Category Archives: Change

Understanding the Circular Economy Model

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

In the traditional linear economy model, products are made, used, and then disposed of. This take-make-dispose approach has led to significant waste and environmental degradation. The circular economy, on the other hand, offers a regenerative system that promotes sustainability by keeping products, components, and materials at their highest utility and value at all times.

The Basics of a Circular Economy

The circular economy emphasizes designing out waste and pollution, keeping products and materials in use, and regenerating natural systems. It challenges the conventional idea that economic growth is inherently tied to resource consumption and depletion.

At its core, the circular economy seeks to create closed-loop systems where waste is minimized, resources are reused, and every product is part of an ongoing cycle. This model is not just environmentally beneficial but also economically viable, driving innovation and creating new business opportunities.

Case Study 1: The Ellen MacArthur Foundation

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation has been a pivotal player in defining and promoting the circular economy model. Founded in 2010, the Foundation works with businesses, academia, and policymakers to accelerate the transition to a circular economy.

One of their notable projects is the “New Plastics Economy” initiative, aiming to rethink and redesign the future of plastics by creating a framework for a sustainable plastics system. This initiative involves key stakeholders in plastic production and consumption, pushing for innovations in packaging and recycling technologies.

Through collaboration and research, the Foundation has driven significant changes in how plastics are perceived and managed, proving that a circular approach is not only possible but practical and profitable.

Case Study 2: Philips Lighting

Philips Lighting, now known as Signify, is a prime example of a corporation adopting the circular economy model to drive both environmental benefits and economic growth. Philips transitioned from selling lighting products to offering “light as a service.”

This model focuses on providing lighting solutions with a commitment to product rest, remanufacturing, and recycling. Customers pay for the light they use rather than owning the products. This shift encourages Philips to design longer-lasting, easily repairable, and upgradable lighting solutions.

This approach extended the lifespan of their products, reduced resource consumption, and opened new revenue streams. Philips Lighting’s success illustrates how circular strategies can be integrated into business models to drive sustainability and profitability.

Challenges and Opportunities

While the circular economy offers immense opportunities, transitioning from a linear to a circular system is not without challenges. It requires changes in mindset, business models, and infrastructure. Collaboration across industries and sectors is essential to create systems that facilitate a circular flow of resources.

Opportunities abound for those willing to innovate and rethink traditional practices. With consumers increasingly valuing sustainability, businesses that embrace circular principles can enhance brand loyalty, reduce costs, and create competitive advantages.

Conclusion

The circular economy model represents a transformative shift in how we think about resource use and sustainability. By encouraging innovation and collaboration, the circular economy not only conserves resources but also drives economic growth and resilience.

As we look to the future, embracing a circular mindset will be crucial. Organizations, policymakers, and individuals must work together to create a sustainable world, where resources are used wisely and every product lives on as part of a continuous cycle.

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

Image credit: Pixabay

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

Taking Personal Responsibility – Seeing Self as Cause

Leave a reply

Taking Personal Responsibility – Seeing Self as Cause

GUEST POST from Janet Sernack

In our last two blogs on Taking Personal Responsibility, we stated that when people aren’t taking personal responsibility, they cannot be accountable, they will fail in their jobs, and their teams, and fail to grow as individuals and as leaders. Taking personal responsibility is an especially crucial capability to develop self-awareness and self-regulation skills in the decade of both disruption and transformation. It all starts with seeing self as the cause of what happens to us, rather than baling it on the effects events and problems have on us! Where people can learn to recognize the structures at play in their lives and change them so that they can create what they really want to create in their lives, teams, or organizations.

In the last two blogs, we shared a range of tips for shifting people’s location, by creating a line of choice, to help them shift from being below the line and blaming others for their reactive response, to getting above the line quickly. Through shifting their language from “you, they and them” to “I, we and us” and bravely disrupting and calling out people when they do slip below the line. How doing this allows people to also systemically shift across the maturity continuum, from dependence to independence and ultimately towards interdependence.

In a recent newsletter Otto Scharmer, from the Presencing Institute states “Between action and non-action there is a place. A portal into the unknown. But what are we each called to contribute to the vision of the emerging future? Perhaps these times are simply doorways into the heart of the storm, a necessary journey through the cycles of time required to create change”.

Creating the place – the sacred pause

When I made a significant career change from a design and marketing management consultant to becoming a corporate trainer, one of the core principles I was expected to teach to senior corporate managers and leaders was taking personal responsibility.

Little knowing, that at the end of the workshop, going back to my hotel room and beating myself up, for all of the “wrongs” in the delivery of the learning program, was totally out of integrity with this core principle.

Realising that when people say – those that teach need to learn, I had mistakenly thought that I had to take responsibility for enacting the small imperfections I had delivered during the day, by berating myself, making myself “wrong” and through below the line self-depreciation!

Where I perfectly acted out the harmful process of self-blame, rather than rationally assessing the impact of each small imperfection, shifting to being above the line where I could intentionally apply the sacred pause:

Hit my pause button to get present, accept my emotional state,
Connect with what really happened to unpack the reality of the situation and eliminate my distortions around it,
Check-in and acknowledge how I was truly feeling about what happened,
Acknowledge some of the many things that I had done really well,
Ask myself what is the outcome/result I want for participants next program?
Ask myself what can I really learn from this situation?
Consciously choose what to do differently the next time I ran the program.

I still often find myself struggling with creating the Sacred Space between Stimulus and Response and have noticed in my global coaching practice, that many of my well-intentioned clients struggle with this too.

The impact of the last two and a half years of working at home, alone, online, with minimal social interactions and contact, has caused many of them to languish in their reactivity, and for some of them, into drowning in a very full emotional boat, rather than riding the wave of disruptive change.

