CEO saying. “That’s true for companies, and it’s true for products.”

At one point a frustrated Jobs simply said, “Stop!” He grabbed a magic marker, went to the whiteboard, made a classic two by two matrix with “Consumer” and “Pro” making up the columns and “Desktop” and “Portable” making up the rows. He then declared that Apple would make four great products, one for each quadrant and that would be it.

He maintained the same discipline throughout his tenure. Over the next decade, he would launch the iMac, the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad. A handful of products was all it took to create the most valuable company in the world. Becoming an innovation-led company is not about launching a lot of ideas, but focusing on the ones that matter and figuring out how to make them work.

The Time To Commit

While we talk about transformation more and more, we seem to be doing it less and less. This is no accident. Change and transformation aren’t about coming up with the idea and doing a fancy kickoff event followed by an extensive communication campaign, it’s about converting those ideas into impactful solutions to problems people care about.

There’s far too much talk and not nearly enough impact. Change should be an inspiration, not one more burden in an otherwise exhausted workplace. It’s time to refocus our efforts on change that matters. In most enterprises, that will mean committing to fewer initiatives, but seeing them through.

To do that effectively, leaders need to learn to say, “no.” Every organization needs to maximize the impact of limited resources and that means we need to make choices. Pursuing one thing means that we need to give up something else. We can’t just spin our wheels and expect to get anywhere, we need to pick a direction and get going.

That’s not as easy as it sounds. Committing to a specific objective means we limit our options. Sticking with a project when things get tough takes courage and resilience. That’s why so few leaders are able to do it consistently. But the evidence is clear. If you want to compete successfully, that’s what you need to do.

— 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.

Dan Toma is an innovation thought leader and co-author of the award-winning books ‘The Corporate Startup’ (2017) and ‘Innovation Accounting’ (2022). Puzzled by the question ‘Why are innovative products mainly launched by startups?’, together with his colleagues at the London-based consultancy company OUTCOME, he focuses on enterprise innovation transformation. Specifically on the changes blue-chip organizations need to make to allow for new ventures to be built in the corporate setting.

Why You Need to Leverage Shared Values in Change Leadership

Leave a reply

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

When Lou Gerstner took over at IBM in 1993, the century-old tech giant was on its knees. Many thought it should be broken up into smaller, more focused companies. Others had different ideas. So at Gerster’s first press conference, people were curious about his strategy and disappointed when he failed to deliver one.

“The last thing IBM needs right now as a vision,” he said. What he meant was that IBM’s culture was broken. “Culture isn’t just one aspect of the game,” he would later write. “It is the game. What does the culture reward and punish – individual achievement or team play, risk taking or consensus building?”

What Gerstner saw was that IBM had lost sight of the values that had made it successful in the first place. He wasn’t “disrupting.” He was making IBM culture safe to innovate again and, by doing that, he achieved one of the most remarkable turnarounds in corporate history. If you want to achieve truly radical change, you need to start with shared values.

Making The Shift From Differentiating Values To Shared Values

IBM wasn’t Gerstner’s first stint leading a company. He’s been President at American Express and CEO at RJR Nabisco, both of which were very different from technological companies. Yet Gerstner didn’t focus on how his experiences were different, but on how they were the same—each of these businesses have to serve the customer.

“Lou refocused us all on customers and listening to what they wanted and he did it by example,” Irving Wladawsky-Berger, one of Gerstner’s chief lieutenants would later tell me. “We started listening to customers more because he listened to customers.” It was upon that simple principle that he changed the course of IBM’s future.

In a similar vein, when Nelson Mandela wanted to create a new future for South Africa, he organized a Congress of the People, a multi-racial gathering which produced a statement of shared values that came to be known as the Freedom Charter, which is still revered even today. He would later say it would have been very different if his organization, the ANC, had written it by themselves, but it wouldn’t have been nearly as powerful

When we’re passionate about an idea, we want to show how it’s different. We want to explain all its beautiful complexity and nuance, so that people can share our passion and fervor. That’s almost always a mistake. The first step to creating truly transformational change is to anchor it in what people already know and feel comfortable with.

Creating Safety Around The Change Conversation

When an enterprise is in crisis, one of the first things that often gets cut is investments in the future. So when Gerstner scheduled his first non-headquarters visit at IBM to the firm’s legendary research facility at Yorktown Heights, everybody there got nervous. Many expected there to be deep cuts and, possibly, that the entire facility would be shut down.

