Category Archives: Innovation

The Runaway Innovation Train

1 Reply

The Runaway Innovation Train

GUEST POST from Pete Foley

In this blog, I return and expand on a paradox that has concerned me for some time.    Are we getting too good at innovation, and is it in danger of getting out of control?   That may seem like a strange question for an innovator to ask.  But innovation has always been a two edged sword.  It brings huge benefits, but also commensurate risks. 

Ostensibly, change is good. Because of technology, today we mostly live more comfortable lives, and enjoy superior health, longevity, and mostly increased leisure and abundance compared to our ancestors.

Exponential Innovation Growth:  The pace of innovation is accelerating. It may not exactly mirror Moore’s Law, and of course, innovation is much harder to quantify than transistors. But the general trend in innovation and change approximates exponential growth. The human stone-age lasted about 300,000 years before ending in about 3,000 BC with the advent of metalworking.  The culture of the Egyptian Pharos lasted 30 centuries.  It was certainly not without innovations, but by modern standards, things changed very slowly. My mum recently turned 98 years young, and the pace of change she has seen in her lifetime is staggering by comparison to the past.  Literally from horse and carts delivering milk when she was a child in poor SE London, to todays world of self driving cars and exploring our solar system and beyond.  And with AI, quantum computing, fusion, gene manipulation, manned interplanetary spaceflight, and even advanced behavior manipulation all jockeying for position in the current innovation race, it seems highly likely that those living today will see even more dramatic change than my mum experienced.  

The Dark Side of Innovation: While accelerated innovation is probably beneficial overall, it is not without its costs. For starters, while humans are natural innovators, we are also paradoxically change averse.  Our brains are configured to manage more of our daily lives around habits and familiar behaviors than new experiences.  It simply takes more mental effort to manage new stuff than familiar stuff.  As a result we like some change, but not too much, or we become stressed.  At least some of the burgeoning mental health crisis we face today is probably attributable the difficulty we have adapting to so much rapid change and new technology on multiple fronts.

Nefarious Innovation:  And of course, new technology can be used for nefarious as well as noble purpose. We can now kill our fellow humans far more efficiently, and remotely than our ancestors dreamed of.  The internet gives us unprecedented access to both information and connectivity, but is also a source of misinformation and manipulation.  

The Abundance Dichotomy:  Innovation increases abundance, but it’s arguable if that actually makes us happier.  It gives us more, but paradoxically brings greater inequalities in distribution of the ‘wealth’ it creates. Behavior science has shown us consistently that humans make far more relative than absolute judgments.  Being better off than our ancestors actually doesn’t do much for us.  Instead we are far more interested in being better off than our peers, neighbors or the people we compare ourselves to on Instagram. And therein lies yet another challenge. Social media means we now compare ourselves to far more people than past generations, meaning that the standards we judge ourselves against are higher than ever before.     

Side effects and Unintended Consequences: Side effects and unintended consequences are perhaps the most difficult challenge we face with innovation. As the pace of innovation accelerates, so does the build up of side effects, and problematically, these often lag our initial innovations. All too often, we only become aware of them when they have already become a significant problem. Climate change is of course a poster child for this, as a huge unanticipated consequence of the industrial revolution. The same applies to pollution.  But as innovation accelerates, the unintended consequences it brings are also stacking up.  The first generations of ‘digital natives’ are facing unprecedented mental health challenges.  Diseases are becoming resistant to antibiotics, while population density is leading increased rate of new disease emergence. Agricultural efficiency has created monocultures that are inherently more fragile than the more diverse supply chain of the past.  Longevity is putting enormous pressure on healthcare.

The More we Innovate, the less we understand:  And last, but not least, as innovation accelerates, we understand less about what we are creating. Technology becomes unfathomably complex, and requires increasing specialization, which means few if any really understand the holistic picture.  Today we are largely going full speed ahead with AI, quantum computing, genetic engineering, and more subtle, but equally perilous experiments in behavioral and social manipulation.  But we are doing so with increasingly less pervasive understanding of direct, let alone unintended consequences of these complex changes!   

