Category Archives: culture

‘Twas the Night Before Launch Day

Leave a reply

Twas the Night Before Launch Day

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

‘Twas the night before launch day, when throughout HQ,
Not a worker had left, there was too much to do;
The plans were laid out by the whiteboard with care,
While our Innovation Chief Sarah planned with great flair;

The team was all nestled all snug at their posts,
While visions of success inspired them the most;
And Sarah in her blazer, so sharp and so bright,
Had just settled in for a long working night,

When out in the hall there arose such a clatter,
She sprang from her desk to see what was the matter.
When what to her wondering eyes should appear,
But the CEO and board, spreading holiday cheer!

“Now, ARCHITECTURE!” they cried, “We need strategy and rules!
Now BEHAVIORS and CULTURE!” – these ABC tools.
“Tell us Sarah,” they said, “how you’ll lead us to glory,
Through bringing new value – tell us your story!”

She smiled as she stood, confidence in her stance,
“The ABCs of Innovation aren’t left up to chance.
Architecture’s our framework, our process and measure,
Our governance model not built at our leisure;

“The Behaviors we foster? Curiosity leads,
With courage and commitment to meet future needs.
And Culture,” she said, with a twinkle of pride,
“Is how innovation becomes our natural stride.”

Her cross-functional team gathered ’round with delight,
Each bringing their skills to help win this big fight:
“From concept to testing, from planning to more,
We’re ready to launch what we’ve worked toward before!”

The CEO beamed and the board gave a cheer,
“This is exactly the progress we’d hoped for this year!
With Architecture to guide us, and Behaviors so strong,
Plus Culture to fuel us – well, nothing could go wrong!”

Then Sarah exclaimed, as they turned out the light,
“Happy launching to all, and to all a good night!
For tomorrow we share what’s been worth all the wait,
Guided by ABCs, we’ll make something great!”

Image credit: Microsoft CoPilot

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

Purpose Matters Because …

Leave a reply

Purpose Matters Because ...

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

When the Business Roundtable issued a statement in 2019 that discarded the old notion that the sole purpose of a business is to provide value to shareholders, many were dismayed. Some thought it was just another example of misguided altruism by “elites.” Others saw it as a cynical and disingenuous ploy.

Yet the primacy of shareholder value is hardly a well-established economic principle. The concept does not appear even once in Adam Smith’s seminal treatise, The Wealth of Nations. In fact, it is a relatively recent idea and when the economist Milton Friedman first proposed it in 1970, it was considered radical, even subversive, certainly not to be taken as gospel.

It has also been tremendously unsuccessful. Since Friedman’s essay we have become less productive, not more. One reason for the poor results is that Friedman and others like him failed to recognize that our economy is made up of people, not inanimate pieces of data that make up economic charts, and these people search for meaning and purpose in their lives.

Failed Cartesians

Often regarded as the father of modern philosophy, Rene Descartes was obsessed with human fallibility. Cursed with imperfect senses and emotions that can warp logic, he sought to build a new intellectual foundation based on cool, rational thought. “I think, therefore I am,” he wrote, proving that at least one thing could be known without referring to the use of the senses.

Descartes’ ideas led to the Rationalist school of philosophy as others tried to build on his work. The idea that, through pure reason, we could see truths with greater clarity held enormous attraction for intellectual giants such as Gottfried Leibniz and Baruch Spinoza. Unfortunately, other than in the field of mathematics, little was achieved.

That didn’t stop others from trying though. In the early 20th century, the Vienna Circle arose in response to the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein and others in order to create a logical system to guide human affairs. Wittgenstein himself would later disown it and Gödel’s incompleteness theorems would eventually expose the whole exercise as a failure.

Undeterred by centuries of failure, business consultants have tried to sell the same idea to executives. Yet despite fancy names like scientific management, financial engineering and six sigma, these didn’t fare any better. One study found that of 58 large companies that announced Six Sigma programs, 91 percent trailed the S&P 500 in stock performance.

Still, many remain undeterred. The idea of an infallible technocracy is just too tempting for many to resist.

The End Of History And The Washington Consensus

In 1992, Francis Fukuyama published The End of History to great acclaim. The Cold War had ended and capitalism was triumphant. Communism was shown to be a corrupt system bereft of any real legitimacy. It seemed that, as many philosophers had predicted, we had reached an end point in which human sociocultural evolution was complete.

A new ideology took hold, often referred to as the “Washington Consensus,” that preached fiscal discipline, free trade, privatization and deregulation. The world was going to be remade in capitalism’s image. Countries that hit hard times would be offered aid from multilateral institutions like the IMF and the World Bank in return for favored policy reforms.

Many pointed out that international bureaucrats were mandating policies for developing nations that citizens in their own countries would never accept. Strict austerity programs led to human costs that were both significant and real. In a sense, the Soviet error was being repeated. Ideology was being put before people.

Yet Fukuyama’s message had been misunderstood. His book was not meant as a prophecy, but as a warning. He pointed to the ancient Greek concept of thymos, a spirited blend of dignity and pride, to caution against rationalist explanations for human behavior. Given a choice between a well trod path and one less certain, he predicted that many will “set their eyes on a new and more distant journey.”

The Silicon Valley Myth

I was working on Wall Street in 1995 when the Netscape IPO hit like a bombshell. It was the first big Internet stock and, although originally priced at $14 per share, it opened at double that amount and quickly zoomed to $75. By the end of the day, it had settled back at $58.25 and, just like that, a tiny company with no profits was worth $2.9 billion.

It seemed crazy, but economists soon explained that certain conditions, such as negligible marginal costs and network effects, would lead to “winner take all markets” and increasing returns to investment. Venture capitalists who bet on this logic would, in many cases, become rich beyond their wildest dreams.

The conditions for increasing returns, however, only apply to a narrow swath of businesses, mostly limited to software and electronic gadgets. Nevertheless, entrepreneurs and their investors became convinced that they could apply the Silicon Valley model anywhere, leading to high profile failures like WeWork and Theranos.

That’s the Silicon Valley myth, that the rational logic of code can be applied to any problem. It’s the same fantasy that has been repeated throughout history, handed from Cartesians to logical positivists to “scientific” managers and now to the software engineers, puffed up with stock options who can’t seem to understand why everyone else doesn’t “get it.”