Actually, quite the opposite. “I saw the pain of IBM’s problems on their faces,” Gerstner remembered. “I talked about how proud I was to be at IBM. I underscored the importance of research to IBM’s future.” It was a wise move. Although few knew it at the time, scientists at IBM had just made a major breakthrough that made quantum computing possible and a few years later the company’s Deep Blue supercomputer would beat Garry Kasparov at chess.

Many change management schemes advise to create a “sense of urgency” and creating a “burning platform” atmosphere. Yet Gerstner understood that employees were perfectly aware of how dire the situation was. What they needed wasn’t more fear, but to see a path forward. Terrified people don’t make good decisions. They’re also more likely to head for the exit than to work for the future.

Don’t get me wrong, you don’t want to sugarcoat things. You need to be frank, honest and paint a clear picture. Gerstner made it plain that day that there would be changes. Yet by rooting his message in shared values, he was able to create a sense of safety around the change conversation. The scientists were able to see that they could, in fact, be heroes in the story of IBM’s future. As it turned out, they would be.

Creating A Dilemma Rather Than A Conflict

Once you start being explicit about your values you will inevitably find that not everyone shares them and that was certainly true at IBM. For example, Wladawsky-Berger told me that “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 of some senior executives who were known for infighting.”

A simple truth is that whenever we set out to make a significant impact, there will always be those who will work to undermine what we are trying to achieve in ways that are dishonest, underhanded and deceptive. Yet when that happens we need to be careful not to get sucked into a conflict, which will likely take us off course and discredit what we’re trying to achieve. Instead, we need to learn to design a dilemma.

Dilemma actions have been used for at least a century—famous examples include Gandhi’s Salt March, King’s Birmingham Campaign and Alice Paul’s Silent Sentinels—but more recently codified by the global activist, Srdja Popović. They are just as effective in an organizational context, using an opponent’s resistance against them.

One of the great things about dilemma actions is that you approach them exactly the same way you approach building allies—by identifying a shared purpose. Once you do that, you can design a constructive act rooted in that shared purpose that advances your agenda. That forces your opponent to make a choice: they can either disrupt the act and violate the shared value or they can let it go forward and allow change to proceed.

For example, I was once running a transformation project that was being impeded by a Sales Director hogging accounts. Although it was agreed that she would distribute her clients, she never got around to it. So I set up a meeting with a key account and one of our salespeople. When she tried to disrupt the meeting, she violated the shared value we had established and was dismissed from her position. Everything fell into place after that.

Forging A Shared Purpose

Change always begins with a grievance—there’s something people don’t like and they want it to change. Yet the status quo always has inertia on its side and never yields its power gracefully. That’s why it’s so important to forge a shared purpose, because people need a common mission they can believe in to see themselves as stakeholders in a shared future.

The reason so many organizations find themselves unable to pursue a purpose isn’t because they don’t want to, but because it is so hard. Purpose doesn’t begin with a single step, but with a diverging path. To honor a value we need to be willing to incur costs and constraints. We must choose one direction at the expense of another, or stay mired and lost, unable to move forward.

That’s why the change conversation needs to focus on what you value. Values are 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.

Perhaps most importantly, shared values enable a shared identity, which is what you need for change to last. The goal of a revolution, as Srdja Popović once explained to me, is not a constant state of disruption, but eventually to become mainstream, to be mundane and ordinary. That can only be done if change is built on common ground.

— 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.

Better to be Careful than Smart

Leave a reply

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

Not too long ago, I had a post about the danger of trusting your feelings go viral on LinkedIn. The reason it was so popular wasn’t necessarily that everyone liked it, but because many wanted to voice their disapproval. A surprising number of people vehemently objected to the idea that they should interrogate their feelings or keep them in check.

Make no mistake. While it is true that our emotions can alert us to dangers that our rational mind fails to recognize, they can also lead us wildly astray. Our hippocampus, where our memories reside, has a bee line to our amygdala, which plays a role in governing our emotions, circumventing our rational brain in the prefrontal corpus.

We tend to assume that good judgment is a function of intelligence and education, but often it’s not. We need to recognize that there are glitches in our neural machinery and that our gut feelings can be triggered by random events as well as by people who seek to manipulate us. That’s why we need to be careful. It’s always the suckers who think they’re playing it smart.