Being the creative cause

In our work at ImagineNation, whether we help people, leaders and teams adapt, innovate and grow through disruption, their ability to develop true self-awareness and be above the line is often the most valuable and fundamental skill set they develop.

It then enables us to make the distinction that creating is completely different from reacting or responding to the circumstances people find themselves in by applying the sacred pause.

When people shift towards seeing self as the cause they are able to create and co-create what they want in their lives, teams or organization by learning to create by creating, starting with asking the question:

What result do you want to create in your life?
What is the reality of your current situation?

This creates a state of tension, it is this tension that seeks resolution.

In his ground-breaking book The Path of Least Resistance Robert Fritz, goes on to describe and rank these desired results as “Fundamental Choices, Primary Choices, and Secondary Choices.”

Because there is one thing that we can all do right and is totally in our control – is to shift towards seeing self as the cause and make a set of conscious choices, with open hearts, minds, and wills, as to how we think, feel and choose to act.

“We are the creative force of our life, and through our own decisions rather than our conditions, if we carefully learn to do certain things, we can accomplish those goals.”

We all have the options and choices in taking responsibility, empowering ourselves and others to be imaginative and creative, and using the range of rapid changes, ongoing disruption, uncertainty, and the adverse pandemic consequences, as levers for shifting and controlling, the way we think, feel.

Benefits of seeing self as the cause and being above the line

Applying the sacred pause to make change choices in how we act – and being brave and bold in shifting across the maturity continuum, will help us to cultivate the creativity, interdependence, and systemic thinking we all need right now because it:

Helps people self-regulate their reactive emotional responses, be more open-hearted and emotionally agile, and helps develop psychologically safe work environments where people can collaborate and experiment, and fail without the fear of retribution or punishment.
Enables people to be more open-minded, imaginative, and curious and creates a safe space for continuous learning, maximizing diversity and inclusion, and proactive intentional change and transformation.
Promotes ownership of a problem or challenging situation and helps develop constructive and creative responses to problems and an ability to take intelligent actions.
Gives people an opportunity to impact positively on others and build empowered trusted and collaborative relationships.
Enables entrepreneurs and innovators to invent creative solutions and drive successful innovative outcomes.
Building the foundations for accountability, where people focus their locus of control on what they promise to deliver, enables them to be intrinsically motivated, and take smart risks on negotiating outcomes that they can be counted on for delivering.

Tips for seeing self as the cause and operating above the line

Taking personal responsibility and seeing self as the cause involves:

Acknowledging that “I/we had a role or contributed in some way, to the fact that this has not worked out the way “I/we wanted.”
Clarifying the outcome or result in you want from a specific situation or a problem.
Seeking alternatives and options for making intelligent choices and actions, and using the language of “I/we can” and “I/we will” to achieve the outcome.
Replacing avoiding, being cynical and argumentative, blaming, shaming, controlling, and complaining with courageous, compassionate, and creative language and acts of intention.
People become victors who operate from “self as cause” where they are empowered to be the creative forces in their own lives by making fundamental, primary, and secondary change choices.
Trust your inner knowing and deep wisdom that everything has a specific and definable cause and that each and every one of us has the freedom to choose how to respond to it.

Back to leadership basics

As Stephen Covey says, people need to deeply and honestly say “I am what I am today because of the choices I made yesterday” because it’s not what happens to us, it’s our reactive response to what happens that hurts us.

Being willing to step back, retreat, and reflect on the gap between the results you want, and the results you are getting all starts with stepping inward, backward, and forwards, using the sacred pause, to ask:

What happened? What were the key driving forces behind it?

How am I/we truly feeling about it?

What was my/our role in causing this situation, or result?

What can I/we learn from it?

What is the result/outcome I want to create in the future?

What can I/we then do to create it?

As a corporate trainer, consultant and coach, I found out the hard way that developing the self-awareness and self-regulation skills in taking personal responsibility and seeing self as the cause is the basis of the personal power and freedom that is so important to me, and almost everyone else I am currently interacting with.

It’s the foundation for transcending paralysis, overwhelm, and stuck-ness and activating our sense of agency to transform society and ourselves.

This is the third and final blog in a series of blogs on the theme of taking responsibility – going back to leadership basics. Read the previous two here:

Find out about our learning products and tools, including The Coach for Innovators, Leaders, and Teams Certified Program, a collaborative, intimate, and deeply personalized innovation coaching and learning program, supported by a global group of peers over 9-weeks, starting Tuesday, October 18, 2022. It is a blended and transformational change and learning program that will give you a deep understanding of the language, principles, and applications of an ecosystem focus, human-centric approach, and emergent structure (Theory U) to innovation, and upskill people and teams and develop their future fitness, within your unique context.

Image credit: Pixabay

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

Managing Change Effectively with Adaptive Leadership

Leave a reply

Managing Change Effectively with Adaptive Leadership

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

Hello innovators, change agents, and fellow explorers of the human experience within organizations. Today I want to delve into a topic that is not just relevant, but absolutely crucial in our rapidly evolving world: managing change effectively through the lens of adaptive leadership. We often approach change with a toolkit designed for technical problems – clear definitions, expert solutions, and linear implementation. But what happens when the challenges are less about a faulty engine and more about navigating a complex ecosystem of human behaviors, beliefs, and values?

This is where adaptive leadership shines. Unlike technical challenges, adaptive challenges require more than just expertise; they demand a shift in mindset, a willingness to experiment, and the courage to engage with discomfort. Adaptive leadership, at its core, is about mobilizing people to tackle tough challenges and thrive amidst uncertainty. It’s about understanding that the problem often resides not just “out there,” but within the very system we are trying to change.

The Limitations of Technical Approaches to Adaptive Challenges

Think about it. How many times have you seen a well-defined change initiative fail despite meticulous planning and execution? The reason often lies in the fact that the underlying issues were adaptive, not technical. These challenges involve deeply ingrained habits, conflicting values, and a resistance to stepping outside of comfortable norms. Trying to apply a purely technical solution to an adaptive problem is like trying to fix a relationship issue with a flowchart – it might offer a framework, but it misses the human element, the emotional undercurrents, and the need for collective learning and adjustment.