The costs have been substantial. Evidence suggests that the billions wantonly plowed into massive failures are crowding out real businesses. Productivity has been depressed for half a century. The Facebook papers revealed a culture that has lost its way, so single-mindedly focused on optimizing engagement it lost sight of the humanity it was supposed to engage.

Identity, Dignity And Purpose

If you believe in a rational Cartesian universe, a business is little more than a set of transactions. The nature of the firm, in this view, is simply to minimize transaction costs and skilled managers should focus on maximizing bargaining power among stakeholders in order to build a sustainable competitive advantage. Yet the world doesn’t actually work that way.

Consider the ultimatum game. One player is given a dollar and needs to propose how to split it with another player. If it is accepted, both players get the agreed upon shares. If it is not accepted, neither player gets anything. If the world was completely rational, the second player would accept even a single penny. After all, a penny is better than nothing.

Yet decades of experiments across different cultures show that most people do not accept a penny. In fact, offers of less than 30 cents are routinely rejected as unfair. It offends people’s dignity and sense of self. For many of the same reasons, there is increasing evidence that financial targets don’t motivate employees. No one wants to be a cog in someone else’s wheel.

That is the value of purpose. It bolsters, rather than undermines, our identity. When people feel that they are part of a common project, they feel a sense of ownership, that they are ends in themselves rather than means to an end. It uplifts, rather than demeans, us. It fortifies, rather than undermines, our spirit.

What separates great leaders from mediocre managers is that the leaders do more than calculate, they provide meaning to an endeavor that makes it more than merely a common enterprise. It becomes a collective mission.

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

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






We Are in an Employee Experience Recession

2 Replies

We Are in an Employee Experience Recession

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

The title of this article is very similar to the title of the first chapter of John DiJulius and David Murray’s latest book, The Employee Experience Revolution. As the world emerged from the Covid-19 pandemic, many employees realized what made them happy—and unhappy. The result was that many companies experienced The Great Resignation, as employees left their current employers hoping for something better.

Some companies have struggled to replace employees. Many claim there is a shortage of workers. I’ll argue that a shortage of workers isn’t the problem. There is a shortage of workers for that specific company. Why? They haven’t created the employee experience that makes employees want to stay. For example, one of my favorite restaurants has the same employees today as it did pre-pandemic. But the restaurant across the street has struggled to get good people to stay. The reason is simple—and it’s not the food. It’s the management/ownership.

Just as you want your customers to come back, you want your employees to come back. That’s why the employee experience must be in alignment with the customer experience. For years, I’ve preached the Employee Golden Rule, which is to do unto your employees as you want done unto your customers. You can’t treat employees harshly and expect them to go out and be nice to customers. Incongruent behavior can eventually result in a company’s version of The Great Resignation.

I had a chance to interview John DiJulius for an episode of Amazing Business Radio to talk about his new book. I’m so in alignment with his ideas that I thought it was an interview with myself. Below are five of his concepts (in bold), followed by my commentary.

  1. There is not a labor shortage. There is a turnover crisis. As mentioned above in the restaurant example, two restaurants on opposite sides of the street have completely different labor experiences. One has kept its core group of employees. The other can’t keep employees. It’s not a labor shortage. As DiJulius points out, “I don’t think there are fewer human beings walking planet Earth than there were five years ago.” It’s all a turnover problem.
  2. Because some companies struggle to keep people, they hire almost anyone. When many employees leave, some companies are too quick to hire. Desperation can cause companies to hire too quickly, which means they may get the wrong people. What’s worse, according to DiJulius, is that “Companies look the other way on poor performers and people with bad attitudes because they need to replace so many employees.”
  3. Your employees are the average of the five people they work closest to. Motivational speaker Jim Rohn is often credited with saying, “You’re the average of the five people you spend the most time with.” DiJulius says this is the same in a company, but there’s a difference. In your personal life, you choose your friends. At work, you don’t get a choice. If you put a superstar in the midst of a group of underachievers, you shouldn’t be surprised if your expectations aren’t met.
  4. The employee experience starts with the recruitment experience. DiJulius believes that everything should be an experience. That includes your recruiting, hiring and on-boarding process. Today we are in an “employees’ market.” Candidates can demand more money and benefits. But what if you created an experience that transcended a paycheck? Yes, we need to pay a fair wage, but if the experience of working at a company is strong enough, employees will factor that into their decision to come and work for you. I summarize this concept by asking, “Do you want an employee working for a paycheck or working for the company?”
  5. Build a moat around your rock stars. Just as you work to attract and keep your customers, you should focus similar efforts on hiring the right employees and keeping them. So what are you doing to ensure that after 90 days, your employees think, “This is where I belong”? What experience are you creating that would have them turn down offers from others? DiJulius says, “This is the moat you build around your employees.”

How do we beat the Employee Experience Recession? Cultivate an engaging experience — an appealing and supportive work environment that extends beyond competitive salaries. Foster a culture in which employees feel valued and are an integral part of the organization. Just like you create an experience that gets customers to return, you must prioritize building a workplace where employees are inspired to sign on, come back, and not leave.

This article originally appeared on Forbes.com

Image Credits: Pixabay

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






Don’t ‘Follow the Science’, Follow the Scientific Method

Leave a reply

Don't 'Follow the Science', Follow the Scientific Method

GUEST POST from Pete Foley

The scientific method is probably the most useful thing I’ve learnt in my life. It is a near universal tool that can be used in so many ways and so many places.  It unleashes a whole world of assisted critical thinking that is invaluable to innovators, but also in our personal lives.  Teaching it to individuals or teams who are not trained as scientists is one of the most powerful and enabling things we can do for them.  And teaching it to kids, as opposed to endless facts and data that they can easily access from the web is something we should do far more of.  

Recruiting Skills not Expertise:  When I was involved in recruiting, I always valued PhD’s and engineers.  Sometimes that was for their unique, specialized knowledge.  But more often than not it was more for the critical thinking skills they had acquired while gaining that specialized knowledge. In today’s rapidly evolving world, specific knowledge typically has a relatively short shelf-life.  But the cognitive framework embodied by the scientific method is a tool for life, and one that can be reapplied in so many ways.  .

