Category Archives: Change

Innovation, Change and Transformation in London – Part One

Innovation, Change and Transformation in London - Part One

I’m off to London tomorrow for my London Business School class reunion. And, while I’m looking forward to reuniting with my LBS classmates, I’m also looking forward to connecting in person with some of the smartest innovation, change and transformation professionals, academics and entrepreneurs on the planet.

But I need your help…

I’m trying to organize a meetup of London innovation, change, and transformation professionals on Friday afternoon, 3 May 2019 in central London, but I’m still looking for someone to provide a space to facilitate this cross-pollination of ideas.

If you would like to host me and a dozen or so amazing innovation, change and transformation professionals, academics and entrepreneurs to empower some great conversations and information sharing, please contact me.

I will be returning to London in June/July, but more about that later. Stay tuned!

UPDATE: I was able to secure a room at the Oracle office in Central London near Moorgate for Friday afternoon from 1pm-4pm. Please contact me if you’re interested in attending as I’m finalizing the attendee list and I have a maximum capacity for 25 people. I’ll send final details by email once the attendee list is finalized.

UPDATE: We had a great turnout at this innovation, change and transformation meetup at the Oracle office in Central London. It was a great opportunity to meet some great Innovation Excellence contributors in person, to make a lot of great connections between people and to share information and inspiration. For those of you unable to make it, sorry, but you really missed out! Maybe next time…

Accelerate your change and transformation success

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

Leading the Learning Organization

Leave a reply

The Continuous Re-Skilling Mandate

Leading the Learning Organization - The Continuous Re-Skilling Mandate

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato
LAST UPDATED: January 14, 2026 at 11:48AM

We are living through a fundamental shift in the social contract between employer and employee. For decades, the implicit agreement was simple: you acquire a set of skills early in your career, and you trade those skills for steady employment until retirement. That contract is null and void. It has been shredded by the relentless pace of technological change, automation, and global interconnectedness.

Today, we face a stark reality: the skills that got your organization to its current level of success are almost certainly insufficient to get it to the next level. We have entered the era of the Continuous Re-Skilling Mandate. This is not merely an HR issue; it is a central strategic imperative for survival.

However, as we rush to implement learning management systems and subscribe to content libraries, we must not lose sight of the human element. Leading a true learning organization requires more than just budget; it requires a culture of psychological safety where “not knowing” is acceptable, and curiosity is rewarded over present capability.

“In an era where the half-life of a technical skill is shrinking faster than ever, the only truly durable competitive advantage is an organization’s collective capacity for curiosity. We must stop hiring just for what people know today and start valuing how quickly they can learn what comes next.” — Braden Kelley

The Shift from “Knowing” to “Learning”

The traditional organization is built on a hierarchy of knowing. Leaders are expected to have the answers. Experts are hired to perform specific, repeatable tasks. This model is brittle in the face of disruption. When the environment changes unexpectedly, the “knowing” organization freezes.

The learning organization, by contrast, is antifragile. It assumes that current knowledge is temporary. Leaders in these organizations shift from being the source of all answers to being the architects of environments where questions are encouraged. They understand that re-skilling is not a one-time event—like upgrading software—but a perpetual state of being. It is about fostering adaptability as a core competence.

To achieve this, we must humanize the process. We cannot treat employees like obsolete machinery waiting to be retrofitted. We must engage their intrinsic motivation, connecting organizational needs with their personal career aspirations. If re-skilling feels like a threat (“learn this or you’re fired”), it will fail. If it feels like an opportunity (“learn this to grow with us”), it can thrive.

Case Studies in Adaptive Learning

How does this look in practice? It requires bold leadership and a willingness to invest in the current workforce rather than simply trying to hire new talent off the street—a strategy that is becoming increasingly expensive and unsustainable.

Case Study 1: AT&T’s Workforce 2020 Initiative

A few years ago, telecom giant AT&T faced a massive hurdle. They realized their future lay in cloud computing and IP networking, but their massive workforce was largely trained in legacy voice and hardware technologies. They faced a choice: displace nearly 100,000 workers and try to hire new ones, or embark on a massive re-skilling effort.

They chose the latter, launching the “Workforce 2020” initiative. This wasn’t just a training catalog. AT&T was radically transparent, mapping out exactly which roles were declining and which were growing. They provided employees with a “career intelligence” portal to assess their current skills against future needs and offered subsidized tuition for Udacity nanodegrees and partnerships with universities. Crucially, they put the onus on the employee to own their journey, but provided the resources and clear pathways to do so. The result was a massive internal shift in capability, higher retention of institutional knowledge, and a more agile company culture.

Case Study 2: Siemens’ Learning Campus and Ecosystem

Siemens, the industrial manufacturing conglomerate, recognized that in the age of Industry 4.0 (smart manufacturing), their engineers and technicians needed to act more like software developers and data analysts. They moved away from the traditional “push” model of episodic corporate training seminars.

Instead, they developed a “Learning Campus” ecosystem designed to foster self-directed, continuous learning integrated into the flow of work. They utilize AI to personalize learning recommendations based on an employee’s role and project demands. Furthermore, they emphasize social learning, creating platforms where internal experts can easily share knowledge with peers. By democratizing access to learning and making it relevant to daily challenges, Siemens is transforming re-skilling from an “extra task” into an integral part of the job description.