The Runaway Innovation Train:  So should we back off and slow down?  Is it time to pump the brakes? It’s an odd question for an innovator, but it’s likely a moot point anyway. The reality is that we probably cannot slow down, even if we want to.  Innovation is largely a self-propagating chain reaction. All innovators stand on the shoulders of giants. Every generation builds on past discoveries, and often this growing knowledge base inevitably leads to multiple further innovations.  The connectivity and information access of internet alone is driving today’s unprecedented innovation, and AI and quantum computing will only accelerate this further.  History is compelling on this point. Stone-age innovation was slow not because our ancestors lacked intelligence.  To the best of our knowledge, they were neurologically the same as us.  But they lacked the cumulative knowledge, and the network to access it that we now enjoy.   Even the smartest of us cannot go from inventing flint-knapping to quantum mechanics in a single generation. But, back to ‘standing on the shoulder of giants’, we can build on cumulative knowledge assembled by those who went before us to continuously improve.  And as that cumulative knowledge grows, more and more tools and resources become available, multiple insights emerge, and we create what amounts to a chain reaction of innovations.  But the trouble with chain reactions is that they can be very hard to control.    

Simultaneous Innovation: Perhaps the most compelling support for this inevitability of innovation lies in the pervasiveness of simultaneous innovation.   How does human culture exist for 50,000 years or more and then ‘suddenly’ two people, Darwin and Wallace come up with the theory of evolution independently and simultaneously?  The same question for calculus (Newton and Leibniz), or the precarious proliferation of nuclear weapons and other assorted weapons of mass destruction.  It’s not coincidence, but simply reflects that once all of the pieces of a puzzle are in place, somebody, and more likely, multiple people will inevitably make connections and see the next step in the innovation chain. 

But as innovation expands like a conquering army on multiple fronts, more and more puzzle pieces become available, and more puzzles are solved.  But unfortunately associated side effects and unanticipated consequences also build up, and my concern is that they can potentially overwhelm us. And this is compounded because often, as in the case of climate change, dealing with side effects can be more demanding than the original innovation. And because they can be slow to emerge, they are often deeply rooted before we become aware of them. As we look forward, just taking AI as an example, we can already somewhat anticipate some worrying possibilities. But what about the surprises analogous to climate change that we haven’t even thought of yet? I find that a sobering thought that we are attempting to create consciousness, but despite the efforts of numerous Nobel laureates over decades, we still have to idea what consciousness is. It’s called the ‘hard problem’ for good reason.  

Stop the World, I Want to Get Off: So why not slow down? There are precedents, in the form of nuclear arms treaties, and a variety of ethically based constraints on scientific exploration.  But regulations require everybody to agree and comply. Very big, expensive and expansive innovations are relatively easy to police. North Korea and Iran notwithstanding, there are fortunately not too many countries building nuclear capability, at least not yet. But a lot of emerging technology has the potential to require far less physical and financial infrastructure.  Cyber crime, gene manipulation, crypto and many others can be carried out with smaller, more distributed resources, which are far more difficult to police.  Even AI, which takes considerable resources to initially create, opens numerous doors for misuse that requires far less resource. 

The Atomic Weapons Conundrum.  The challenge with getting bad actors to agree on regulation and constraint is painfully illustrated by the atomic bomb.  The discovery of fission by Strassman and Hahn in the late 1930’s made the bomb inevitable. This set the stage for a race to turn theory into practice between the Allies and Nazi Germany. The Nazis were bad actor, so realistically our only option was to win the race.  We did, but at enormous cost. Once the ‘cat was out of the bag, we faced a terrible choice; create nuclear weapons, and the horror they represent, or chose to legislate against them, but in so doing, cede that terrible power to the Nazi’s?  Not an enviable choice.

Cumulative Knowledge.  Today we face similar conundrums on multiple fronts. Cumulative knowledge will make it extremely difficult not to advance multiple, potentially perilous technologies.  Countries who legislate against it risk either pushing it underground, or falling behind and deferring to others. The recent open letter from Meta to the EU chastising it for the potential economic impacts of its AI regulations may have dripped with self-interest.  But that didn’t make it wrong.   https://euneedsai.com/  Even if the EU slows down AI development, the pieces of the puzzle are already in place.  Big corporations, and less conservative countries will still pursue the upside, and risk the downside. The cat is very much out of the bag.