The Principles of Adaptive Leadership in Change Management

Adaptive leadership offers a different approach, one that emphasizes:

Identifying the Adaptive Challenge: Clearly distinguishing between technical problems that can be solved with existing knowledge and adaptive challenges that require new learning and behavioral shifts.
Holding Environment: Creating a safe space where individuals and teams can grapple with difficult issues, experiment with new behaviors, and learn from both successes and failures. This involves managing the level of discomfort, keeping it productive without overwhelming people.
Regulating Distress: Understanding that change inevitably creates discomfort. Adaptive leaders must manage this distress, preventing it from becoming so overwhelming that it leads to regression or avoidance.
Focusing Attention: Directing the organization’s focus towards the most critical adaptive challenges, avoiding distractions and maintaining clarity on the priorities.
Giving the Work Back to the People: Empowering individuals and teams to take ownership of the problem and develop their own solutions. This fosters learning, builds capacity, and increases buy-in.
Protecting Voices from Below: Ensuring that diverse perspectives, especially those from individuals closest to the work, are heard and considered. These voices often hold crucial insights into the adaptive challenges.

Case Study 1: The Healthcare System Transformation

The Challenge:

A large healthcare system faced increasing costs and declining patient satisfaction despite implementing new technologies and standardized procedures (technical solutions). The underlying issue was a deeply entrenched siloed culture where departments operated independently, hindering communication and integrated patient care. This was an adaptive challenge requiring a shift in culture and collaboration.

The Adaptive Leadership Approach:

The CEO recognized this as an adaptive challenge and initiated a series of cross-functional workshops focused on understanding patient journeys and identifying pain points from multiple perspectives. Instead of dictating solutions, leadership facilitated dialogue, encouraged experimentation with new collaborative models, and created “safe-to-fail” pilot projects. They actively listened to frontline staff, whose insights often challenged existing assumptions. The “holding environment” was created through transparent communication, acknowledging the discomfort of breaking down silos, and celebrating small wins in collaboration.

The Outcome:

Initially, there was resistance and discomfort. However, as cross-functional teams began to see the positive impact on patient care and efficiency through their collaborative efforts, buy-in increased. New communication protocols and shared care pathways emerged organically. While the transformation was gradual and faced setbacks, the system saw a significant improvement in patient satisfaction scores and a reduction in redundant processes. The leadership’s focus on facilitating learning and empowering teams to find their own solutions was crucial.

Key Takeaway: Adaptive challenges require facilitating learning and collaboration, not just implementing top-down solutions. Empowering individuals closest to the problem to develop solutions fosters ownership and sustainable change.

“In today’s complex world, successful leaders are not those with all the answers, but those who can inspire diverse teams to address challenges in creative and innovative ways.” – Braden Kelley

Case Study 2: The Agile Transformation in a Traditional Software Company

The Challenge:

A long-established software company struggling with slow development cycles and a rapidly changing market decided to adopt Agile methodologies. While training and new tools were implemented (technical solutions), the expected improvements in speed and responsiveness didn’t materialize. The core issue was a deeply ingrained hierarchical structure and a risk-averse culture that stifled autonomy and collaboration within development teams. This was an adaptive challenge requiring a significant shift in mindset and organizational structure.

The Adaptive Leadership Approach:

Instead of simply mandating Agile practices, the leadership team focused on creating a “holding environment” where teams could experiment with Agile frameworks and learn from their experiences. They championed small, cross-functional teams with greater autonomy and decision-making power. Leaders actively sought feedback from these teams, even when it challenged existing management practices. They protected early adopters who experimented and sometimes failed, emphasizing learning over immediate perfection. They also began to dismantle some of the rigid hierarchical structures that hindered collaboration.

The Outcome:

The initial transition was bumpy, with some resistance from middle management who felt their authority was being challenged. However, as teams experienced the benefits of increased autonomy and faster feedback loops, momentum built. The company saw a gradual but significant improvement in development speed, product quality, and employee engagement. The leadership’s willingness to “give the work back to the people” and protect those experimenting with new ways of working was critical to overcoming the adaptive challenge.

Key Takeaway: Agile transformations are often adaptive challenges requiring a shift in culture and organizational structure, not just the implementation of new processes and tools. Leadership must foster autonomy and learning.

Embracing the Messiness of Adaptive Change

Managing change effectively with adaptive leadership is not a neat and linear process. It’s often messy, iterative, and requires a high degree of empathy and resilience. It demands that leaders move beyond being problem-solvers to becoming facilitators of learning and growth. By understanding the principles of adaptive leadership and applying them thoughtfully, we can move beyond simply implementing change to truly transforming our organizations and enabling them to thrive in the face of complexity.

The future belongs to those who can navigate uncertainty and mobilize collective intelligence to address adaptive challenges. Let’s embrace this journey together, fostering environments where people can learn, adapt, and ultimately, create a better future.

Stay curious and keep innovating.

Extra Extra: Futurology is not fortune telling. Futurists use a scientific approach to create their deliverables, but a methodology and tools like those in FutureHacking™ can empower anyone to engage in futurology themselves.

Image credit: Pexels

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

Technology Was Supposed to Solve Our Problems, Instead, They Got Worse

Leave a reply

Technology Was Supposed to Solve Our Problems, Instead, They Got Worse

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

Techno-optimism may have reached its zenith in 2011, when Marc Andreessen declared that software was eating the world. Back then, it seemed that anything rooted in the physical world was doomed to decline while geeky engineers banging out endless lines of code would own the future and everything in it.