The Leadership Imperative: Making Space for Growth

The primary reason re-skilling initiatives fail is not a lack of desire from employees; it is a lack of time. You cannot expect an employee working at 110% capacity on operational tasks to spend their evenings and weekends learning data science. That is a recipe for burnout, not growth.

Leading the learning organization means actively carving out capacity. It means signaling that spending an hour learning a new tool is just as valuable as spending an hour answering emails. It requires leaders to redefine productivity to include skill acquisition.

Ultimately, the continuous re-skilling mandate is a call for human-centered leadership. It is about looking at your workforce and seeing not just what they can do today, but what they could do tomorrow if given the right environment, tools, and encouragement. The organizations that win the future will not be the ones with the smartest people right now; they will be the ones that learn the fastest together.

Frequently Asked Questions on the Re-Skilling Mandate

Q: Why has continuous re-skilling become a critical business mandate now?

A: The half-life of professional skills has dramatically shrunk due to rapid technological advancements like AI and automation. What was a career-sustaining skill five years ago may be obsolete today. Organizations that rely on static skill sets will find themselves unable to compete with more agile, adaptive competitors.

Q: What is the biggest barrier to creating a successful learning organization?

A: The biggest barrier is rarely a lack of training content; it is a lack of time and psychological safety. If employees are maxed out on operational tasks and fear admitting they don’t know something, they will not engage in deep learning. Leaders must actively carve out time for learning and destigmatize the learning curve.

Q: How does a human-centered approach differ from traditional corporate training?

A: Traditional training often focuses on the organization’s immediate needs pushed down to employees. A human-centered approach focuses on the intersection of the organization’s future needs and the individual’s career aspirations, empowering employees to own their learning journey and providing the supportive ecosystem to do so.

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 credits: Unsplash

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

Design Sprints for Culture

Leave a reply

Rapidly Prototyping Your Work Environment

Design Sprints for Culture

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato
LAST UPDATED: January 12, 2026 at 11:53AM

We often talk about Design Sprints in the context of products, features, or services. Teams huddle for five days, brainstorm, prototype, and test an idea with real users. It’s a powerful methodology for de-risking innovation and accelerating learning. But what if we applied this same rapid prototyping mindset to something even more fundamental to organizational success: our culture?

As a human-centered change architect, I believe that our work environment, our internal processes, and the very fabric of how we collaborate are all “products” that can and should be continuously designed, prototyped, and refined. Just as customer experience needs constant auditing, employee experience requires intentional, iterative design. The ‘Design Sprint for Culture’ is precisely this – a concentrated effort to identify a cultural challenge, brainstorm potential solutions, build a prototype of a new behavior or process, and test its efficacy in a short, focused burst.

Think about the common cultural pain points: siloed departments, ineffective meetings, lack of psychological safety, or disengaged hybrid teams. These aren’t abstract problems; they manifest as concrete frustrations in daily work. A Design Sprint for Culture allows us to treat these challenges not as intractable issues, but as design problems. It moves us from endless debates about “what’s wrong” to actionable experiments in “what could be better.”

Why Prototype Culture?

The traditional approach to cultural change is often slow, top-down, and prone to resistance. Large-scale initiatives, year-long training programs, or mandated values statements rarely achieve the desired impact because they lack immediate feedback loops and rarely involve those most affected by the change. Culture, after all, is the sum of shared habits and behaviors. To change culture, we must change habits, and to change habits, we must prototype new behaviors.

A cultural sprint offers:

Rapid Learning: Instead of waiting months to see if a new policy works, you can test a small behavioral shift in a week.
Employee Empowerment: By involving employees directly in the design and prototyping of cultural solutions, you foster ownership and reduce resistance.
De-risking Change: You don’t have to bet the farm on a massive cultural overhaul. Small, tested interventions are less disruptive and more likely to succeed.
Tangible Outcomes: The output isn’t a strategy document, but a tangible artifact – a new meeting agenda, a communication protocol, a team ritual – that can be immediately experienced.

“Innovation isn’t just about inventing new products; it’s about inventing better ways for humans to work together to create value. Our internal culture is the ultimate product of our collective efforts, and it deserves the same rigorous design thinking as our external offerings.” –- Braden Kelley

The Cultural Sprint Framework (Adapted)

While the exact steps can be tailored, a Cultural Design Sprint generally follows a similar five-day structure to a traditional sprint:

Understand & Define (Day 1): Identify a specific cultural challenge. Frame it as a problem statement. Map out current behaviors and their impact.
Diverge & Ideate (Day 2): Brainstorm a wide range of solutions. Think outside the box: what new behaviors, rituals, or processes could address the defined problem?
Decide & Storyboard (Day 3): Select the most promising ideas. Storyboard how the new cultural behavior/process would work step-by-step.
Prototype (Day 4): Create a tangible, low-fidelity prototype of the new cultural element. This could be a new meeting structure, a communication template, a defined decision-making process, or a micro-learning module.
Test & Reflect (Day 5): Implement the prototype with a small, representative group (e.g., one team, a few individuals). Gather immediate feedback. What worked? What didn’t? What did we learn?

Case Studies in Cultural Prototyping

Case Study 1: Re-energizing Hybrid Meetings

A global software company was struggling with disengaged hybrid meetings. Remote participants felt ignored, and in-office attendees found themselves distracted. Endless debates about technology solutions went nowhere. A small cross-functional team, including remote and in-office employees, convened for a 3-day Cultural Design Sprint.