Why Smart People Are So Easily Fooled

For decades, the global elite revered Bernie Madoff as one of the world’s most talented asset managers until it was all exposed to be, in his own words, “one big lie.” Elizabeth Holmes’s prominent board at Theranos were so clueless that they put their reputations behind a product that didn’t exist. Anna Sorokin, the daughter of a Russian truck driver, was able to convince the glitterati that she was, in fact, a fabulously wealthy heiress.

In each case, there was no shortage of opportunities to unmask the fraud. Inconsistencies in Madoff’s records were reported to regulators a number of times, but were ignored. Holmes wasn’t able to produce a single peer-reviewed study during 10 years in business to support her claims and there was no shortage of whistleblowers from inside and outside the company. Anna Sorokin left unpaid bills all over town.

Still, many bought the ruses and would interpret facts to support them. Madoff’s secrecy was seen as confirmation that he had a proprietary method. In Holmes’ case, her eccentricities were taken as evidence that she truly was a genius, in the mold of Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg. Sorokin’s unpaid bills were seen as proof of her wealth. After all, who but the fabulously rich could be so nonchalant with money?

People should have known better. Stock market regulators are trained to recognize fraud. Prominent Theranos board members like George Shultz, David Bois and Henry Kissinger, earned their reputations over decades. Hotels allowed Sorokin to stay in luxury suites for weeks at a time before demanding payment. How could they have been so naive?

But what if smart people get taken in because they’re smart? They have a track record of seeing things others don’t, making good bets and winning big. People give them deference, come to them for advice and laugh at their jokes. They’re used to seeing things others don’t. For them, a lack of discernible evidence isn’t always a warning sign. It can be an opportunity.

Gated Community Elites And TED Talk Elites

Living in a gated community necessarily cuts you off from your surroundings. People outside can’t wander in and you can’t wander out. New businesses don’t sprout up and old ones don’t die. Routines are familiar and protected, you remain in your comfort zone and any random disturbance is immediately removed.

On the other end of the spectrum, when you go to fancy conferences your imagination becomes overstimulated. You are inundated with the new and unfamiliar. The normal human experiences begin to seem passé, a remnant of a lost age, while visions of the future begin to appear more genuine than the present reality.

The truth is that both of these environments are manufactured for the tastes of the well-heeled. Gated communities are built for those who want a simple sanctuary in a messy and complex world that doesn’t always follow a linear and understandable logic. The conference world tends to overemphasize the power of imagination and possibility, ignoring the fact that the status quo exerts a power of its own.

The best indicator of what we think and what we do is what the people around us think and do. We tend to conform to the opinions and behaviors of those around us and this effect extends out to three degrees of relationships. So not only our friends’ friends, influence us deeply, but their friends too—people that we don’t even know—affect what we think.

Confirming Our Priors

Clearly, the way we tend to self-sort ourselves into homophilic, homogeneous groups shapes how we perceive what we see and hear, but it will also affect how we access information. When a team of researchers at MIT looked into how we share information—and misinformation—with those around us. What they found was troubling.

When we’re surrounded by people who think like us, we share information more freely because we don’t expect to be rebuked. We’re also less likely to check our facts, because we know that those we are sharing the item with will be less likely to inspect it themselves. So when we’re in a filter bubble, we not only share more, we’re also more likely to share things that are not true. Greater polarization leads to greater misinformation.

We’re prone to think of our brains as biological forms of computers that take in and analyze data leading to rational conclusions. That’s not true. We tend to seize upon the most easily available information, rather than the most reliable sources. We then seek out information that confirms those beliefs and reject evidence that contradicts existing paradigms.

That’s the glitch in our mental machinery that Madoff, Holmes and Sorokin exploited. The investors in Madoff’s funds felt privileged to be allowed into an exclusive investment. Theranos board members thought they were building a better future. Sorokin made those around her feel like they had access to an aristocracy of sorts.

These weren’t mere notions or passing thoughts, but assertions of identity, which is why the shills were so eager to advocate for — and actively protect — their swindlers.

Making Allowances For The Glitches In Our Mental Machinery

We all like to have opinions and like act on them. When, for instance, people were asked if they supported bombing Agrabah, the fictional hometown of the Disney character Aladdin, 30% of Republicans and 19% of Democrats said yes. Yet our urge to make judgments has nothing to do with our ability to make wise choices.