Don’t Follow the Science, Follow the Process:  All too often today the scientific method gets confused with ‘following the science’.  The scientific process is almost infinitely useful, but blindly ‘following the science’ is often far less so, and can be counter productive.  The scientific method is a process that helps us to evaluate information, challenge assumptions, and in so doing, get us closer to truth.  Sometimes it confirms our existing ideas, sometimes it improves them, and sometimes it completely replaces them.  But it is grounded in productive and informed skepticism, and this is at the heart of why science is constantly evolving.

‘Follow the Science’ in many ways the opposite.  It assumes someone in a position of power already has the right answer.  At it’s best it means blindly follow the consensus of today’s experts.  All too often it really means ‘do as you are told’.   Frequently the people saying this are not the experts themselves, but are instead evoking third party expertise to support their viewpoint.  That of course is the opposite of science.  It’s often well intended, but not always good advice.

Science is not a Religion:  At the heart of this is a fundamental misunderstanding of science, and scientists. In today’s media and social media, all too often science and scientists are presented with a quasi-religious reverence, and challenging the current view is framed as heretical.  How often do you here the framing ‘scientists tell us… ‘ as a way of validating a position?   

This is understandable.  The sheer quantity and complexity of information we are faced with in our everyday lives is increasingly unmanageable, while big challenges like climate unimaginably complex.  I find it almost impossible to keep up with my own interests, let alone everything that is happening.  And some topics are so technical that they simply require translation by experts.  When someone announces they’ve discovered the Higgs boson particle, it’s not really practical for any of us to pop over to the local particle accelerator and check for ourselves.  So expertise is clearly an important part of any decision chain. But experts come with their own biases. An engineer naturally tends to see problems and through, an engineering lens, a chemist through a chemical one.

Science in Support of an Agenda:  One danger with the ‘follow the science’ mantra is that it is often used to reinforce a belief, opinion, or even agenda.  I’ve seen this all too often in my work life, with the question, ‘can you find me a paper that supports ‘x’.  This is often benign, in that someone passionately believes something, and wants to find evidence to support it.   But this is fundamentally the wrong question, and of course, completely ‘unscientific’.

The scientific literature is filled with competing theories, disproven or outdated ideas, and bad science.   If you look for literature to support an idea you can usually find it, even if it’s wrong.   Scientists are not gods.  They make mistakes, they run poor experiments, and they are subject to confirmation biases, ego, and other human frailties. There is a good reason for the phrase that science evolves one death at a time. Science, like virtually every human organization is hierarchical, and a prestigious scientist can advance a discipline, but can also slow it down by holding onto a deeply held belief. And mea culpa, I know from personal experience that it’s all too easy to fall in love with a theory, and resist evidence to the contrary. 

Of course, some theories are more robust than others.   Both consensus and longevity are therefore important considerations.  Some science is so well established, and supported by so much observation that it’s unlikely that it will fundamentally change.  For example, we may still have a great deal to learn about gravity, but for practical purposes, apples will still drop from trees.    

Peer Review:  Policing the literature is hard.  Consensus is right until its not. Another phrase I often hear is ‘peer reviewed’, in the context that this makes the paper ‘right’.  Of course, peer review is valuable, part of the scientific process, and helps ensure that content has quality, and has been subject to a high level of rigor.   If one person says it, it can be a breakthrough or utter nonsense.  If a lot of smart people agree, it’s more likely to be ‘right’.  But that is far from guaranteed, especially if they share the same ingoing assumptions. Scientific consensus has historically embraced many poor theories; a flat earth, or the sun revolving around the earth are early examples. More tragically, I grew up with the thalidomide generation in Europe.  On an even bigger scale, the industrial revolution gave us so much, but also precipitated climate change.  And on a personal level, I’ve just been told by my physician to take a statin, and I am in the process of fighting my way through rapidly growing and evolving literature in order to decide if that is the right decision.  So next time you see a scientist, or worse, a politician, journalist, or a random poster on Twitter claim they own scientific truth, enjoin you to ‘follow the science’, or accuse someone else of being a science denier, treat it with a grain of sodium chloride.

They may of course be right, but the more strident they are, or the less qualified, the less likely they are to really understand science, and hence what they are asking you to follow.  And the science they pick is quite possibly influenced by their own goals, biases or experience. Of course, practically we cannot challenge everything. We need to be selective, and the amount of personal effort we put into challenging an idea will depend upon how important it is to us as individuals.      

Owning your Health:  Take physicians as an example.  At some time or other, we’ve all looked to a physician for expert advise.  And there is a good reason to do so.  They work very hard to secure deep knowledge of their chosen field, and the daily practice of medicine gives then a wealth of practical as well as well as theoretical knowledge.  But physicians are not gods either.  The human body is a very complex system, physicians have very little time with an individual patient (over the last 10 years, the average time a physician spends with a patient has shrunk to a little over 15 minutes), the field is vast and expanding, and our theories around how to diagnose and treat disease are constantly evolving.  In that way, medicine is a great example of the scientific method in action, but also how transient ‘scientific truths’ can be.  

I already mentioned my current dilemma with statins.   But to give an even more deeply personal example, neither my wife or I would be alive today if we’d blindly followed a physicians diagnosis.

I had two compounding and comparatively rare conditions that combined to appear like a more common one.  The physician went with the high probability answer.  I took time to dig deeper and incorporate more details.  Together we got to the right answer, and I’m still around!

This is a personal and pragmatic example of how valuable the scientific process can be.  My health is important, so I chose to invest considerable time in the diagnosis I was given, and challenge it productively, instead of blindly accepting an expert opinion. My physicians had far more expertise than I did, but I had far more time and motivation.  We ultimately complemented each other by partnering, and using the scientific method both as a process, and as a way to communicate.   

The Challenge of Science Communication:  To be fair, science communication is hard.   It requires communicating an often complex concept with sufficient simplicity for it to be understandable, often requires giving guidance, while also embracing appropriate uncertainty. Nowhere was this more evident than in the case of Covid 19, where a lot of ‘follow the science’, and ‘science denier’ language came from.  At the beginning of the pandemic, the science was understandably poorly developed, but we still had to make important decisions on often limited data.  At first we simply didn’t understand even the basics like the transmission vectors (was it airborne or surface, how long did it survive outside of the body, etc).  I find it almost surreal to think back to those early months, how little we knew, the now bizarre clean room protocols we used on our weekly shopping, and some of the fear that has now faded into the past.  