They defined the problem as: “How might we make hybrid meetings equally engaging and productive for all participants?” They prototyped a new “Hybrid Meeting Protocol” which included:

Dedicated “Remote Ambassador” role for each meeting, responsible for monitoring chat and ensuring remote voices were heard.
A “5-Minute Focus” warm-up activity to align everyone before diving into content.
Mandatory use of a digital whiteboard for all brainstorming, regardless of location.

This protocol was tested with three pilot teams for a week. The immediate feedback was overwhelmingly positive. Remote employees reported feeling significantly more included, and overall meeting effectiveness improved by 25% (as measured by a quick post-meeting survey). The prototype was then refined and rolled out incrementally across the organization, rather than as a top-down mandate.

Case Study 2: Cultivating Psychological Safety in a Design Team

A fast-paced agency’s design team was experiencing a drop in innovative ideas. Post-mortems revealed that junior designers felt intimidated to share early concepts due to fear of criticism from senior members. A one-week Cultural Design Sprint focused on improving psychological safety.

Their challenge: “How might we create a feedback environment where designers at all levels feel safe to share unfinished work?” The team prototyped a “WIP (Work In Progress) Review” ritual:

A designated “Safe Space” meeting for early concepts, with strict rules: “No solutions, just questions” and “Focus on the idea, not the person.”
A visual “Vulnerability Scale” where designers could indicate how raw their work was, setting expectations.
Anonymous feedback submission for certain stages.

The prototype was tested for two weeks. The design team observed a 40% increase in early-stage concept sharing. Junior designers reported feeling more comfortable and valued. The success led to integrating elements of the WIP Review into other team interactions, fostering a more open and collaborative critique culture.

Conclusion: The Future is Designed, Not Dictated

The challenges facing modern organizations are complex, and traditional approaches to cultural change are often too slow and too rigid. By embracing the principles of Design Sprints for Culture, we empower our people to become co-creators of their work environment. We move from abstract conversations about values to concrete experiments in behavior. We build cultures that are resilient, adaptable, and genuinely human-centered – because they are designed by humans, for humans. It’s time to stop talking about culture and start prototyping it.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: What is a Design Sprint for Culture?

A: It’s a focused, short-term (typically 3-5 day) workshop where a team identifies a specific cultural challenge, brainstorms solutions, prototypes a new behavior or process, and tests it with a small group of employees.

Q: How is it different from traditional cultural change initiatives?

A: Unlike traditional, top-down, and slow initiatives, a cultural sprint is rapid, iterative, and bottoms-up. It prioritizes hands-on prototyping and immediate feedback from employees, de-risking change and fostering ownership.

Q: What kind of cultural challenges can a sprint address?

A: It can address a wide range of issues, such as improving meeting effectiveness, fostering psychological safety, enhancing cross-functional collaboration, defining hybrid work norms, or re-energizing team rituals. The key is to define a specific, actionable problem.

Image credits: Unsplash

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

Overcoming the “Not Invented Here” Syndrome

Leave a reply

A Psychological Approach

Overcoming the Not Invented Here Syndrome

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato
LAST UPDATED: January 11, 2026 at 10:20AM

In my work advising organizations on human-centered change, I frequently encounter a persistent paradox. Companies desperately crave innovation — they want speed, efficiency, and competitive advantage. Yet, when presented with a proven solution from the outside — whether it be software, a methodology, or an acquired technology — organizational antibodies kick in fiercely. This is the “Not Invented Here” (NIH) syndrome. It is the irrational rejection of external ideas simply because they originated outside the tribal boundaries of the organization.

Many leaders treat NIH as a logical issue. They try to overcome it with data sheets, ROI calculators, and feature comparisons. And they almost always fail. Why? Because NIH is not a logic problem; it is a psychological defense mechanism. To overcome it, we must stop treating it like an engineering flaw and start treating it like a human reaction to a perceived threat.

The Psychology of Resistance

At its core, NIH is rooted in identity, control, and fear. When an internal team has spent years building a custom CRM system, that system is no longer just software; it is a manifestation of their competence, their long hours, and their professional identity. Introducing an external, superior SaaS product isn’t just a platform migration; it feels like an invalidation of their past work.

Furthermore, organizations suffer from the “Unique Snowflake” fallacy — the deeply held belief that their problems are so uniquely complex that no generic, external solution could possibly address them. Admitting that an outsider solved “our” problem faster and better induces cognitive dissonance. The easiest way to resolve that tension is by rejecting the outsider’s solution as inferior or irrelevant.

“You cannot data-whip an organization into adopting an external idea. ‘Not Invented Here’ is rarely a debate about technical merit; it is a debate about identity and control. If you want to accelerate innovation adoption, you must first lower the psychological cost of acceptance.” — Braden Kelley

Reframing the Narrative: From Threat to Accelerant

To move past NIH, change leaders must utilize psychology to re-frame the introduction of external innovation. We must shift the narrative from “replacing internal efforts” to “accelerating internal capabilities.” The goal is to turn the internal teams from gatekeepers fearing displacement into curators and integrators empowered by new tools.

Here are two examples of how addressing the psychological dimensions of NIH led to successful adoption.

Case Study 1: The “Broken” Acquisition

A large enterprise software company acquired a nimble startup that had developed a superior machine learning algorithm. The strategic plan was to integrate this algorithm into the parent company’s flagship suite immediately. The acquisition was met with hostility by the internal R&D team. They nitpicked the startup’s code structure, claimed it wouldn’t scale to their volume, and insisted their own solution (which was years away from completion) would ultimately be better.