Humans tend to think in terms of narratives. We like things to fit into neat patterns and fill in the gaps in our knowledge so that everything makes sense. People who are “smart,” have a greater ability to retain and process information than most and can use their imagination to build robust visions, but that’s no guarantee those visions will conform to reality.

We need to be hyper-aware that a track record of success makes us more confident and confidence in our judgments is inversely correlated to their accuracy. That’s why it’s often better to be careful than smart. There are formal processes that can help us do that, such as pre-mortems and red teams, but most of all we need to keep ourselves in check.

Perhaps most important is to appreciate that there are glitches in our mental machinery and we are greatly influenced by our social networks. The people around us tend to have access to similar information as we do and our perceptions are colored by prior judgments we’ve made. We are surrounded by mental minefields and the only way out is to proceed with caution.

There’s a sucker born every minute and they’re usually the ones who think they’re playing it smart.

— 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.

We Must Think Less Like Engineers and More Like Gardeners

1 Reply

We Must Think Less Like Engineers and More Like Gardeners

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

In February, 1919, the famous philosopher Bertrand Russell received a card from his former student, Ludwig Wittgenstein, who was at that time in an Italian prison camp. “I’ve written a book which will be published as soon as I get home,” he would say in subsequent correspondence. “I think I’ve solved our problems finally.”

The “problems” he spoke of had to do with a foundational crisis in mathematics and logic that defied the efforts of the world’s greatest minds. The book, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, was an attempt to engineer a perfectly logical language from first principles. It would become enormously influential, leading to the Vienna Circle and the logical positivist movement of the 1920s.

Yet Wittgenstein would later disown the idea and it was, in the end, found to be unworkable. There are limits to what we can engineer. The world is a messy place. Rules inevitably have exceptions, which is why every system will always crash. That’s why we need to think less like engineers making machines and more like gardeners that grow and nurture ecosystems.

The Death of the Secular Gods

The problems Russell and Wittgenstein were working on were part of a larger paradigm shift. By the late 19th century, many intellectuals had begun to question ideas passed down from the ancient Greeks, such as Aristotle’s Logic, Euclid’s geometry and the miasma theory in medicine, overturning two thousand years of conventional wisdom.

It’s hard to overstate the seismic shift that this represented. Aristotle’s use of the syllogism, in which conclusions necessarily followed premises, Euclid’s postulate that parallel lines never intersect and Hippocrates theory that bad air causes disease, were considered to be the basic foundations upon which western thought was predicated.

Yet as human knowledge advanced, people began to see flaws in these precepts. Strange paradoxes called Aristotle’s logic into question. Mathematicians like Gauss, Lobachevsky, Bolyai and Riemann began to imagine curved spaces in which parallel lines did, in fact, intersect and scientists such as Robert Koch, Joseph Lister and Louis Pasteur established the germ theory of disease.

These would be, practically speaking, incredibly positive developments. The rise of non-Euclidean geometry made Einstein’s general theory of relativity possible and the germ theory of disease paved the way for antibiotics and much longer lifespans. Yet they created an unwarranted optimism about what the human mind could achieve.

A New Religion

In the early 20th century, science and technology emerged as a rising force in western society. The new wonders of electricity, automobiles and telecommunication were quickly shaping how people lived, worked and thought. Physicists like Einstein and Bohr became celebrities. It seemed that there was nothing that scientific precision couldn’t achieve.

It was against this backdrop that Moritz Schlick formed the Vienna Circle, which became the center of the logical positivist movement and throughout the 20’s and 30’s. At its core was Wittgenstein’s theory of atomic facts, the idea that the world could be reduced to a set of statements that could be verified as being true or false—no opinions or speculation allowed. Those statements, in turn, would be governed by a set of logical algorithms which would determine the validity of any argument.

Yet even as this logical movement was growing, the foundational crisis in logic continued. To solve the problem, David Hilbert the greatest mathematician of the era, proposed a program to solve the crisis that rested on three pillars. First, mathematics needed to be shown to be complete in that it worked for all statements. Second, mathematics needed to be shown to be consistent, no contradictions or paradoxes allowed. Finally, all statements need to be computable, meaning they yielded a clear answer.

Then things took a surprising turn. A young logician named Kurt Gödel would prove that every logical system is flawed with contradictions. Alan Turing would show that all numbers are not computable. The Einstein-Bohr debates would be resolved in Bohr’s favor, destroying Einstein’s vision of an objective physical reality and leaving us with an uncertain universe.