But because we understood so little, we made a lot of mistakes.  The over enthusiastic use of ventilators may have killed some patients, although that is still a hotly debated topic. Early in the pandemic masks, later to become a controversial and oddly politically charged topic, masks were specifically not recommended by the US government for the general public. Who knows how many people contracted the disease by following this advice?   It was well intentioned, as authorities were trying to prevent a mask shortage for health workers. But it was also mechanistically completely wrong.

At the time I used simple scientific reasoning, and realized this made little sense.  If the virus was transmitted via an airborne vector, a mask would help.  If it wasn’t, it would do no harm, at least as long as I didn’t subtract from someone with greater need. By that time the government had complete control of the mask supply chain anyway, so that was largely a moot point. Instead I dug out a few old N95 masks that had been used for spray painting and DIY, and used them outside of the house (hospitals would not accept donations of used masks). I was lambasted with ‘follow the science’ by at least one friend for doing so, but followed an approach with high potential reward and virtually zero downside. I’ll never know if that specifically worked, but I didn’t get Covid, at least not until much later when it was far less dangerous.

Science doesn’t own truth: Unlike a religion, good science doesn’t pretend to own ultimate truths.  But unfortunately it can get used that way.  Journalists, politicians, technocrats and others sometimes weaponize (selective) science to support an opinion. Even s few scientists who have become frustrated with ‘science deniers’ can slip into this trap.

Science is a Journey: I should clarify that the scientific method is more of a journey, not so much a single process. To suggest is is a single ‘thing’ so is probably an unscientific simplification in its own right. It’s more a way of thinking that embraces empiricism, observation, description, productive skepticism, and the use of experimentation to test and challenge hypothesis. It also helps us to collaborate and communicate with experts in different areas, creating a common framework for collaboration, rather than blindly following directions or other expert opinions.    

It can be taught, and is incredibly useful.  But like any tool, it requires time and effort to become a skilled user.   But if we invest in it, it can be extraordinarily valuable, both in innovation and life. It’s perhaps not for every situation, as that would mire us in unmanageable procrastination.  But if something is important, it’s an invaluable tool. 

Image credits: Pixabay

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

The Power of Cultural Competence in Leadership

Leave a reply

The Power of Cultural Competence in Leadership

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

When I first moved to Kyiv about 20 years ago, I met my friend Pavlo, who is from Belarus. Eventually our talk turned to that country’s leader, Alexander Lukashenko, and an incident in which he turned off the utilities at the US Ambassador’s residence, as well as those of other diplomats. It seemed totally outlandish and crazy to me.

“But he won,” Pavlo countered. I was incredulous, until he explained. “Lukashenko knows he’s a bastard and that the world will never accept him. In that situation all you can win is your freedom and that’s what he won.” It was a mode of thinking so outrageous and foreign to me that I could scarcely believe it.

Yet it opened my eyes and made me a more effective operator. We tend to think of empathy as an act of generosity, but it’s far more than that. Learning how to internalize diverse viewpoints is a skill we should learn not only because it helps make others more comfortable, but because it empowers us to successfully navigate an often complex and difficult world.

Shared Identity And Dominant Culture

We naturally tend to form groups based on identity. For example, in a study of adults that were randomly assigned to “leopards” and “tigers,” fMRI studies noted hostility to outgroup members. Similar results were found in a study involving five year-old children and even in infants. So to a certain extent, tribalism is unavoidable.

Evolutionary psychologists attribute this tendency to kin selection. Essentially, groups favor those who are most like them are more likely to see their own genes passed on. As Richard Dawkins famously pointed out, what we traditionally consider altruism can also be seen as selfish genes conniving to perpetuate themselves.

So it shouldn’t be surprising that organizational and institutional settings sustain our penchant for tribalism. Managers will tend to hire people who think and act in familiar ways. Those who reflect the preferences of the higher-ups will be more likely to get promoted and, in turn, recruit people like themselves. This all leads to a level of homogeneity that provides comfort and confidence.

We rarely welcome someone who threatens our sense of self. So those outside the dominant culture are encouraged to conform and are often punished when they don’t. They are less often invited to join in routine office socializing and promotions are less likely to come their way. When things go poorly, it’s much easier to blame the odd duck than the trusted insider.

How Success Leads To Failure

In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, author Thomas Kuhn describes how paradigms have a life cycle. They begin as an insight that succeeds in helping to solve a certain class of problems. As their usefulness grows, they rise to dominance and they are rarely questioned or scrutinized anymore. People use them almost reflexively.

Yet over time certain anomalies arise in which the paradigm doesn’t quite fit. For example, in the 1970s and 80s, the minicomputer industry in Boston reigned supreme. Yes, there were some small startup firms out in California, but they were no match for giants like DEC, Data General and Apollo Computer. The California firms were gaining traction, but weren’t considered threats.

Unfortunately for the Boston firms, paradigms were shifting in a way that was extremely disadvantageous to them. They had built strong, dominant cultures that could execute plans efficiently, but weren’t sensitive to outside information. The Silicon Valley firms, which were more diverse and interconnected, were much more able to adapt to changing market realities.

The truth is that the next big thing always starts out looking like nothing at all. That’s why we so often miss it. If it was obvious, everyone would know about it and it wouldn’t surprise us. That’s why it’s so often those odd ducks, the anomalies that don’t quite fit with the dominant culture, that end up disrupting industries.

Acknowledging Difference

Organizations crave efficiency. It’s easy to measure, evaluate and compensate for. That’s why managers tend to favor cohesive cultures. If you hire and promote likeminded people they will tend to be able to achieve consensus quickly without much deliberation or debate, and move quickly to action.

At the same time, inserting diversity stirs things up and makes people uneasy. For example, in a 2003 study involving 242 members of sororities and fraternities at Northwestern University, groups of students were asked to solve a murder mystery. The more homogenous teams felt more comfortable and confident, but were also much more likely to be wrong.

Real world data suggests that these results are the rule, rather than the exception. A McKinsey report that covered 366 public companies in a variety of countries and industries found that groups that were more ethnically and gender diverse performed significantly better than others. Many other studies have shown similar results

What’s crucial to grasp is that diverse teams don’t perform better in spite of discomfort, but because of it. When people expect people to think like them, they look to build an easy consensus. However, when they expect a range of opinions and perspectives, they need to entertain more possibilities and scrutinize information more skeptically.