The Psychological Shift: Instead of forcing the integration from the top down, leadership pivoted. They created a “Tiger Team” comprised mostly of the most vocal internal critics. Their mandate was not to integrate the new tech, but to audit it for security and scalability weaknesses.

By giving the internal team control and validating their expertise as the “scalability guardians,” the psychological threat was lowered. In the process of deep auditing, the internal engineers realized the elegance of the startup’s solution. They went from detractors to owners. They didn’t just adopt the technology; they felt they had “fixed” it for enterprise use, effectively making it “invented here” through the rigorous integration process.

Case Study 2: The Manufacturing Methodology

A mid-sized manufacturing firm was suffering from significant quality control issues and high waste. Consultants recommended adopting a specific Lean Six Sigma methodology used successfully by larger competitors. The shop floor foremen immediately resisted. Their argument was classic NIH: “That works for high-volume car manufacturers, but we make specialized medical devices. Our processes are too unique for that cookie-cutter approach.”

The Psychological Shift: The leadership realized that imposing an “external” process felt disrespectful to the foremen’s years of tacit knowledge. They stopped calling it the “Lean program.” Instead, they launched an internal “Operational Excellence Challenge.”

They asked the foremen to identify their biggest bottlenecks data-wise. Once identified, leadership presented tools from the external methodology simply as “options in a toolkit” that the foremen could choose to experiment with. By allowing the internal team to self-diagnose the problem and select the external tool to fix it, the solution became theirs. They weren’t adopting an outside methodology; they were leveraging outside tools to build their own homegrown solution.

Conclusion: Honoring the Human Element

Overcoming Not Invented Here requires empathy more than evidence. It requires leaders to understand that resistance is usually a form of protection — protection of status, pride, and identity. By involving internal teams early in the evaluation process, giving them agency over how external solutions are adapted, and rewarding integration as highly as invention, we can turn organizational antibodies into delivery mechanisms for innovation.

Frequently Asked Questions About NIH Syndrome

Is “Not Invented Here” syndrome always bad for a company?

Not entirely. A mild preference for internal solutions can sometimes foster internal expertise, build team cohesion, and protect core intellectual property. However, when it becomes a reflexive blockade against superior external solutions that could save significant time and money, it becomes a toxic inhibitor of innovation and growth.

What are the earliest warning signs of NIH syndrome?

Watch for emotional dismissal over data-driven critique. If teams are focusing disproportionately on minor flaws in an external solution while glossing over major gaps in their internal alternative, or if they lean heavily on the “we are too unique” argument without supporting evidence, NIH is likely present.

How can leadership inadvertently encourage NIH syndrome?

Leaders often accidentally incentivize NIH by exclusively celebrating “inventors” who build things from scratch, while failing to recognize and reward the “integrators” who successfully identify, adapt, and implement external innovations to create value rapidly.

Image credits: 1 of 1,000+ quote slides available at http://misterinnovation.com

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

AI as a Cultural Mirror

Leave a reply

How Algorithms Reveal and Reinforce Our Biases

AI as a Cultural Mirror

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato
LAST UPDATED: January 9, 2026 at 10:59AM

In our modern society, we are often mesmerized by the sheer computational velocity of Artificial Intelligence. We treat it as an oracle, a neutral arbiter of truth that can optimize our supply chains, our hiring, and even our healthcare. But as an innovation speaker and practitioner of Human-Centered Innovation™, I must remind you: AI is not a window into an objective future; it is a mirror reflecting our complicated past.If innovation is change with impact, then we must confront the reality that biased AI is simply “change with negative impact.” When we train models on historical data without accounting for the systemic inequalities baked into that data, the algorithm doesn’t just learn the pattern — it amplifies it. This is a critical failure of Outcome-Driven Innovation. If we do not define our outcomes with empathy and inclusivity, we are merely using 2026 technology to automate 1950s prejudices.

“An algorithm has no moral compass; it only has the coordinates we provide. If we feed it a map of a broken world, we shouldn’t be surprised when it leads us back to the same inequities. The true innovation is not in the code, but in the human courage to correct the mirror.” — Braden Kelley

The Corporate Antibody and the Bias Trap

Many organizations fall into an Efficiency Trap where they prioritize the speed of automated decision-making over the fairness of the results. When an AI tool begins producing biased outcomes, the Corporate Antibody often reacts by defending the “math” rather than investigating the “myth.” We see leaders abdicating their responsibility to the algorithm, claiming that if the data says so, it must be true.

To practice Outcome-Driven Change in today’s quickly changing world, we must shift from blind optimization to “intentional design.” This requires a deep understanding of the Cognitive (Thinking), Affective (Feeling), and Conative (Doing) domains. We must think critically about our training sets, feel empathy for those marginalized by automated systems, and do the hard work of auditing and retraining our models to ensure they align with human-centered values.

Case Study 1: The Automated Talent Filtering Failure

The Context: A global technology firm in early 2025 deployed an agentic AI system to filter hundreds of thousands of resumes for executive roles. The goal was to achieve the outcome of “identifying high-potential leadership talent.”