Muddling Through:  The good news is that when faced with potentially perilous change in the past, we’ve muddled through.  Hopefully we will do so again.   We’ve avoided a nuclear holocaust, at least for now.  Social media has destabilized our social order, but hasn’t destroyed it, yet.  We’ve been through a pandemic, and come out of it, not unscathed, but still functioning.  We are making progress in dealing with climate change, and have made enormous strides in managing pollution.

Chain Reactions:  But the innovation chain reaction, and the impact of cumulative knowledge mean that the rate of change will, in the absence of catastrophe, inevitably continue to accelerate. And as it does, so will side effects, nefarious use, mistakes and any unintended consequences that derive from it. Key factors that have helped us in the past are time and resource, but as waves of innovation increase in both frequency and intensity, both are likely to be increasingly squeezed.   

What can, or should we do? I certainly don’t have simple answers. We’re all pretty good, although by definition, far from perfect at scenario planning and trouble shooting for our individual innovations.  But the size and complexity of massive waves of innovation, such as AI, are obviously far more challenging.  No individual, or group can realistically either understand or own all of the implications. But perhaps we as an innovation community should put more collective resources against trying? We’ll never anticipate everything, and we’ll still get blindsided.  And putting resources against ‘what if’ scenarios is always a hard sell. But maybe we need to go into sales mode. 

Can the Problem Become the Solution? Encouragingly, the same emerging technology that creates potential issues could also help us.  AI and quantum computing will give us almost infinite capacity for computation and modeling.  Could we collectively assign more of that emerging resource against predicting and managing it’s own risks?

With many emerging technologies, we are now where we were in the 1900’s with climate change.  We are implementing massive, unpredictable change, and by definition have no idea what the unanticipated consequences of that will be. I personally think we’ll deal with climate change.  It’s difficult to slow a leviathan that’s been building for over a hundred years.  But we’ve taken the important first steps in acknowledging the problem, and are beginning to implement corrective action. 

But big issues require big solutions.  Long-term, I personally believe the most important thing for humanity to escape the gravity well.   Given the scale of our ability to curate global change, interplanetary colonization is not a luxury, but an essential.  Climate change is a shot across the bow with respect to how fragile our planet is, and how big our (unintended) influence can be.  We will hopefully manage that, and avoid nuclear war or synthetic pandemics for long enough to achieve it.  But ultimately, humanity needs the insurance dispersed planetary colonization will provide.  

Image credits: 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.

Why Modifying This One Question Changes Everything

1 Reply

Why Modifying This One Question Changes Everything

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

You know that asking questions is essential.  After all, when you’re innovating, you’re doing something new, which means you’re learning, and the best way to learn is by asking questions.  You also know that asking genuine questions, rather than rhetorical or weaponized ones, is critical to building a culture of curiosity, exploration, and smart risk-taking.  But did you know that making a small change to a single question can radically change everything for your innovation strategy, process, and portfolio?

What is your hypothesis?

Before Lean Startup, there was Discovery-Driven Planning.  This approach, first proposed by Columbia Business School professor Rita McGrath and Wharton School professor Ian MacMillan in their 1995 HBR article, outlines a “planning” approach that acknowledges and embraces assumptions (instead of pretending that they’re facts) and relentlessly tests them to uncover new data and inform and update the plan.

It’s the scientific method applied to business.

How confident are you?

However, not all assumptions or hypotheses are created equal.  This was the assertion in the 2010 HBR article “Beating the Odds When You Launch a New Venture.”  Using examples from Netflix, Johnson & Johnson, and a host of other large enterprises and scrappy startups, the authors encourage innovators to ask two questions about their assumptions:

  1. How confident am I that this assumption is true?
  2. What is the (negative) impact on the idea if the assumption is false?