Yet as Derek Thompson pointed out in The Atlantic, the euphoria of Andreessen and his Silicon Valley brethren seems to have been misplaced. A rash of former unicorns have seen their value plummet, while WeWork saw its IPO self-destruct. Today, even Internet giants like Amazon seem to be investing more in atoms than they do in bits.

We were promised a new economy of increasing returns, but statistics show a very different story. Over the past 30 years wages have stagnated while productivity growth has slowed to a crawl. At the same time, costs for things like education and healthcare have skyrocketed. What is perhaps most disturbing is how many of our most basic problems have gotten worse.

1. Extreme Inequality

The digital revolution was supposed to be a democratizing force, increasing access to information and competition while breaking the institutional monopoly on power. Yet just the opposite seems to have happened, with a relatively small global elite grabbing more money and more influence.

Consider market consolidation. An analysis published in the Harvard Business Review showed that from airlines to hospitals to beer, market share is increasingly concentrated in just a handful of firms. A more expansive study of 900 industries conducted by The Economist found that two thirds have become more dominated by larger players. In fact, almost everywhere you look markets are weakening.

Perhaps not surprisingly, we see the same trends in households as we do with businesses. The OECD reports that income inequality is at its highest level in over 50 years. Even in emerging markets, where millions have been lifted out of poverty, most of the benefits have gone to a small few.

While inequality may seem abstract, the consequences of it are concrete and stark. Social mobility has been declining in America for decades, transforming the “land of opportunity” into what is increasingly a caste system. The stresses to our societies have also contributed to a global rise in authoritarian populism.

2. Hunger

Since the 1950s, the Green Revolution has transformed agriculture around the world, dramatically reducing hunger in places like Asia, Africa and South America. More recently, advances in gene editing promise what may be an even greater increase in productivity that has the potential to outpace projected population growth.

The impact of the increase in agricultural productivity cannot be overstated. In fact, studies have shown that as hunger subsides, economic activity increases while both mortality and fertility decrease. When people don’t have to struggle to take care of basic needs, their ambition and creativity can be unleashed.

The story in the United States, however, is starkly different. Research by the USDA finds that 11.1% of US households are food insecure. Another study revealed that about half of students on college campuses experience food insecurity. If that sounds bad, a study by Brookings suggests that the problem has gotten far worse during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The truth is that these days hunger is much more of a policy problem than it is an economic problem. Science and technology have made it possible to produce more than enough food to feed everyone on the planet, even in desperately poor countries. The reason that people go hungry on America’s streets is simply because we let it happen.

3. Falling life expectancy

Around the same time as the Green Revolution was beginning to alleviate hunger in developing countries, we entered a golden age of antibiotics. After penicillin became commercially available in 1945 the floodgates opened and scientists uncovered dozens of compounds that could fight infection. Millions of lives were saved.

Starting in the 1970s, we started to make serious headway in heart disease, leading to a miraculous decline in death from heart attacks and strokes. At the same time, due to advances in cancer treatment such as targeted therapies and immunotherapy cancer survivability has soared. In fact, medical science had advanced so much that some serious people believe that immortality is within reach.

Yet in America, things are going the other way. Life expectancy has been declining for years, largely due to “deaths of despair” due to drugs, alcohol and suicide. Anxiety and depression are rising to epidemic levels. Healthcare costs continue to explode while the number of uninsured continues to rise. If history is any guide, we can only expect these trends to continue.

So although technology has made it possible for us to live longer, healthier lives, we find ourselves living shorter, more miserable lives.

Revealing and Building Anew

In a 1954 essay, The Question Concerning Technology the German philosopher Martin Heidegger described technology as akin to art, in that it reveals truths about the nature of the world, brings them forth and puts them to some specific use. In the process, human nature and its capacity for good and evil is also revealed.

He gives the example of a hydroelectric dam, which reveals the energy of a river and puts it to use making electricity. In much the same sense, scientists don’t “create,” miracle cures as much as they uncover truths about human biology and leverage that knowledge to improve health. It’s a subtle, but very important distinction.

Yet in another essay, Building Dwelling Thinking, he explains that building also plays an important role, because to build for the world, we first must understand what it means to live in it. The revealing power of technology forces us to rethink old truths and reimagine new societal norms. That, more than anything else, is where the challenges lie. Miracle cures, for example, do little for those without health insurance.

We are now nearing the end of the digital age and entering a new era of innovation which will likely be more impactful than anything we’ve seen since the rise of electricity and internal combustion a century ago. This, in turn, will initiate a new cycle of revealing and building that will be as challenging as anything humanity has ever faced.

Prognosticators and futurists try to predict what will happen through some combination of extrapolation and supposition, but the truth is the future will most be shaped by the choices we make. We could have chosen to make our society more equal, healthier and happier, but did not. We can, of course, choose differently. The future will be revealed in what we choose to build.

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

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

It is Easier to Change People than to Change People

1 Reply

It is Easier to Change People than to Change People

GUEST POST from Annette Franz

The work that we do as customer experience professionals can often be summed up as change management – or change leadership. One of the key and critical parts of this change management effort is to ensure we have executive commitment for the work that lies ahead. As a matter of fact, in an article I wrote a couple months ago about some research that GetFeedback had released, I noted these findings:

Respondents shared what degree executives were invested in CX efforts, how much, and to what end. When executives invest in customer experience, brands are three times more likely to yield return on investment (ROI) than those who don’t have that commitment from executives.

So their commitment is important. (Their ROI will come!) It ensures that you get the resources – human, capital, financial, time, etc. – needed to move forward successfully with your transformation work. They should express commitment (to the CX team and to the company) that the entire executive team is all in and that they’ve accepted that building a customer-centric organization means we’re building a winning organization.

But what if that commitment is lacking? What if you’re executives don’t get it? What if every plea to explain why transforming the culture, the employee experience, and the customer experience lands on deaf ears? What if some get it and some don’t?