The Mirror Effect: Because the AI was trained on a decade of successful internal hires — a period where the leadership was predominantly male — it began penalizing resumes that included the word “Women’s” (as in “Women’s Basketball Coach”) or names of all-female colleges. It wasn’t that the AI was “sexist” in the human sense; it was simply being an efficient mirror of the firm’s historical hiring patterns.

The Human-Centered Innovation™: Instead of scrapping the tool, the firm used it as a diagnostic mirror. They realized the bias was not in the AI, but in their own history. They re-calibrated the defined outcomes to prioritize diverse skill sets and implemented “de-biasing” layers that anonymized gender-coded language, eventually leading to the most diverse and high-performing leadership cohort in the company’s history.

Case Study 2: Predictive Healthcare and the “Cost-as-Proxy” Problem

The Context: A major healthcare provider used an algorithm to identify high-risk patients who would benefit from specialized care management programs.

The Mirror Effect: The algorithm used “total healthcare spend” as a proxy for “health need.” However, due to systemic economic disparities, marginalized communities often had lower healthcare spend despite having higher health needs. The AI, reflecting this socioeconomic mirror, prioritized wealthier patients for the programs, inadvertently reinforcing health inequities.

The Outcome-Driven Correction: The provider realized they had defined the wrong outcome. They shifted from “optimizing for cost” to “optimizing for physiological risk markers.” By changing the North Star of the optimization, they transformed the AI from a tool of exclusion into an engine of equity.

Conclusion: Designing a Fairer Future

I challenge all innovators to look closer at the mirror. AI is giving us the most honest look at our societal flaws we have ever had. The question is: do we look away, or do we use this insight to drive Human-Centered Innovation™?

We must ensure that our useful seeds of invention are planted in the soil of equity. When you search for an innovation speaker or a consultant to guide your AI strategy, ensure they aren’t just selling you a faster mirror, but a way to build a better reality. Let’s make 2026 the year we stop automating our past and start architecting our potential.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can AI ever be truly “unbiased”?

Technically, no. All data is a collection of choices and historical contexts. However, we can create “fair” AI by being transparent about the biases in our data and implementing active “de-biasing” techniques to ensure the outcomes reflect our current values rather than past mistakes.

2. What is the “Corporate Antibody” in the context of AI bias?

It is the organizational resistance to admitting that an automated system is flawed. Because companies invest heavily in AI, there is an internal reflex to protect the investment by ignoring the social or ethical impact of the biased results.

3. How does Outcome-Driven Innovation help fix biased AI?

It forces leaders to define exactly what a “good” result looks like from a human perspective. When you define the outcome as “equitable access” rather than “maximum efficiency,” the AI is forced to optimize for fairness.

Image credits: Unsplash

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

Are You Prepared to Run a Digital Business for the Digital Age?

Leave a reply

Are You Prepared to Run a Digital Business for the Digital Age?

In our digital age, all companies must change how they think, how they interact with customers, partners, and suppliers, and how their business works on the inside. Customer, partner, and supplier expectations have changed, and a gap is opening between what they expect from their interaction with companies and what those companies are currently able to deliver. Companies must immediately work to close this expectation gap, or their entire business is at risk.

If digital natives attack, they will do it with a collection of digital strategies that utilize the power of the digital mindset to more efficiently and effectively utilize the available people, tools, and technology, and to design better, more seamlessly interconnected, and automated processes that can operate with only occasional human intervention.

To defend your company’s very existence, you must start thinking like a technology company or go out of business. Part of that thinking is to fundamentally re-imagine how you structure and operate your business. You must look at your business and your industry in the same way that a digital native startup will if they seek to attack you and steal your market. To make this easier, ask yourself these five foundational questions:

If I were to build this business today, given everything that I know about the industry and its customers and the advances in people, process, technology and tools, how would I design it?

From the customers’ perspective, where does the value come from?

What structure and systems would deliver the maximum value with the minimum waste?

What are the barriers to adoption and the obstacles to delight for my product(s) and/or service(s) and how will my design help potential customers overcome them?

Where is the friction in my business that the latest usage methods of people, process, technology, and tools can help eliminate?

There are, of course, other questions you may want to ask, but these five should get you most of the way to where you need to go in your initial strategic planning sessions. What questions do you think are key for enterprises to ask themselves if they are to survive and thrive in the digital age?

Digital Strategy vs. Digital Transformation

How much appetite for digital change do you have?

Understanding how your management and your enterprise is likely to answer this question will help you identify whether your business should pursue a digital strategy or a digital transformation. The two terms are often misused, in part by being used interchangeably when they are in fact two very different things.

A digital strategy is a strategy focused on utilizing digital technologies to better serve one group of people (customers, employees, partners, suppliers, etc.) or to serve the needs of one business group (HR, finance, marketing, operations, etc.). The scope of a digital strategy can be quite narrow, such as using digital channels to market to consumers in a B2C company; or broader, such as re-imagining how marketing could be made more efficient using digital tools like CRM, marketing automation, social media monitoring, etc. and hopefully become more effective at the same time.

Meanwhile, digital transformation is an intensive process that begins by effectively building an entirely new organization from scratch, utilizing:

The latest best practices and emerging next practices in process (continuous improvement, business architecture, lean startup, business process management, or BPM, crowd computing, and continuous innovation using a tool like The Eight I’s of Infinite Innovation™)

The latest tools (robotics, sensors, etc.)

All the latest digital technologies (artificial intelligence, predictive analytics, BPM, etc.)