The Rise Of Faux Scientists

The verdict was in. Facts could never be absolutely verifiable, but would stand until they could be falsified. We could, after thorough testing, increase our confidence, but never be completely sure. Ironically, the demise of logic led directly to the era of digital computing and a new, technological age. Just as we learned that systems would always be fallible, the machines we built became unimaginably powerful.

At the same time, human agency was increasingly called into question. It was, after all, subjective judgements that led to the Great Depression of the 1930s and the enormous wars that followed it. As the Baby Boomers came of age in the 1960s, it seemed like everything was up for debate. All of the fuzziness and uncertainty of relying on human judgment increasingly seemed impractical.

Much like Wittgenstein and the Vienna Circle, a number of thinkers sought to engineer systems that would harness natural forces to create better outcomes. The Austrian School of economics eschewed government regulation in favor of consumer preferences. Neorealism in foreign relations argued that competition and conflict could govern that international order.

Yet unlike the original logical positivists, these ideas wouldn’t stay confined to academia, but would seep into the affairs of everyday people. The consumer welfare standard insisted that market price signals, not government bureaucrats, would decide if a transaction should be permitted, while the principle of shareholder value demanded that the stock market, not managers, should govern business decisions.

The results are clear. Too little antitrust regulation has increased concentration in the vast majority of American industries and strangled competition, which has decreased business dynamism and lowered productivity. Our economy has become markedly less productive, less competitive and less dynamic. Purchasing power for most people has stagnated. By just about every metric, we’re worse off.

We Need To Manage Ecosystems, Not Machines

We like to think of ourselves as rational actors, weighing each piece of evidence before making a decision. Yet our brains don’t work like that. We build up our perspectives through synapses in our brain and through our social networks, which form complex webs of influence. Once we adopt a point of view, we rarely adapt it to new evidence.

Engineers believe in laws that can be understood and put to specific use, so they build machines to perform specific tasks. Gardeners believe in complexity and emergence. They don’t design their garden as much as tend to it, nurture it and support its surrounding ecosystem. They don’t expect the same results every time, but understand they will need to adjust their approach as they go.

We need to think less like engineers and more like gardeners. For most important purposes, we manage ecosystems, not machines. We need to think more in terms of networks that grow and less in terms of nodes whose behavior we can predict and control. Our success or failure depends less on individual entities than the connections between them.

In a world driven by networks and ecosystems, we can no longer treat strategy as if it were a game of chess, planning out each move with near perfect precision and foresight. The task of leadership is to make decisions with full knowledge that many will be wrong and that you will need to make them right.

There’s no system to do that for us, no impersonal forces that will point the way. In the end, we have to put trust in ourselves. There isn’t anyone else.

— 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.

Business Leaders Must Learn About Political and Social Movements

Leave a reply

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

Business leaders have long been fascinated by the military. When Alfred Sloan created the modern corporation at General Motors, he based it on the army. In Wall Street, the antihero Gordon Gecko habitually quoted Sun Tzu. Retired generals like Stanley McChrystal earn huge fees advising CEOs and speaking to corporate conferences.

But what about nonviolent conflict? Research has shown non-violent movements are far more successful than violent uprisings, prevailing against powerful regimes against seemingly insurmountable odds. Yet, apart from a stray Gandhi quote here or Martin Luther King Jr. slide there, these go largely unexamined in the business world.

That’s a mistake. As I explained in Cascades, business leaders can learn a lot from the principles of social and political movements. There is abundant scholarship, going back decades, about why efforts succeed and fail. We know what works and what doesn’t. If you’re serious about being a transformational leader, you need to understand these strategies.

We Need To Learn About Not Only Successes—But Failures Too

Organizations are often inscrutable and hard to research. That’s why the preferred mode of analysis is case studies in which insiders are interviewed and a particular situation is interpreted by investigators. These can be helpful, but they also have severe limitations.

First, with shareholders and customers to please, managers are rarely eager to talk about failures. So we usually only hear about successes. Those, of course, are important but also subject to survivorship bias. For example, if a risky strategy results in 1% of the firms being wildly successful and 99% going out of business, then we’ll tend to hear glowing accounts of that lucky 1% and we’ll miss the vast majority that flamed out.