Let’s think about this…

Years ago, I had an interesting conversation with James Lawther about executives and their lack of understanding regarding their critical roles in the transformation and the importance of their commitment. He had commented on a post about executives “not getting it” with this: “In which case, rather than trying to change your executive, wouldn’t you be better moving on and changing your executive instead?” I was recently reminded of his comment when I saw the quote, “It’s easier to change people than to change people.”

Perhaps, sometimes we just need new executives. Sadly, those who get it are few and far between. It’s one of the reasons I wrote Built to Win, i.e., to inspire leaders to think differently about customer-centricity and building a winning organization through deliberately designing a customer-centric culture – from the top.

Back to the conversation with James. We weren’t too far off on this thinking, this idea of changing executives. Geoffrey Moore (author of Crossing the Chasm and Zone to Win) published an article on LinkedIn last month titled, Three Easy Mistakes to Make, which he actually referred to as compromises leaders shouldn’t make as the business grows and matures or evolves. One of those mistakes was this: Adjusting your organizational model to fit your people instead of the other way around. He writes:

People who have been with the team for a long time often feel entitled to the next promotion in their career path, and because we have all worked together during this time, we can feel obligated to accommodate them. Now, when your industry is not being disrupted, experience does matter, so promoting from within is often a good strategy. But when disruption strikes, organizations need to change, often dramatically, and the new leaders need to be grounded in the emerging paradigm. That is, they have to make quick decisions with little data based on pattern recognition and then course-correct them as the data comes in. If the person in place does not have that pattern recognition, if instead, they have to learn the new system even as they are in the midst of operating it, decision-making slows down dramatically, and an agile approach becomes impossible. For times like this, you need to bring in someone who already has the mindset needed to play the new hand. You already know that what got you here won’t get you there. Just remember that applies to people as well.

Why would you do that? Why wouldn’t you make sure you’ve got the right people on the bus to ensure success, to ensure that the organizational model (and, of course, in this case, I’m thinking about building out your customer-centric culture) has every chance to flourish? Why would you, instead, keep the same people to build a different organization, especially those who constantly say, “But we’ve always done it this way. This is how we do things here.”

I prefer to say, “Nothing changes if nothing changes.” Either the thinking has to change or the people have to change.

As Geoffrey says, “For times like this, you need to bring in someone who already has the mindset needed to play the new hand. You already know that what got you here won’t get you there. Just remember that applies to people as well.”

Maybe some of the up-and-coming leaders will bring a fresh perspective and find my open letter to CEOs an affirmation, as in, “No need to tell me all of that once, much less twice!” Be that person with the mindset to play the new hand. Or be the person who gets replaced.

People change over the years, and that changes situations for good and for bad. ~ Bobby Knight

This article originally appeared on CX Journey

Image credit: Pixabay

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

Taking Personal Responsibility – Creating the Line of Choice

Leave a reply

Taking Personal Responsibility - Creating the Line of Choice

GUEST POST from Janet Sernack

In our last blog, we described how people’s personal power is diminished when they don’t take personal responsibility for the impact of their behaviors and actions and the results they cause. Where many people are feeling minimized and marginalized, anxious as a result of being isolated and lonely, worrying about losing their security and freedom, and dealing with the instability in their working environments. Resulting in many people disengaging from the important conversations, job functions, key relationships, workplaces, and in some instances, even from society. Where managers and leaders lack the basic self-awareness and self-regulation skills to control the only controllable in uncertain and unstable times, is to choose how to respond, rather than react to it.

We have a unique moment in time to shift their defensiveness through being compassionate, creative, and courageous towards helping managers and leaders unfreeze and mobilize to exit our comfort zones. To take intelligent actions catalyze and cause positive outcomes, that deliver real solutions to crises, complex situations, and difficult business problems.

Why do people avoid taking personal responsibility?

People typically avoid taking personal responsibility for reasons ranging from simple laziness, risk adversity, or a fear of failure, to feeling change fatigued, overwhelmed, or even victimized by the scale of a problem or a situation.

Resulting in a range of different automatic defensive, and a range of non-productive reactive responses including:

Avoidant behavior, where feel victimized and targeted, people passively “wriggle” and the buck gets passed onto others, and the real problem or issue does not get addressed or resolved.
Controlling behavior, where people ignore their role in causing or resolving the real problem or issue, and aggressively push others towards their mandate or solution, denying others any agency.
Argumentative behavior, where people play the binary “right-wrong” game, and self-righteously, triggered by their own values, oppose other people’s perspectives in order to be right and make the other person wrong.

Creating the line of choice

At Corporate Vision, we added a thick line of “choice” between “personal responsibility” and “blame, justification and denial” to intentionally create space for people to consider taking more emotionally hygienic options rather than:

Dumping their “emotional boats” inappropriately onto others, even those they may deeply care about,
Sinking into their habitual, and largely unconscious default patterns when facing complex problems, which results in the delivery of the same results they always have.
Not regulating their automatic reactive responses to challenging situations, and not creating the vital space to pause and reflect to think about what to do next.

To enable them to shift towards taking response-ability (an ability to respond) and introducing more useful options for responding in emotionally agile, considered, constructive, inclusive, and creative ways to the problem or the challenge.

Noticing that when we, or others we interact with, do slip below the line to notice whether to “camp” there for the long term or to simply choose to make the “visit” a short one!

Doing this demonstrates the self-awareness and self-regulation skills enabling people to take personal responsibility. Which initiates ownership and a willingness to be proactive, solutions, and achievement orientated – all of which are essential qualities for 21st century conscious leadership that result in innovative outcomes that result in success, growth, and sustainability.