The optimal use of the other three to liberate the people who work for you to spend less time on bureaucratic work and more time creating the changes necessary to overcome barriers to adoption and obstacles to delight through better leadership methods, reward/recognition systems, physical spaces, collaboration, and knowledge management systems, etc.

It ends with a plan of how to transform from the old way of running the business to the new way.

The planning of the digital transformation is all done collaboratively on paper, whiteboards, and asynchronous electronic communication (definitely not email) powered by a collection of tools like the Change Planning Toolkit™.

The goal is to think like a digital native, to think like a startup, to approach the idea of designing a company by utilizing all the advances in people, process, technology, and tools to kill off the existing incarnation of your company. Because if you don’t re-invent your company now and set yourself up with a new set of capabilities that enable you to continuously reinvent yourself as a company, then a venture capitalist is going to see an opportunity, find the right team of digital natives, and give them the funding necessary to enter your market and reinvent your entire industry for you.

What do you want to re-invent?

Our team at Oracle was created to use design thinking, innovation and transformation tools and methods to help Oracle customers tackle their greatest business challenges, to re-imagine themselves for the digital age, and to discover and pursue their greatest innovation, transformation and growth opportunities.

We call this human-centric problem-solving and together we create plans to make our customers’ solution vision real in just weeks. And along the way, this new Oracle approach helps increase collaboration across business functions and accelerate future decision-making.

Find out more about how to protect your business from digital disruption, building upon these five foundational questions with additional questions and frameworks contained in my latest success guide Riding the Data Wave to Digital Disruption.

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

Psychological Safety as a Competitive Advantage in the Disrupted Market

Leave a reply

Psychological Safety as a Competitive Advantage in the Disrupted Market

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato
LAST UPDATED: January 4, 2026 at 11:41AM

In our technological future, where agentic AI and autonomous systems have compressed innovation cycles from months to mere hours, organizations are facing a paradox. As we lean further into the “Efficiency OS” of the digital age, the most critical bottleneck to success isn’t technical debt—it’s emotional debt. We are discovering that the ultimate “hardware” upgrade for a disrupted market isn’t found in a server rack, but in the shared belief that a team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking.

As a global innovation speaker and practitioner of Human-Centered Change™, I have spent years helping leaders understand that innovation is change with impact. However, you cannot have impact if your culture is optimized for silence. In a world of constant disruption, psychological safety is no longer a “nice-to-have” HR initiative; it is the strategic foundation upon which all competitive advantages are built. It is the only force capable of disarming the Corporate Antibody—that organizational immune system that kills new ideas to protect the status quo.

“In the 2026 landscape of AI-driven disruption, your fastest processor isn’t silicon — it’s the collective trust of your team. Without psychological safety, innovation is just a nervous system without a spine. If your people are afraid to be wrong, they will never be right enough to change the world.” — Braden Kelley

The Cost of Fear in the “Future Present”

In our current 2026 market, the stakes of silence have never been higher. When employees feel they must self-censor to avoid looking ignorant, incompetent, or disruptive, the organization loses the very “useful seeds of invention” it needs to survive. We call this Collective Atrophy. When safety is low, the brain’s amygdala stays on high alert, redirecting energy away from the prefrontal cortex—the center of creativity and problem-solving. Essentially, a fear-based culture is a neurologically throttled culture.

To FutureHack your way to a more resilient organization, you must move beyond the “Efficiency Trap.” True agility doesn’t come from working faster; it comes from learning faster. And learning requires the vulnerability to admit what we don’t know.

Case Study 1: Google’s Project Aristotle and the Proof of Trust

One of the most defining moments in the study of high-performance teams was Google’s internal research initiative, Project Aristotle. After years of analyzing over 180 teams to find the “perfect” mix of skills, degrees, and personality types, the data yielded a shocking result: who was on the team mattered far less than how the team worked together.

The Insight: Psychological safety was the number one predictor of team success. Teams where members felt safe to share “half-baked” ideas and admit mistakes outperformed those composed of individual “superstars” who were afraid of losing status. In 2026, this remains the gold standard. Google demonstrated that when you lower the cost of failure, you raise the ceiling of innovation.

Case Study 2: The Boeing 737 MAX and the Tragedy of Silence

Conversely, we can look at the catastrophic failure of the Boeing 737 MAX as a sobering lesson in the absence of safety. Investigations revealed a culture where engineers felt pressured to prioritize speed and cost over safety. The “Corporate Antibody” was so strong that dissenting voices were sidelined or silenced, leading to a “don’t ask, don’t tell” mentality regarding critical technical flaws.

The Lesson: This was not just a technical failure; it was a cultural one. When psychological safety is removed from complex systems design, the results are measured in lives lost and billions in market value destroyed. It proves that a lack of safety is a strategic risk that no amount of efficiency can offset.

Conclusion: Building the Safety Net

To lead in 2026, you must become a curator of trust. This means rewarding the “messenger” even when the news is bad. It means modeling vulnerability by admitting your own gaps in knowledge. Most importantly, it means realizing that Human-Centered Change™ starts with the person, not the process. When your team feels safe enough to be their authentic selves, they don’t just work harder—they innovate with a passion that no machine can replicate. The future belongs to the psychologically safe. Let’s start building it today.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Is psychological safety about being “nice”?

No. Psychological safety is about candor. It’s about being able to disagree, challenge ideas, and deliver hard truths without fear of social or professional retribution. In fact, being “too nice” often leads to a lack of safety because people withhold critical feedback to avoid conflict.