By asking these two questions of every assumption, the innovator sorts assumptions into three categories:

  1. Deal Killers: Assumptions that, if left untested, threaten the idea’s entire existence
  2. Path-dependent risks: Assumptions that impact the strategic underpinnings of the idea and cost significant time and money to resolve
  3. High ROI risks: Assumptions that can be quickly and easily tested but don’t have a significant impact on the idea’s strategy or viability

However, human beings have a long and inglorious history of overconfidence.  This well-established bias in which our confidence in our judgment exceeds the objective (data-based) accuracy of those judgments resulted in disasters like Chernobyl, the sinking of the Titanic, the explosions of the Space Shuttle Challenger and Discovery, and the Titan submersible explosion.

Let’s not add your innovation to that list.

How much of your money are you willing to bet?

For years, I’ve worked with executives and their teams to adopt Discovery-Driven Planning and focus their earliest efforts on testing Deal Killer assumptions. I was always struck by how confident everyone was and rather dubious when they reported that they had no Deal Killer assumptions.

So, I changed the question.

Instead of asking how confident they were, I asked how much they would bet. Then I made it personal—high confidence meant you were willing to bet your annual income, medium confidence meant dinner for the team at a Michelin-starred restaurant, and low confidence meant a cup of coffee.

Suddenly, people weren’t quite so confident, and there were A LOT of Deal Killers to test.

Make it Personal

It’s easy to become complacent in companies.  You don’t get paid more if you come in under budget, and you don’t get fired if you overspend.  Your budget is a rounding error in the context of all the money available to the company.  And your signing authority is probably a rounding error on the rounding error that is your budget.  So why worry about ten grand here and a hundred grand there?

Because neither you, your team, nor your innovation efforts have the luxury of complacency.

Innovation is always under scrutiny.  People expect you to generate results with a fraction of the resources in record time.  If you don’t, you, your team, and your budget are the first to be cut.

The business of innovation is personal.  Treat it that way. 

How much of your time, money, and reputation are you willing to risk?  What do you need your team to risk in terms of their time, money, and professional aspirations?  How much time, money, and reputation are your stakeholders willing to risk?

The answers change everything.

Image credit: 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.

Triggering Radical Transformational Change

Leave a reply

Triggering Radical Transformational Change

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

There’s an old adage that says we should never let a crisis go to waste. The point is that during a crisis there is a visceral sense of urgency and resistance often falls by the wayside. We certainly saw that during the COVID-19 pandemic. Digital technologies such as video conferencing, online grocery and tele-health have gone from fringe to mainstream in record time.

Seasoned leaders learn how to make good use of a crisis. Consider Bill Gates and his ‘Internet Tidal Wave‘ memo, which leveraged what could have been a mortal threat to Microsoft into a springboard to even greater dominance. Or how Steve Jobs used Apple’s near-death experience to reshape the ailing company into a powerhouse.

But what if we could prepare for a trigger before it happens? The truth is that indications of trouble are often clear long before the crisis arrives. Clearly, there were a number of warning signs that a pandemic was possible, if not likely. As every good leader knows, there’s never a shortage of looming threats. If we learn to plan ahead, we can make a crisis work for us.

The Plan Hatched in a Belgrade Cafe

In the fall of 1998, five young activists met in a coffee shop in Belgrade, Serbia. Although still in their twenties, they were already grizzled veterans. In 1992, they took part in student protests against the war in Bosnia. In 1996, they helped organize a series of rallies in response to Slobodan Milošević’s attempt to steal local elections.

To date, their results were decidedly mixed. The student protests were fun, but when the semester ended, everyone went home for the summer and that was the end of that. The 1996 protests were more successful, overturning the fraudulent results, but the opposition coalition, called “Zajedno,” soon devolved into infighting.

So they met in the coffee shop to discuss their options for the upcoming presidential election to be held in 2000. They knew from experience that they could organize rallies effectively and get people to the polls. They also knew that when they got people to the polls and won, Milošević would use his power and position to steal the election.

That would be their trigger.

The next day, six friends joined them and they called their new organization Otpor. Things began slowly, with mostly street theatre and pranks, but within 2 years their ranks had swelled to more than 70,000. When Milošević tried to steal the election they were ready and what is now known as the Bulldozer Revolution erupted.

The Serbian strongman was forced to concede. The next year, Milošević would be arrested and sent to The Hague for his crimes against humanity. He would die in his prison cell in 1996, awaiting trial.