Shifting your location – from “you, they and them” to “I, we and us”

Developing the foundations for transformational and conscious leadership involves:

Supporting people to acknowledge and accept that the problem or challenge is not “out there” and is within their locus of control or influence.
Shifting the “Maturity Continuum” to enable leaders and managers to be both independent and interdependent.
Creating a line of choice to think, act and do things differently.
Calling out people when they slip below the line.

It involves supporting people to let go of their expectation that “they” or someone else, from the outside, will fix it, and supporting them to adopt a stance where:

“I” or “we” can and are empowered to do it,
“I” or “we” are responsible for getting above the line,
“I” or “we” can choose a different way of being, thinking, and acting intelligently in this situation.

Developing conscious leadership

At any time, everyone is either above or below the line because it is elemental to the type of conscious leadership we all need to survive and thrive, in a world where people are seeking leaders, managers, and working environments that require interdependence.

To operate in the paradigm of “we” – we can do it; we can cooperate; we can combine our talents and abilities and create something greater together.

We cooperate together by creating the line of choice where we call out to ourselves and others when we slip below it, to get above the line as quickly as possible.

Where interdependent people and communities combine their efforts, and their self-awareness and self-regulation skills with the efforts of others to achieve their growth and greatest success by increasing:

Transparency and trust,
Achievement and accountability,
Diversity and inclusion,
Experimentation and collaboration.

All of these are founded on the core principle of taking personal responsibility, which is an especially crucial capability to develop self-awareness and self-regulation skills in the decade of both disruption and transformation.

Bravely calling out self and others

When we take responsibility for managing our own, “below the line” reactive responses, by habitually creating the line of choice, we can bravely call out ourselves and others when we slip below it.

Because when we don’t call ourselves and others we interact with, we are unconsciously colluding with their emotional boats, default patterns, and automatic reactive responses, which inhibit their ability to effect positive change.

When we safely awaken ourselves and others, we can get back above the line quickly and choose different ways of being, thinking, and acting intelligently in the situation.

Alternately, people aren’t taking personal responsibility, they cannot be accountable, they will fail in their jobs, and their teams, and fail to grow as individuals and as leaders.

In fact, developing a habitual practice of emotionally intelligent and conscious leadership by safely and bravely disrupting ourselves and our people, in the face of ongoing uncertainty, accelerating change, and continuous disruption.

This is the second in a series of three blogs on the theme of taking responsibility – going back to leadership basics.

Image credit: Unsplash

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

Cultural Change Goes Beyond Structures and Processes

Leave a reply

Cultural Change Goes Beyond Structures and Processes

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

In the realm of organizational transformation, many leaders focus predominantly on altering structures and processes. While these elements are critical, true cultural change transcends mere mechanics. It permeates the essence of human interactions and the underlying beliefs within an organization. To achieve sustainable cultural change, one must delve deeper into the nuances of human-centered design and leadership.

The Essence of Cultural Change

Structural and procedural changes often provide the framework for transformation, but the real challenge lies in reshaping the mindset and behaviors of individuals. Culture is not just “the way we do things around here”; it is a dynamic entity influenced by shared values and the collective identity of an organization.

Human-centered change emphasizes empathy, active listening, and ongoing engagement. Leaders must recognize that individuals need to feel seen, heard, and valued to embrace change genuinely. Building trust and facilitating open dialogues are essential steps toward this holistic approach.

Case Study 1: Zappos – Delivering Happiness Through Culture

Zappos, the renowned online retailer, offers a compelling example of cultural transformation beyond structures and processes. When CEO Tony Hsieh took the helm, he prioritized company culture as a driver of success. His philosophy was simple yet profound: happy employees lead to happy customers.

To embed this cultural philosophy, Zappos introduced a “cultural fit” interview during its hiring process, ensuring alignment with its core values. Hsieh also championed transparency and open communication between all levels of staff, fostering a family-like atmosphere. The company’s unique culture became its competitive edge, exemplifying that when employees are empowered and valued, they become passionate and innovative contributors.

Case Study 2: The Transformation of Microsoft

Under Satya Nadella’s leadership, Microsoft underwent a remarkable cultural shift from a know-it-all culture to a learn-it-all culture. Recognizing that innovation stems from curiosity and learning, Nadella inspired a move away from rigid hierarchies toward a culture that fosters collaboration and continuous learning.

Microsoft’s “Growth Mindset” initiative emphasized the importance of embracing challenges and valuing feedback as a tool for personal and professional growth. By cultivating a more inclusive and open environment, Microsoft saw increased innovation and revitalized its employee engagement and satisfaction, driving its resurgence as a tech leader.

Moving Forward: Steps for Leaders

For leaders striving to enact human-centered cultural change, it is vital to lead with empathy and clarity. Begin by identifying and articulating the core values you wish to see flourish in your organization. Model these values consistently and reward behaviors that align with them.

Encourage cross-functional collaboration and create opportunities for employees to connect on a personal level. These interactions build the social fabric that sustains a positive culture. Regularly gather feedback and be willing to pivot strategies based on the insights gained.

Ultimately, cultural change is a continuous journey rather than a destination. By focusing on the human experience beyond structures and processes, leaders can cultivate a resilient, innovative, and thriving organizational culture.

Image credit: 1 of 850+ FREE quote slides available at misterinnovation.com

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

Creating Innovation with Hardcore Soft Skills

Leave a reply

Creating Innovation with Hardcore Soft Skills

Recently I had the opportunity to speak with Yadira Caro on the Hardcore Soft Skills Podcast.

In the episode I define what innovation really is, how people, process and technology come together to create innovation and where people go wrong.

The conversation includes a discussion of how to craft successful innovation teams because it’s such a crucial factor for successful innovation.

I also speak about the peril of idea fragments and the importance of respecting your employees by putting funding and execution capabilities in place BEFORE you ask your employees for even a single idea.

We talk about top-down innovation…

We talk about bottom-up or middle-out innovation…

And, we also speak about many different innovation misconceptions.

So, I encourage you to check out the episode!