2. How does psychological safety differ from “low standards”?

Psychological safety and high standards are not mutually exclusive. High-performing teams exist in the “Learning Zone,” where safety is high AND standards are high. When safety is low but standards are high, people live in the “Anxiety Zone,” which leads to burnout and errors.

3. Can you build psychological safety in a remote or AI-driven environment?

Absolutely. In 2026, it is even more vital. Leaders must use digital tools to create “intentional togetherness.” This involves active listening in virtual meetings, ensuring equitable airtime for all participants, and using “empathy engines” to understand the human sentiment behind the data.

Image credits: Pixabay

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

Rebuilding Trust in a Changing Economy

Leave a reply

The Psychological Contract of Work

LAST UPDATED: December 31, 2025 at 12:23PM

Rebuilding Trust in a Changing Economy

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

In my decades of work championing Human-Centered Change™, I have consistently maintained that innovation is change with impact. However, as we accelerate into the future, we are finding that the “impact” we desire is being throttled by a silent crisis: the disintegration of the psychological contract of work. This unwritten, often unspoken agreement — the invisible glue that binds an employee’s discretionary effort to an organization’s goals — is currently under immense strain from economic volatility, algorithmic displacement, and a persistent lack of empathy in corporate boardrooms.

When the psychological contract is healthy, it fosters a sense of belonging and mutual investment. But when it is broken, the corporate antibody — that natural organizational resistance to anything new — becomes hyper-aggressive. Rebuilding this trust is not a luxury for HR to manage; it is the fundamental duty of the modern leader who wishes to survive the 2020s.

“Trust is the oxygen of innovation. You can have the most advanced AI and the most brilliant strategy, but if your people do not feel safe enough to experiment, your organization will eventually suffocate in its own cynicism.”

— Braden Kelley

The Erosion of Shared Purpose

For most of the industrial era, the contract was transactional: loyalty for stability. In the digital age, that shifted to performance for growth. Today, however, many employees feel the contract has become one-sided. We ask for agile resilience, constant upskilling, and deep emotional labor, yet the rewards often feel fleeting or disconnected from the human experience. To fix this, we must recognize that Human-AI Teaming and digital transformation cannot succeed if the humans involved feel like temporary placeholders.

Case Study 1: The Transparency Pivot at Buffer

The Challenge: Building a cohesive, high-trust culture in a fully remote environment during periods of market instability.

The Intervention: Buffer famously leaned into radical transparency as a design principle for their psychological contract. They chose to share everything — from exact salary formulas to revenue figures and diversity goals — publicly. When they faced financial difficulties that necessitated layoffs, they didn’t hide behind legalese. They shared the raw math and provided an empathetic off-boarding process that honored the value of those leaving.

The Insight: By honoring the “honesty” pillar of the psychological contract, Buffer prevented the remaining team from retreating into defensive, low-innovation postures. Trust was maintained not because things were perfect, but because the leadership was predictably authentic.

Case Study 2: Microsoft’s Cultural “Empathy OS”

The Challenge: A “know-it-all” culture that stifled collaboration and led to internal silos and stagnating innovation.

The Intervention: Under Satya Nadella, Microsoft underwent a human-centered change journey toward a “learn-it-all” growth mindset. They fundamentally renegotiated the psychological contract by prioritizing psychological safety. They encouraged managers to move from “judges” to “coaches,” using empathy as a tool to unlock collective intelligence rather than individual performance alone.

The Insight: This shift in the internal contract catalyzed a massive resurgence. When employees felt that their growth was prioritized over their “correctness,” the speed of innovation increased. They proved that empathy is a strategic multiplier for technical excellence.

Leading Companies and Startups to Watch

If you are looking for the organizations architecting the new psychological contract, keep a close eye on Lattice and Culture Amp, which are moving beyond simple surveys to deep, AI-augmented sentiment analysis that helps leaders act before trust breaks. BetterUp is another key player, democratizing coaching to ensure the “growth” part of the contract is available to all, not just executives. On the startup front, ChartHop is bringing unprecedented clarity to organizational design, while Tessl and Vapi are exploring how AI can handle transactional “grunt work” to free humans for the meaningful, purpose-driven work that the new contract requires. These companies recognize that the Future Present belongs to those who prioritize the human spirit over the algorithmic output.

Architecting a Resilient Future

To rebuild trust, leaders must stop treating change management as a post-script to strategy. It must be baked into the design. We need to create environments where employees are not just “bought in,” but “brought in” to the decision-making process. As a top innovation speaker, I frequently advise organizations that the most successful transformations are those where the workers feel like co-architects of their own future.

We are currently standing at a crossroads. We can continue to optimize for short-term efficiency, risking creative atrophy and total disengagement, or we can choose to rebuild a psychological contract based on mutual flourishing. The choice we make today will determine which organizations thrive in the next decade and which ones are rejected by the very talent they need most.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the “Psychological Contract” of work?

It is the unwritten set of expectations, beliefs, and obligations between an employer and employee. Unlike a legal contract, it governs the emotional and social exchange — things like trust, loyalty, growth opportunities, and a sense of belonging.

How has the changing economy damaged this contract?

Economic volatility and rapid AI integration have created a sense of “precarity.” When companies prioritize short-term stock gains or automation over human value, employees feel the agreement has been violated, leading to “Quiet Quitting” or creative resistance.