Opportunity From the Ashes

In 2014, in the wake of the Euromaidan protests that swept the thoroughly corrupt autocrat Viktor Yanukovych from power, Ukraine was in shambles. Having been looted of roughly $100 billion (roughly the amount of the country’s entire GDP) and invaded by Russia, things looked bleak. Without western aid, the proud nation’s very survival was in doubt.

Yet for Vitaliy Shabunin and the Anti-Corruption Action Center, it was a moment he had been waiting for. He established the organization with his friend Dasha Kaleniuk a few years earlier. Since then they, along with a small staff, had been working with international NGOs to document corruption and develop effective legislation to fight it.

With Ukraine’s history of endemic graft, which had greatly worsened under Yanukovych, progress had been negligible. Yet now, with the IMF and other international institutions demanding reform, Shabunin and Kaleniuk were instantly in demand to advise the government on instituting a comprehensive anti-corruption program, which passed in record time.

Yet they didn’t stop there either. “Our long-term strategy is to create a situation in which it will be impossible not to do anti-corruption reforms,” Shabunin would later tell me. “We are working to ensure that these reforms will be done, either by these politicians or by another, because they will lose their office if they don’t do these reforms.”

Vitaliy, Dasha and the Anti-Corruption Action Center continue to prepare for future triggers.

The Genius of Xerox PARC

One story that Silicon Valley folks love to tell involves Steve Jobs and Xerox. After the copier giant made an investment in Apple, which was then a fledgling company, it gave Jobs access to its Palo Alto Research Center (PARC). He then used the technology he saw there to create the Macintosh. Jobs built an empire based on Xerox’s oversight.

Yet the story misses the point. By the late 60s, its Xerox CEO Peter McColough knew that the copier business, while still incredibly profitable, was bound to be disrupted eventually. At the same time it was becoming clear that computer technology was advancing quickly and, someday, would revolutionize how we worked. PARC was created to prepare for that trigger.

The number of groundbreaking technologies created at PARC is astounding. The graphical user interface, networked computing, object oriented programing, the list goes on. Virtually everything that we came to know as “personal computing” had its roots in the work done at PARC in the 1970s.

Most of all, PARC saved Xerox. The laser printer invented there would bring in billions and, eventually, largely replace the copier business. Some technologies were spun off into new companies, such as Adobe and 3Com, with an equity stake going to Xerox. And, of course, the company even made a tidy profit off the Macintosh, because of the equity stake that gave Jobs access to the technology in the first place.

Transforming an Obstacle Into a Design Constraint

The hardest thing about change is that, typically, most people don’t want it. If they did, it have already been accepted as the normal state of affairs. That can make transformation a lonely business. The status quo has inertia on its side and never yields its power gracefully. The path for an aspiring changemaker can be heartbreaking and soul crushing.

Many would see the near-certainty that Milosevic would try to steal the election as an excuse to do nothing. Most people would look at the almost impossibly corrupt Yanukovych regime and see the idea of devoting your life to anti-corruption reforms as quixotic folly. It is extremely rare for a CEO whose firm dominates an industry to ask, “What comes after?”

Yet anything can happen and often does. Circumstances conspire. Events converge. Round-hole businesses meet their square-peg world. We can’t predict exactly when or where or how or what will happen, but we know that everybody and everything gets disrupted eventually. It’s all just a matter of time.

When that happens resistance to change temporarily abates. So there’s lots to do and no time to waste. We need to empower our allies, as well as listen to our adversaries. We need to build out a network to connect to others who are sympathetic to our cause. Transformational change is always driven by small groups, loosely connected, but united by a common purpose.

Most of all, we need to prepare. A trigger always comes and, when it does, it brings great opportunity with it.

— 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.






Innovation or Not – The Microdosing Revolution

Leave a reply

Innovation or Not - The Microdosing Revolution

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

In recent years, the concept of microdosing has moved from the fringes of alternative therapy into the mainstream as a potential tool for enhancing mental performance and wellness. But is microdosing truly an innovation, or is it a passing trend destined for the annals of speculative practices? Through examining its revolutionary potential and analyzing its impact in real-world scenarios, we can better understand the role microdosing plays in our continuous pursuit of human-centered innovation.