You can listen to the embedded podcast above or click this link to go to the podcast page.

Image credit: Pixabay

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

Taking Personal Responsibility – Back to Leadership Basics

1 Reply

Taking Personal Responsibility – Back to Leadership Basics

GUEST POST from Janet Sernack

I was first introduced to the principle of Taking Personal Responsibility when I attended a number of experiential workshops facilitated by Robert Kiyosaki who is now well known globally as the successful entrepreneurial author of the “Rich Dad Poor Dad” book series. At that time, in the late 1980s, the concept simply involved taking personal responsibility for your role in getting the results you get, in both challenging and problematic situations.

This principle has since evolved as the most crucial foundation for developing our emotionally intelligent, conscious, and transformational leadership capabilities. Largely through focusing on the development of self-awareness and self-regulation skillsets, which are especially important skills to cultivate in times of extreme uncertainty.

Blaming, Justifying, and Denying

Taking personal responsibility involves encouraging people to step up and out of blaming themselves or others, out of justifying their position or denying what is really going on to largely avoid the cognitive, emotional, and visceral results and consequences of their actions.

Which are essentially, largely unconscious defensive reactions to the problem or situation. So, it sounds quite simple, yet, even now, it’s still largely a countercultural principle, and a neurologically challenging one, because we are wired to survive (fight/flight/freeze) in the face of what we perceive as danger!

Especially when many of us are living in an oppositional blaming and shaming political environment, or within a passively or aggressively defensive organizational culture. Where a large section of the community, has been forced by the constraints of the pandemic, into fearing that their security and survival needs will not be met. Alternately, the great resignation and the nature of the virtual hybrid workplace have increased some people’s fears about even being able to get their jobs done!

All of this creates distorted thoughts and language that focus on “scarcity” where many people are fearing that they are not “enough” and do not have “enough” to deal with their current circumstances. Rather than leaning towards exploring and eliciting the possibilities and opportunities available in our abundant world. As there is no clear playbook about how people can effectively and responsibly lead and manage in this unique 21st-century context, many people are floundering, languishing into largely emotionally overwhelmed states.

Where it is easier, and sometimes safer, to be a victim, blame and shame others for their helpless or powerless situation, or to justify and deny any need to change their perspective about it, never mind their role in causing their own anxious and unresourceful emotional states.

Back to Leadership Basics

Yet, it is more important than ever, for leaders and managers to help people:

Take ownership of their consequences and be responsible for the emotional, cognitive, and visceral results of their actions,
Authentically connect, empower, and enable people and communities to flourish,
Provide safe, transparent, trusted environments and interdependence where people can dare to think differently and potentially thrive.

This means that the range of crises, uncertainty, and disruptions we are experiencing now is forcing us to go back to basic 101 management and leadership principles.

According to McKinsey & Co in a recent article “A Leaders Guide – communicating with teams, stakeholders and communities during Covid 19” – “Crises come in different intensities. As a “landscape-scale” event, the coronavirus has created great uncertainty, elevated stress and anxiety, and prompted tunnel vision, in which people focus only on the present rather than toward the future. During such a crisis, when information is unavailable or inconsistent, and when people feel unsure about what they know (or anyone knows), behavioral science points to an increased human desire for transparency, guidance, and making sense out of what has happened”.

The Maturity Continuum – Shifting to I and We

The principle of taking personal responsibility has evolved and been enhanced significantly through the work of Steve Covey, in the “Seven Habits of Effective People” and provides the core foundations for transformational and conscious leadership through the “Maturity Continuum”:

Dependence is the paradigm of you – you take care of me; you come through for me; you didn’t come through for me; I blame you for the results. Dependent and approval-seeking people need others to get what they want.
Independence is the paradigm of I – I can do it; I am responsible; I am self-reliant; I can choose. Independent people get what they want through their own efforts.
Interdependence is the paradigm of we – we can do it; we can cooperate; we can combine our talents and abilities and create something greater together. Interdependent people combine their efforts with the efforts of others to achieve their greatest success.

Putting the Maturity Continuum to Work

In the early 2000s I was an associate of Corporate Vision, Australia’s first culture change and transformation consultancy, now the globally successful Walking the Talk organisation, for fourteen years.

Where every culture, leadership, team development, or change program we designed and presented, introduced taking personal responsibility, as a fundamental, core learning principle. Aligning it with the principle of – For things to change first I must change, which deeply challenged and disrupted people’s belief systems, habitual mindsets, thinking styles, and ways of acting.

As a seasoned coach of twenty years, these two core principles seem to still profoundly challenge the majority of my coaching clients across the world, no matter how senior their role or position is, or how knowledgeable, skilled, and experienced they are!

Where many managers and leaders have failed to self-regulate, lack self-awareness, and have unconsciously slipped into feeling victimized, powerless, helpless, and in some instances, even hopeless about their futures where some are:

Feeling frozen, inert, paralyzed, overwhelmed, and immobilized in their abilities to affect any kind of positive change in both their work and home environments.
Unconsciously slipping into blaming and shaming others for their situations,
Justifying their inertia through a range of “reasonable reasons” and “elaborate stories” about how it’s “not their fault” or it’s not “up to them” to make any change.
Simply denying their current consequences, or the importance of needing to take positive actions, and make changes.
Unmotivated, lack any desire for control, or have the personal power to affect change in their situation.

Initiating Taking Personal Responsibility

To accept and share responsibility starts with being bravely willing to courageously connect with our whole selves and consciously stepping back to hit our internal pause button, retreat into silence and stillness, and compassionately ask:

What happened?
What can I/we learn from it?
What can I/we then do to create it?

Taking personal responsibility becomes a compassionate, creative, and courageous exercise in continuous learning, self-awareness, and emotional self-regulation in ways that safely disrupt people’s defensiveness and awaken them to the possibility of being personally powerful in tough situations.