What is the first step in rebuilding workplace trust?

Radical transparency and empathetic communication are the foundations. Leaders must move away from “command and control” and instead involve employees in the transformation process, ensuring they feel secure enough to innovate without fear of immediate displacement.

Image credits: Google Gemini

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

10 Tips for Effective Change Leadership in the Digital Age

Leave a reply

10 Tips for Effective Change Leadership in the Digital Age

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

Change management is a challenge in any organization, but the digital age has added a layer of complexity to the process. In order to effectively lead change initiatives, there are certain tips that can be useful. Here are ten tips to help you be an effective change leader in the digital age.

1. Stay up to date: Technology and digital systems are constantly changing and evolving, so it is important to stay up to date on the latest trends and developments. Be sure to attend conferences and seminars, read industry news, and talk to other change leaders to stay on top of the latest developments.

2. Understand the technology: Before you can lead change, you need to understand the technology and digital systems you are working with. Take the time to learn the system and how it works so you can effectively lead the change initiative.

3. Listen to feedback: Change can be difficult, so it is important to listen to feedback from employees and stakeholders. Take the time to understand the different perspectives and use this feedback to inform your change leadership strategy.

4. Engage stakeholders: Change initiatives can be successful if stakeholders are engaged throughout the process. Make sure to include stakeholders in the planning process and involve them in decision-making.

5. Set clear goals: Change initiatives can get off track if there are no clear goals or objectives. Be sure to set clear goals and objectives for the change initiative so everyone understands what needs to be accomplished.

6. Communicate regularly: Change can be daunting for employees, so it is important to keep them informed throughout the process. Make sure to communicate regularly with employees and stakeholders about the progress of the change initiative.

7. Use data: Data can be a powerful tool in the digital age. Use data to track progress and make decisions about the change initiative.

8. Embrace innovation: Change can be a great opportunity to try new things and innovate. Encourage employees to think outside the box and come up with creative solutions to tackle the challenge.

9. Celebrate success: Change can be a long and difficult process, so it is important to celebrate successes along the way. Make sure to take the time to recognize the hard work of employees and stakeholders who have helped lead the change initiative.

10. Learn from failure: Even the best change initiatives can fail. If a change initiative falls short, use it as a learning opportunity. Gather feedback and learn from mistakes to improve your change leadership strategy.

By following these ten tips, you can be an effective change leader in the digital age. Change initiatives can be complex and difficult, but with the right approach and strategy, you can be successful.

Image credit: Pixabay

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

Quantifying the Opportunity Loss of Not Innovating

Leave a reply

The Cost of Inertia

LAST UPDATED: December 29, 2025 at 12:15PM

Quantifying the Opportunity Loss of Not Innovating

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

In boardrooms around the world, innovation is framed as an expense that must be justified. What is rarely debated with equal rigor is the mounting cost of delay. In a world defined by accelerating change, inertia is no longer passive. It is actively destructive.

The cost of inertia is the accumulation of missed opportunities, weakened capabilities, and eroded trust that results from failing to adapt. While these losses may not appear on balance sheets, they shape long-term viability.

“Inertia is not the absence of change. It is the slow acceptance of decline.”

Braden Kelley

Why Organizations Underestimate Inertia

Leaders are trained to avoid visible failure. Innovation introduces uncertainty and accountability, while maintaining the status quo spreads responsibility thinly.

This creates a bias toward short-term stability over long-term relevance. By the time consequences emerge, the window for easy adaptation has closed.

Reframing Innovation as Loss Prevention

Innovation should not be viewed solely as growth investment. It is also a form of risk mitigation. Organizations that fail to innovate lose optionality, resilience, and talent.

The question shifts from “What if this fails?” to “What is the cost if we never try?”

Case Study 1: Media Industry Transformation

A traditional media company resisted digital subscription models to protect advertising revenue. Digital-native competitors moved quickly, capturing audience loyalty.

The eventual transition required deeper cuts and brand repositioning. Early experimentation would have preserved both revenue and trust.

Case Study 2: Enterprise Software Evolution

An enterprise software provider delayed cloud migration to protect legacy licensing models. Customers migrated to more flexible competitors.

When the shift finally occurred, it required aggressive pricing concessions and cultural change that could have been incremental years earlier.

Quantifying the Invisible

Leaders can make inertia visible by tracking leading indicators such as:

Declining customer lifetime value
Increasing time-to-decision
Reduced experimentation rates

These metrics reveal organizational drag before financial decline becomes irreversible.

The Human Cost of Standing Still

Talented people leave organizations where learning stalls. Customers disengage when experiences stagnate.

Innovation signals belief in the future. Inertia communicates resignation.

Designing Momentum Instead of Disruption

Overcoming inertia does not require dramatic reinvention. It requires consistent progress. Small experiments, clear learning objectives, and visible leadership support create momentum.

Innovation succeeds when it is treated as a system, not a side project.

A Leadership Choice

Every organization innovates or decays by default. The only question is whether that process is intentional.

Leaders who measure the cost of inertia gain the clarity to act before decline becomes destiny.

Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ

How do leaders justify innovation investment?
By framing it as loss prevention and capability building.

Is inertia always a strategic failure?
It becomes one when it prevents learning and adaptation.

What is the first step to overcoming inertia?
Making opportunity loss visible and discussable.

Image credits: Google Gemini

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