Understanding Microdosing

Microdosing typically involves taking sub-perceptual doses of psychedelics, like LSD or psilocybin, approximately one-tenth of a recreational dose, to experience the potential therapeutic benefits without hallucinogenic effects. Advocates claim it can boost creativity, alleviate anxiety, and improve focus, leading to its rising popularity among entrepreneurs, artists, and the tech-savvy.

Case Study 1: Microdosing in Silicon Valley

In the competitive landscape of Silicon Valley, professionals are constantly seeking a competitive edge to enhance productivity and creativity. The tech hub has notably become a breeding ground for experimentation with microdosing. Tech workers claim the practice helps them to sustain high levels of innovation and problem-solving abilities in an environment where mental agility is highly prized.

For instance, a significant number of software developers and startup founders have reported that microdosing has supported cognitive function and stress reduction, leading to improved workplace performance and job satisfaction. Companies have begun embracing wellness practices, subtly endorsing microdosing as part of a broader strategy to cultivate employee well-being and foster an innovative work culture.

Case Study 2: Microdosing in Mental Health Treatment

Beyond corporate environments, microdosing has gained attention as a potential revolutionary approach in mental health treatment. Psychedelics-assisted therapy research has opened up dialogues about microdosing’s efficacy as a treatment for mood disorders and PTSD. Leading institutions are exploring the controlled use of microdoses as an adjunct to traditional therapies.

A pilot study conducted at a renowned university evaluated the impact of psilocybin microdosing on patients with treatment-resistant depression. Preliminary findings suggest a marked improvement in mood stabilization and cognitive flexibility among participants, renewing hope for alternative approaches in mental health treatment. This study has prompted further research and dialogue within the medical community, transforming discussions around treatment paradigms.

Case Study 3: Brez Beverages – Microdosing in the Consumer Market

Brez Beverages, a pioneering player in the beverage industry, has embraced the microdosing revolution by developing a line of drinks infused with adaptogenic and nootropic compounds. Their products aim to provide consumers with the benefits of microdosing in a more accessible and socially acceptable format.

Brez Beverages

The innovative approach of Brez Beverages lies in their ability to tap into the growing desire for wellness-centric consumer products. By integrating microdosed elements into beverages, they offer a unique alternative for individuals seeking mental clarity and stress reduction without committing to psychedelic substances. Brez Beverages represents a shift in how microdosing concepts can be commercialized and introduced to mainstream consumers.

Market feedback indicates a burgeoning interest among health-conscious customers who are drawn to the idea of enhancing their daily lives with subtle botanical blends, thus carving a new niche in the health and wellness sector. Brez continues to capitalize on the demand for unconventional health solutions, reflecting both the challenge and potential of integrating microdosing into consumer products.

The Verdict: Innovation or Not?

Whether microdosing is labeled as an innovation largely depends on one’s perspective. On one hand, it presents a novel application of existing compounds, showcasing unconventional problem-solving in enhancing human potential—an experimental departure from typical wellness and therapeutic practices. On the other hand, its lack of universal acceptance and scientific consensus makes it a contentious archetype of modern self-experimentation rather than unmistakable innovation.

In conclusion, microdosing embodies the dynamic nature of innovation—provocative yet promising. As we push the boundaries of what’s possible in the human experience, microdosing remains an emblem of the desire to enhance and evolve our capabilities. Whether it stands the test of time will depend on ongoing research, legal structures, and societal acceptance, but it undoubtedly shapes the current discourse on potential pathways for human-centered transformation.

Image credit: DrinkBrez.com, Pexels

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






Top 10 Human-Centered Change & Innovation Articles of September 2024

Leave a reply

Top 10 Human-Centered Change & Innovation Articles of September 2024Drum roll please…

At the beginning of each month, we will profile the ten articles from the previous month that generated the most traffic to Human-Centered Change & Innovation. Did your favorite make the cut?