It is also the basis for taking intelligent actions catalyze and cause positive outcomes, that deliver real solutions to crises, complex situations, and difficult business problems.

This is the first in a series of three blogs on the theme of taking responsibility – going back to leadership basics.

Find out more about our work at ImagineNation™

Image credit: Pixabay

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

The Need for a Dignity Economy

Leave a reply

The Need for a Dignity Economy

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

Every era has its own ideology that creates assumptions and drives actions. At the turn of the century, titans like J.P. Morgan believed that monopolized industries provided stability against the disruptive influence of competition. More recently, the end of the Cold War was supposed to usher in a new era of capitalism and democracy.

It didn’t work out that way. Instead we got oligarchy, authoritarian populism and we lost trust in the institutions that used to govern our society. In America, even competitive capitalism has been greatly weakened. We believed that we could leave everything up to market and technological forces, but they failed us.

Today, we are in the midst of a set of profound generational shifts that will rapidly transform our society over the next decade. As we have throughout history, we will need to own up to our past mistakes and chart a new course. That will mean focusing less on technocratic solutions and more on building a culture rooted in basic dignity and respect.

The Rise Of Merit

In 1940, James Conant, the President of Harvard, gave a talk at the University of California that was soon republished in The Atlantic magazine. Entitled, “Education for a Classless Society,” it advocated for the idea of social mobility based on merit, rather than privilege being handed down through inheritance.

To support this ambition, Conant championed the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) to help identify talented students for scholarships to Harvard. His hope, largely realized, was that other schools would follow suit and education in America would become a sorting mechanism, choosing men (at the time, it was largely white men) to receive advanced professional training.

Today, we have so thoroughly internalized Conant’s ideal that it’s hard to imagine that things could ever have been any different. College has largely become a prerequisite to a successful career and getting more kids to go to college is a top priority. The federal government spends about $80 billion on higher education programs, but less than $2 billion for vocational training.

As Michael Sandel points out in The Tyranny of Merit, this sorting system has had an insidious effect on our culture. Those who are deemed worthy get all the benefits that society has to offer. Those that are not, are not only left behind, but are seen as “takers” rather than “makers” and therefore undeserving of even basic things like access to health and child care.

Applying An Engineering Mindset

Once you accept the premise of meritocracy, the next logical step would be to optimize for meritocratic traits. We could, following the path James Conant established, develop a series of standardized tests to identify and reward our best students. And why stop there? Why not rate our teachers by their ability to produce students who get the best scores.

We can then extend that approach to all spheres of society. How should we best evaluate and manage the performance of an enterprise? Focus on shareholder value. How are we progressing as a society? Simply look at the GDP and job growth numbers and you should have a pretty good idea. What about countries that are falling behind? Well, just develop a standard reform package and then paint by numbers!

Eventually a clear doctrine emerged: A technocratic elite identifies a minimal number of key performance indicators and then, applying rigorous analytical techniques, devises a strategy to optimize based on those metrics. As the technocrats learn, they begin to build systems to increase efficiency and, eventually, those systems become encoded in algorithms.

This engineering mindset has prevailed for more than a generation and it has failed us. Except for a small slice of society, we’ve become poorer, sicker and more vulnerable. Our markets have weakened. We pay more and get less. We’re not only less happy, anxiety and depression have risen to epidemic levels.

Yet perhaps the most insidious effect of meritocracy and the engineering mindset is how we treat each other. If we believe that we have been anointed, through our talent and effort, for better things, we feel emboldened to consider our fellow citizens as something less than ourselves, which breeds not only inequality, but resentment and mistrust.

Holding Ourselves Accountable

In just one month in 1989, the world saw both the fall of the Berlin Wall and the emergence of the World Wide Web, both of which unleashed enormous enthusiasm and opportunity. We thought we were entering a new era in which democracy, free markets and technology would bring about a better world. We were wrong.

It wasn’t all a mirage. There were genuine accomplishments. I lived in post-communist countries in Eastern Europe for 15 years and the progress made was truly amazing. Miracle cures like cancer immunotherapy have saved millions of lives. The Internet has made it possible for an ordinary teenager today to have better access to information than a professional researcher at a major institution did a generation ago. Those are all great things.

Yet we are, in so many ways, worse off than we were 30 years ago. Productivity growth has been depressed, except for a short uptick from 1996-2004. Despite medical breakthroughs, life expectancy in the US has been declining. Markets are less free and less competitive. Poland and Hungary, previous models of democratic reform, have backslid. Even social mobility in the US, the entire aim or the meritocratic project, has been significantly diminished.

It’s time to hold ourselves accountable and chart a new course. Organizations are more than simple units of production. They are workplaces and members of communities. People are far more than economic inputs that can be reduced to resumes and statistics, but human beings worthy of dignity and respect.

People as Ends in Themselves

One of the things I learned managing companies is how much more effective you can be if you assume that everybody wants to do a good job. It makes it possible to waste less time engineering incentives or enforcing rules and focus more on helping everybody actualize their potential. When you encounter the occasional bad apple, it’s not hard to fire them.

In much the same way, we need to learn to focus less on quantifiable signs of merit and more on dignity by treating people as ends in themselves rather than means to an end. Once you do that, it becomes obvious that everybody needs access to health care, that every child should be educated and that everybody deserves to feel safe in their community and in their home.

After all, who says that an anesthesiologist is more worthy than a hospice worker. Or that someone who makes a million dollars a year selling enterprise software makes a greater contribution to society than someone who works in a grocery store during a pandemic. Remuneration simply cannot be the only measure of value.

In the final analysis, ideology should serve people, not the other way around. The success of a society needs to be measured by the well-being of those who live in it. If we increase GDP, but our air and water are more polluted, our children less educated, we live unhappy lives and die deaths of despair, what have we really gained?

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

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