That’s why it’s so important to acknowledge differences. If we see the world as homogeneous, we are more likely to see dissenting opinions as hostile challenges instead of new possibilities to be explored. It is through acknowledging diverse viewpoints that we can best catalyze the kind of creativity and innovation that helps solve complex and important problems.

Building Shared Identity Through Shared Purpose

Living as a foreigner for 15 years forced me to acknowledge viewpoints very different from my own. Many seemed strange to me, some I found morally questionable, but all forced me to grow. Perhaps even more importantly, I made friends like Pavlo, all of whom helped shape me and how I perceive things.

Our identity and sense of self drives a lot of what we see and do, yet we rarely examine these things because we spend most of our time with people who are a lot like us, who live in similar places and experience similar things. That’s why our innate perceptions and beliefs seem normal and those of others strange, because our social networks shape us that way.

The purpose of an education is to help us see beyond our own experience, but that is in no way a passive skill. We need to continually renew it. Diversity only has value if we appreciate difference; are willing to explore and learn from it. It is only then that we can glean new insights and apply them to some useful endeavor

It is at this nexus of identity and purpose that creativity and innovation reside, because when we learn to collaborate with others who possess knowledge, skills and perspectives that we don’t, new possibilities emerge. Make no mistake, however, breakthroughs are never truly serendipitous or random, but the product of a prepared mind.

And you prepare your mind through building cultural competence.

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

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






SpaceX is a Masterclass in Innovation Simplification

2 Replies

SpaceX is a Masterclass in Innovation Simplification

GUEST POST from Pete Foley

This capture from a recent SpaceX tweet is a stunning visual example of smart innovation and simplification. 

While I’m not even close to being a rocket scientist, and so am far from familiar with all of the technical details, I’ve heard that breakthroughs incorporated into this include innovative sensor design that allows for streamlined feedback loops. But this goes beyond just impressive technical innovation.   To innovate at this level requires organizational and cultural flexibility as well as technical brilliance. That latter flexibility is probably far more broadly transferable and adoptable than specific advances in rocket science, and hence more useful to the broader innovation community. So let’s dig a little deeper into that space.

Secret Sauce?  Organizationally SpaceX is well known for less formal hierarchies, passion, ownership and engineers working on the production floor.  This hands on approach creates a different, but important kind of feedback, while passion feeds intrinsic motivation, ownership and engagement, which is so critical to consistent innovation. 

Learning from Failure – An Innovation Superpower?  But perhaps most important of all is the innovation culture. Within SpaceX there is a very clear willingness to experiment and learn from failure.  Not lip service, or the sometimes half-hearted embrace of failure often found in large, bureaucratic organizations, where rewards and career progression often doesn’t reflect the mantra of learning by failing.  This is an authentic willingness to publicly treat productive failure of individual launches as a learning success for the program, and to reward productive failure and appropriate risk taking.  Of course, it’s not always easy to walk the talk of celebrating failure, especially in spacecraft design, where failures are often spectacular, public, and visual gold for the media.  And no doubt this is compounded by Musk’s controversial public profile, where media and social media are often only too keen to highlight failures.  But the visual of Raptor 3 is for me a compelling advertisement for authentically embedding learning by failure deeply into the DNA of an innovative organization. 

Stretch Goals:  Musk is famous for, and sometimes ridiculed for setting ambitious stretch goals, and for not always achieving them.   But in a culture where failure is tolerated, or if done right, celebrated, missing a stretch goal is not a problem, especially if it propelled innovation along at a pace that goes beyond conventional expectation.    

Challenging Legacy and ‘Givens’:  Culturally, this kind of radical simplification requires the systematic challenge of givens that were part of previous iterations.  You cannot make these kind of innovation leaps unless you are both willing and able to discard legacy technical and organizational structures.  

At risk of kicking Boeing while it is down, it is hard not to contrast SpaceX with Boeing, whose space (and commercial aviation) program is very publicly floundering, and facing the potentially humiliating prospect of needing rescue from the more agile SpaceX program. 

Innovation Plaque:  But in the spirit of learning from failure, if we look a bit deeper, perhaps it should not be a surprise that Boeing are struggling to keep up. They have a long, storied, and successful history as a leader in aerospace.  But history and leadership can be a blessing and a curse, as I know from P&G. It brings experience, but also bureaucracy, rigid systems, and deeply rooted culture that may or may not be optimum for managing change.  Deep institutional knowledge can be a similar mixed blessing.  It of course allows easy access to in-domain experience, and is key to not repeating past mistakes, or making naïve errors.  But is also comes with an inherent bias towards traditional solutions, and technologies.  Perhaps even more important is the organizationally remembered pain of past failures, especially if a ‘learn by failure’ culture isn’t fully embraced.  Failure is good at telling us what didn’t work, and plays an important role in putting processes in place that help us to avoid repeating errors.  But over time these ‘defensive’ processes can build up like plaque in an artery, making it difficult to push cutting edge technologies or radical changes through the system.

Balance is everything.  Nobody wants to be the Space Cowboy.  Space exploration is expensive, and risks the lives of some extraordinarily brave people.  Getting the balance between risk taking and the right kind of failure is even more critical than in most other contexts. But SpaceX are doing it right, certainly until now. Whatever the technical details, the impact on speed, efficiency and $$ behind the simplification of Raptor 3 is stunning.  I suspect that ultimately reliability and efficiency will also likely helped by increased simplicity.  But it’s a delicate line.  The aforementioned ‘plaque’ does slow the process, but done right, it can also prevent unnecessary failure.   It’s important to be lean, but  not ‘slice the salami’ too thin.  Great innovation teams mix diverse experience, backgrounds and personalities for this reason.  We need the cynic as well as the gung-ho risk taker.  For SpaceX, so far, so good, but it’s important that they don’t become over confident.  

The Elon Musk Factor:  For anyone who hasn’t noticed. Musk has become a somewhat controversial figure of late. But even if you dislike him, you can still learn from him, and as innovators, I don’t think we can afford not to. He is the most effective innovator, or at least innovation leader for at least a generation. The teams he puts together are brilliant at challenging ‘givens’, and breaking out of legacy constraints and the ‘ghosts of evolution’. We see it across the SpaceX design, not just the engine, but also the launch systems, recycling of parts, etc. We also see an analogous innovation strategy in the way Tesla cars so dramatically challenged so many givens in the auto industry, or the ‘Boring company in my hometown of Las Vegas.