Social and political movements, on the other hand, are largely public events. Gandhi’s Himalayan miscalculation is just as well documented as his triumphant Salt March. We know as much about the failures of #Occupy as we do the ultimate success of the LGBTQ movement. We can look at similar strategies in different contexts and different strategies in similar contexts.

That’s extremely important. We need to learn from failures. It’s one thing to look at a strategy that succeeded, but can it prevail consistently or was that a one-off? Is it a universally successful strategy or highly dependent on context? We need to ask these questions relentlessly and it’s very hard to do that if we only look at the winners.

Change Is Always Multifaceted, We Need to Understand Multiple Perspectives

Another issue with the case study method is that it is necessarily limited. When researchers did a case study on company I used to run, to take just one example, they interviewed insiders (including me) and did their best to interpret what they heard and what they could glean from background information regarding the market.

Yet while I don’t think anything was inaccurate, it wasn’t exactly the truth either. Only a handful of people were interviewed, almost all of them were concentrated in a single part of the business and none of them, besides me, were involved in making decisions. The issues presented in the case study simply weren’t the ones we were actually wrestling with.

Now consider the prominent sociologist Doug McAdam’s paper on recruiting for Freedom Summer during the civil rights movement. He was able to analyze the applications of not only 720 volunteers, but 239 others that withdrew and 55 that were rejected. He conducted 80 in-depth personal interviews and, because the applications asked for social contacts, McAdam was able to document social ties.

That type of documentation simply doesn’t exist in case studies of firms’ internal deliberations and decision making. We rarely get access to internal data, much less insights from partners, customers, competitors and regulators. With social and political movements, on the other hand, we can examine thousands of first-hand accounts from every perspective.

That’s important, because the world is a messy place with a lot going on. Outcomes rarely boil down to a single decision and even key players disagree on which factors were determinant.

We Need To Overcome Resistance

Look at most change management models and what you see is mostly advice that is focused on persuasion. They suggest that the way to drive a transformation is to tell people about it. By creating a sense of urgency and need, you can build a coalition that will implement the change and shift practices for the long term.

Unfortunately, decades of serious research shows that the world doesn’t work that way. Researchers have long been aware of a so-called KAP-gap in which shifts in “knowledge” and “attitudes” don’t necessarily lead to a change in “practices.” For any given change there will also be people who will vehemently resist it, not for any rational logic, necessarily, but for reasons related to identity, dignity and sense of self.

On the other hand, in social and political movements the need to overcome robust—and even violent—resistance is front and center. Practitioners have developed tools such as the Spectrum of Allies and the Pillars of Support as well as innovative strategies like Dilemma Actions. We have decades of documentation on how these worked in a variety of contexts.

Make no mistake. We can’t simply cheerlead change. No one is going to embrace transformation simply because you came up with a fancy slogan. The truth is that whenever you ask people to change what they think or what they do, there will always be some who won’t like it and they will work to undermine what you’re trying to achieve in ways that are dishonest, underhanded and deceptive.

You need to prepare for that and you will learn far more from social and political movements than consultants interpreting case studies.

Change Is Too Important Not To Take Seriously

The most important challenge leaders face is to navigate change. We can optimize operations, streamline our organizations and motivate our people, but eventually our square-peg business will meet its round-hole world and we will need to adapt, build new skills and shift our strategies. Unfortunately, the overwhelming evidence suggests that we will fail.

Consider that, after decades of trying, skills like lean manufacturing, agile development and overcoming unconscious bias are woefully under-adopted in most organizations. Study after study shows that the vast majority of transformational efforts fail. We can’t continue to do the same thing and expect different results.

One reason for this dismal performance is how we research and learn about change. Today’s change management models simply aren’t based on facts or evidence, but rather the interpretation of case studies. Those can help us understand nuance and give us greater depth, but they are no substitute for rigorous research.

The truth is that we know a lot about change. Decades of studies have shown us that new ideas tend to come from outside the community and incur resistance. Research has shown there is a persistent gap between what people know and what they actually put into practice. We also know that transformation follows an s-shaped curve and that ideas are transmitted socially.

Unfortunately, current organizational change practices address none of these challenges. However, social and political movements do and through the work of scholars like Gene Sharp and practitioners Srdja Popović we know what works and what doesn’t. My own work has shown that these principles can be put to use in organizations.

The future is simply too important to be left to superstition and fantasy.

— 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.