Ghosts of Evolution I’d mentioned the challenges of legacy designs and legacy constraints. I think this is central to SpaceX’s success, and so I think it’s worth going a little deeper on this topic.  Every technology, and every living thing on our planet comes with its own ghosts.   They are why humans have a literal blind-spot in our vision, why our bodies pleasure centers are co-located with our effluent outlets, and why the close proximity of our air and liquid/solid intakes lead to thousands of choking deaths every year. Nature is largely stuck with incrementally building on top of past designs, often leading to the types of inefficiency described above. Another example is the Pronghorn antelope that lives in my adopted American West. It can achieve speeds of close to 90 mph. This is impressive, but vastly over-designed and inefficient for it’s current environment. But it is a legacy design, evolved at a time when it was predated upon by long extinct North American Cheetah. It cannot simply undo that capability now that it’s no longer useful. So far, it’s survived this disadvantage, but it is vulnerable to both competition and changing environment simply because it is over-designed.

Bio-Inspiration:  I’ve long believed we can learn a great deal from nature and bio-inspired design, but sometimes learning what not to do is as useful as ‘stealing’ usable insights. It’s OK to love nature, but also acknowledge that evolution has far more failures than successes. There are far, far more extinct species than living ones.  And virtually every one was either too specialized, or lacked the ability to pivot and adapt in the face of changing context.  

As innovators, we have unique option of creating totally new 2.0 designs, and challenging the often unarticulated givens that are held within a category. And we have the option of changing our culture and organizational structures too.  But often we fail do so because we are individually or organizationally blind to legacy elements that are implicitly part of our assumptions for a category or a company.  The fish doesn’t see the water, or at least not until it’s dangling from a hook. By then it’s too late.   Whatever you think of Musk, he’s taught us it is possible to create innovation cultures that challenge legacy designs extremely effectively.  It’s a lesson worth learning

Image credits: Twitter (via SpaceX)

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

Giving Your Team a Sense of Shared Purpose

Leave a reply

Giving Your Team a Sense Of Shared Purpose

GUEST POST from David Burkus

With work and life becoming more intertwined than ever, people increasingly seek purpose through work. So, leaders are being called upon to create a sense of purpose on a team. When team members feel that their work is connected to a larger company-wide purpose, they are more motivated and perform better. This gives managers and leaders an opportunity to facilitate work environments that provide the sense of purpose people need to thrive.

In this article, we will explore five effective ways to create a sense of purpose on a team, ensuring that everyone is aligned and driven towards a common goal.

Give The “It’s A Wonderful Life” Test

The first way to create a sense of purpose on a team is to give the “It’s A Wonderful Life Test.” This test is derived from reflecting on the movie It’s a Wonderful Life and its premise. In the movie, the main character, George Bailey, is saved from committing suicide by an angel. Clarence (worst name for an angel ever) shows how different his community would be if George had never existed. This test doesn’t get as morbid as the movie, but the idea is to run a thought experiment that leads the team to examine its importance by considering the impact of its absence. By applying this test to your team, you can gain a deeper understanding of who is served by their work and the significance of their contributions. This knowledge allows them to see the value they bring to the organization and the difference they make in the lives of others.

Draft a Rallying Cry

The second way to create a sense of purpose on a team is to draft a rallying cry. A rallying cry is a powerful tool that embodies the team’s purpose and serves as a motivational phrase that everyone on the team knows. It should be simple, catchy, and inspiring. Many successful teams have used rallying cries to unite their members and keep them focused on their shared purpose. For example, the San Antonio Spurs adopted the rallying cry “pound the rock,” tapping into the imagery of a stonecutter hitting away at a rock hundreds of times before it finally cracks. They use it as a powerful reminder that the day-to-day strain of training and drilling hundreds of times is what brings victory. By creating a rallying cry that resonates with the team’s purpose, you can foster a strong sense of unity and motivation.

Create Team Symbols

The third way to create a sense of purpose on a team is to create team symbols. Symbols are visual representations that embody the team’s purpose and values. They serve as reminders of the team’s mission and can help team members stay connected to their sense of purpose. They can be visual symbols, objects, gestures, or anything else that can contains a meaning specific to the team—even better if it can tie into the rallying cry. To use the San Antonio Spurs again, their practice facility contains a powerful symbol—a boulder and sledgehammer displayed behind glass. Players walk by it before every practice. Your team may not have as elaborate a symbol. But anything that can remind the team of its rallying cry can help build a sense of purpose on a team. And as a bonus, you can reinforce a sense of shared identity on the team as well.

Collect Impact Stories

The fourth way to create a sense of purpose on a team is to collecting impact stories. Stories are one of the most powerful ways humans communicate—and hence they’re a powerful way to highlight the team’s successes and reinforce their sense of purpose. Impact stories can come from various sources, such as media coverage, customer testimonials, or thank you notes. But managers and leaders play a crucial role in collecting these stories and sharing them with the team. Ideally, every positive email or story in the media that aligns with either the team’s or the organization’s purpose gets captured so it can be shared at regular meetings. By regularly sharing impact stories, team members can see the tangible results of their work and the positive impact they have on others. This boosts their morale and motivation, reminding them of the importance of their contributions and the purpose behind their efforts.

Outsource Inspiration

The final way to create a sense of purpose on a team is to outsource inspiration. Outsourcing inspiration involves bringing in individuals who have been directly impacted by the team’s work to share their stories. It’s like collecting impact stories but amplified. Hearing firsthand accounts of how their work has made a difference can be incredibly motivating for team members. For example, medical device company Medtronic invites patients to their annual holiday party to share how the company’s technology helps them live better. When team members see the real-world impact of their efforts, it reinforces their sense of purpose and reminds them of the importance of their work. It also provides an opportunity for them to connect with the people they are serving, fostering empathy and a deeper understanding of their purpose.

Creating a sense of purpose on a team is crucial for its success. By using the “It’s a Wonderful Life” test, drafting a rallying cry, creating team symbols, collecting impact stories, and outsourcing inspiration, teams can foster a strong sense of purpose and motivation. These activities should be ongoing to maintain a sense of purpose and drive within the team, motivating them to do their best work ever.

Image credit: Unsplash

Originally published on DavidBurkus.com on July 31, 2023

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






Learning to Innovate

Leave a reply

Learning to Innovate

GUEST POST from Janet Sernack

One of my coaching clients shared with me recently how she was feeling insecure in her job role and lacking motivation. The company she works for is acknowledged as an entrepreneurial industry leader. Because it is currently being challenged by poor sales performance, it has hunkered down and frozen any change initiatives, learning programs or new projects until mid-2025. My client is in a substantial Research and Development function, crucial to innovation, so we aimed to explore new ways of helping the company use their existing equipment (capital investments) and resources (people and expertise) to design and deliver low-cost and sustainable innovations to the market. To create a focused, meaningful, purposeful role and a values-based motivating opportunity for my client to be proactive, that impacts the company by adding value to the bottom line by improving productivity and cost efficiency because anyone can learn to innovate.

Learning to innovate

As a result of our short time together, my client felt confident and empowered, motivated and energized, to invest time in learning how to apply her current skills and strengths, focus and attention to connect with key people and resources, explore options globally for identifying new business development opportunities, and in developing her technical skillset.

My client enrolled in an online innovation learning program to learn to innovate by acquiring the fundamentals of mindset and behavior changes to shift their thinking and act differently.  

The innovation imperative has shifted

  • Productivity growth needs to accelerate

According to McKinsey and Co, in the article “Investing in Productivity Growth” it’s not only time to raise investment and catch the next productivity wave; the world needs to and can accelerate productivity growth.

“Productivity growth means getting more from our work and our investments. It is especially needed now as the world faces the many challenges of a new geo-economic era. Productivity growth is the best antidote to the asset price inflation of the past two decades, which has created about $160 trillion in “paper wealth” and even larger amounts of new debt”.

  • Adapting to the new net zero reality

The world is currently not on track to meet net-zero targets, yet many opportunities are available to accelerate efforts and help meet de-carbonization goals. Whilst some progress has been made to reduce global carbon emissions, under the current trajectory, the world won’t achieve net-zero emissions even during this century. Again, according to McKinsey and Co., in an article “Adapting to the new net-zero reality”, mitigation efforts alone are no longer sufficient – the world will need to adapt as well by going green, ramping up technologies and increasing investments.

  • Improving cost efficiencies

According to new BCG research, corporate leaders are making better cost management a priority as a hedge against ongoing economic, financial, and political uncertainties, stating that:

“Wholesale cuts are one way to manage costs. However, drastic measures such as sudden workforce reductions may lead to unintended consequences because they fail to address the root causes of inefficiencies. Nor do they position an organization for future success”.

  • Generative Ai is a critical enabler of innovation

Whether the organization focuses on developing new products, services, processes, or business models, Generative AI (GenAI) can enhance and challenge the work of leaders and teams across all phases of the innovation cycle and process.

By learning to innovate through knowing how to generatively question and listen, reveal and challenge operating beliefs and test assumptions to enable them to emerge, diverge, converge and prioritize high-quality creative ideas for change.

According to BCG in a recent article, “To Drive Innovation with GenAI, Start by Questioning Your Assumptions.”

“GenAI’s most prominent contribution is in idea generation and validation—innovation’s divergence and convergence phases. Yet, it can play an even more critical role in helping leaders confront and update the strategic assumptions at the foundation of their business and innovation strategies: the doubt phase of the cycle. Organizations that regularly question their beliefs are more resilient because they are more likely to see and position themselves to benefit from the shifts on which competitive advantage turns”.

The innovation imperative is paradoxical.

Suppose we combine the contradictory features or qualities of developing productivity growth while adapting to the new net zero reality and improving cost efficiencies. In that case, many organizations have reverted to their conventional, business-as-usual focus, relying on Generative Ai to solve their problems.

This demonstrates a typically faddish response to a revolutionary, transformative new invention whilst being avoidant and resisting the urgent need to change by building the fundamental foundations in learning to innovate.

  • Thinking and acting differently

Anyone can learn to innovate, and it starts with allowing, accepting and acknowledging that a business-as-usual focus, avoiding risk, making the tough decisions and resisting change are no longer effective, profitable, or sustainable because:

  • We all know that doing the same thing and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.
  • We can no longer afford to keep producing the same results that no one wants.
  • We can’t solve the problem with the same thinking that created it; we have to learn how to be, think and act differently to deliver the sustainable and innovative solution we want to have.

Learning to innovate requires a radical strategic shift

  • Harnessing collective intelligence

Anyone can learn to innovate; it’s simply a matter of knowing, combining, leveraging and scaling people’s multiple and collective intelligence – heads/cognition, hearts/emotions and hands/actions.

  • Revealing and closing knowing-doing gaps

Then, we should align these to close the significant knowing-doing gap or disconnect between what people know and what people do.

Everyone knows that innovation is the most impactful lever to use to scale and leverage change, yet are primarily unwilling to pause, stop and take time to retreat from their short-term focus, pay attention and reflect on how to equip people with the innovation fundamentals by getting people’s:

  1. Heads to make sense of innovation and what innovation means by defining and framing it in their organization’s unique context, setting a strategic focus, determining the level of risk involved in achieving it, and mitigating the roadblocks that may arise.
  2. Hearts aligned to embody and enact what innovation means by setting and sharing a passionately purposeful reason for innovation, building change receptivity and readiness for designing and delivering a range of bespoke deep learning processes and equipping people to activate it.
  3. Hands dirty by creating a safe environment where people are encouraged to emerge and share creative ideas and permission and be allowed to experiment by making small bets and mistakes and learning by doing to know what not to do.

Innovation requires a strategic and systemic focus

Innovation is subjective and contextual, so it must be defined and framed in an organization’s unique context.  It requires a strategic and systemic focus, so an organization needs to agree on whether they will choose an incremental, sustainable or disruptive strategy and the level of risk.

The 21st century requires us to unlearn, learn, and relearn a different set of mindsets, behaviors, and skills, and anyone can learn to innovate.

Commitment and conviction to learn to innovate

It’s only through being committed and having the conviction that my coaching client now has – to explore new ways of helping their organizations use their existing capital investments, collective intelligence, people resources, and expertise, supported by Generative AI and deep learning processes, to design and deliver low-cost and sustainable innovations to the market.

Image Credit: Pexels

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

5 Ways to Create a Sense of Belonging at Work

Leave a reply

5 Ways to Create a Sense of Belonging at Work

GUEST POST from David Burkus

A sense of belonging on a team is crucial for its success and productivity. Belonging is that sense of acceptance and inclusion when people feel they can bring their authentic self to work. When team members feel included and valued, they are more likely to be engaged, motivated, and contribute their best work. And on a diverse team, belonging determines how much the team taps into diverse perspectives, opinions, and ideas. As a leader, you encourage that sense of belonging through the habits, norms, and behaviors that you model and that get mimicked by the rest of the team.

In this article, we’ll outline how to create a sense of belonging at work through five actions leaders take that get emulated on the team and make everyone feel included.

1. Share Information Openly

The first way to create a sense of belonging at work is to share information openly. Open and transparent communication is the foundation of a cohesive and inclusive team. When team members have access to all relevant information, including financials and decisions, they feel trusted and respected. That transparency fosters a sense of belonging, as everyone is on the same page and can contribute effectively.

Sharing information that is not typically shared can also increase the sense of belonging. By going beyond the basics and providing insights into the organization’s goals, challenges, and strategies, team members feel more connected to the bigger picture. This understanding helps them see how their individual contributions fit into the overall team’s success.

2. Share Credit Widely

The second way to create a sense of belonging is to share credit widely. In a collaborative work environment, it’s essential to recognize and appreciate the contributions of every team member. Sharing credit widely means acknowledging and celebrating success as a collective effort, rather than attributing it solely to individual achievements. Avoid taking credit for yourself—even if senior leaders attribute the win to you—and instead attribute success to the team. By doing so, you create a culture of collaboration and unity, where everyone feels valued and recognized for their contributions.

Teach team members to share credit for their wins and acknowledge the contributions of others. Encourage a culture of gratitude and recognition, where team members actively appreciate and celebrate each other’s achievements. This not only strengthens the sense of belonging but also promotes a positive and supportive work environment.

3. Create Rituals

The third way to create a sense of belonging is to create rituals. Rituals play a significant role in creating a sense of belonging within a team. They provide a shared experience and a sense of identity, fostering a feeling of unity and camaraderie. Rituals can take various forms, from formal traditions to informal inside jokes, and they contribute to the team’s culture and cohesion.

Whether it’s a team chant, a recurring icebreaker game, or a team-specific acronym, rituals create a sense of meaning and belonging. They establish a sense of familiarity and shared history, making team members feel like they are part of something special. However, it’s crucial to ensure that rituals include everyone and do not create an “us versus them” dynamic. Exclusionary rituals can have the opposite effect, alienating certain team members and undermining the sense of belonging.

4. Ask for Advice

The fourth way to create a sense of belonging is to ask for advice. Asking for advice is a powerful way to show team members that their knowledge and perspective are valued. It demonstrates trust and respect for their expertise, fostering a sense of belonging and empowerment. When team members see that their input is genuinely sought and considered, they feel more invested in the decision-making process and the overall success of the team.

Regularly ask for advice before making decisions, especially those that directly impact the team. This not only allows you to gather diverse perspectives but also reinforces the sense of belonging by involving team members in the decision-making process. When decisions are made, make sure to show how their advice contributed to the final outcome, further reinforcing their value and impact.

5. Model Active Listening

The final way to create a sense of belonging is to model active listening. Active listening is a fundamental skill that leaders and team members should cultivate to create a sense of belonging. It involves giving your full attention when team members are speaking, showing genuine interest and respect for their ideas and opinions. Non-verbal cues, such as nodding or smiling, can also signal active listening and encourage team members to share more openly. Additionally, asking follow-up questions and seeking clarification demonstrates a genuine desire to understand and engage with the speaker’s thoughts.

Leaders who model active listening train the team to respond similarly when interacting with each other. And that creates a culture where everyone is engaged because everyone feels respected. That not only increases a sense of belonging but increases how much information is being shared between teammates—and how many different ideas are being generated when problem solving.

Creating a sense of belonging within a team is essential for its success and productivity. By taking the actions discussed in this article, such as sharing information openly, sharing credit widely, creating rituals, asking for advice, and modeling active listening, you can foster a positive work environment where team members feel included, valued, and motivated. Remember, creating a sense of belonging takes time and effort, but the benefits are worth it. When team members feel a strong sense of belonging, they are more likely to be engaged, committed, and willing to go the extra mile. In other words, they’ll be better able to do their best work ever.

Image credit: Pixabay

Originally published on DavidBurkus.com on July 17, 2023

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






Next Generation Leadership Traits and Characteristics

2 Replies

Next Generation Leadership Traits and Characteristics

GUEST POST from Stefan Lindegaard

What are the traits and characteristics for a new generation of leaders, those who will shape the future in this sea of uncertainty?

To me, this is more about mindset than age. However, the mindset which I hint at below and that I believe we need more of reside well within the younger generation.

Thus, we could see a higher number of younger executives in the coming years even though they lack the leadership experience and skills that have been normal for leaders in their roles. They need to learn fast and hopefully do this while being surrounded with experiences in different ways.

I think this will be most prominent in Asia and even parts of Africa and South America where there is a stronger belief in the future compared to Europe and even the USA with its stronger sentiment of complacency as well as many overwhelming challenges.

Many current executives will of course also develop in good ways so I suggest we look for traits and characteristics in both groups such as:

  1. Holistic point of view (intrapreneurial skills)
  2. Understanding of psychological safety and the growth mindset (and ability to lead with and through this)
  3. Ability to constructively handle conflict
  4. Optimism, passion and drive
  5. Curiosity and belief in change
  6. Tolerance for / ability to deal with uncertainty
  7. Adaptive fast learner with sense of urgency
  8. Talent for networking / strategic influencing

The desired end-game? Leaders who are capable of the almost super-human task of both managing day-to-day activities and shaping the future.

Get the Right People on the Bus

By shaping the future, I mean the ability to thrive with transformation/change, apply new ways of working and improve collaboration capabilities while pursing new business opportunities and innovation.

Just a discussion starter. What do you think?

Image Credit: Pexels, Stefan Lindegaard

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