But enough delay, here are September’s ten most popular innovation posts:

  1. Three Reasons Nobody Cares About Your Ideas — by Greg Satell
  2. Six Key Habits of Great Leaders — by David Burkus
  3. Are You Leading in the Wrong Zone? — by Geoffrey A. Moore
  4. Projects Don’t Go All Right or All Wrong — by Howard Tiersky
  5. How to Cultivate Respect as a Leader — by David Burkus
  6. What is Your Mindset? Fixed, Growth or Hybrid? — by Stefan Lindegaard
  7. Embracing Failure is a Catalyst for Learning and Innovation — by Stefan Lindegaard
  8. ISO Innovation Standards — by Robyn Bolton
  9. The Hidden Cost of Waiting — by Mike Shipulski
  10. AI Requires Conversational Intelligence — by Greg Satell

BONUS – Here are five more strong articles published in August that continue to resonate with people:

If you’re not familiar with Human-Centered Change & Innovation, we publish 4-7 new articles every week built around innovation and transformation insights from our roster of contributing authors and ad hoc submissions from community members. Get the articles right in your Facebook, Twitter or Linkedin feeds too!

SPECIAL BONUS – THREE DAYS ONLY: From now until 11:59PM ET you can get either the eBook or the hardcover version of the SECOND EDITION of my latest bestselling book Charting Change for 50% OFF using code FLSH50. This deal won’t last long, so grab your copy while supplies last!

Accelerate your change and transformation success

Have something to contribute?

Human-Centered Change & Innovation is open to contributions from any and all innovation and transformation professionals out there (practitioners, professors, researchers, consultants, authors, etc.) who have valuable human-centered change and innovation insights to share with everyone for the greater good. If you’d like to contribute, please contact me.

P.S. Here are our Top 40 Innovation Bloggers lists from the last four years:

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






Who is More Creative – Women or Men?

Leave a reply

753 Studies Have the Answer

Who is More Creative – Women or Men?

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

You were born creative. As an infant, you had to figure many things out—how to get fed or changed, get help or attention, and make a onesie covered in spit-up still look adorable.  As you grew older, your creativity grew, too.  You drew pictures, wrote stories, played dress-up, and acted out imaginary stories.

Then you went to school, and it was time to be serious.  Suddenly, creativity had a time and place.  It became an elective or a hobby.  Something you did just enough of to be “well-rounded” but not so much that you would be judged irresponsible or impractical.

When you entered the “real world,” your job determined whether you were creative.  Advertising, design, marketing, innovation?  Creative.  Business, medicine, law, engineering?  Not creative.

As if Job-title-a-determinant-of-creativity wasn’t silly enough, in 2022, a paper was published in the Journal of Applied Psychology that declared that, based on a meta-analysis of 259 studies (n=79,915), there is a “male advantage in creative performance.”

Somewhere, Don Draper, Pablo Picasso, and Norman Mailer high-fived.

But, as every good researcher (and innovator) knows, the headline is rarely the truth.  The truth is that it’s contextual and complicated, and everything from how the original studies collected data to how “creativity” was defined matters.

But that’s not what got reported.  It’s also not what people remember when they reference this study (and I have heard more than a few people invoke these findings in the three years since publication).

That is why I was happy to see Fortune report on a new study just published in the Journal of Applied Psychology. The study cites findings from a meta-analysis of 753 studies (n=265,762 individuals) that show men and women are equally creative. When “usefulness (of an idea) is explicitly incorporated in creativity assessment,” women’s creativity is “stronger.”

Somewhere, Mary Wells Lawrence, Frida Kahlo, and Virginia Woolf high-fived.

Of course, this finding is also contextual.

What makes someone “creative?”

Both studies defined creativity as “the generation of novel and useful ideas.”

However, while the first study focused on how context drives creativity, the second study looked deeper, focusing on two essential elements of creativity: risk-taking and empathy. The authors argued that risk-taking is critical to generating novel ideas, while empathy is essential to developing useful ideas.

Does gender influence creativity?

It can.  But even when it does, it doesn’t make one gender more or less creative than the other.

Given “contextual moderators” like country-level culture, industry gender composition, and role status, men tend to follow an “agentic pathway” (creativity via risk-taking), so they are more likely to generate novel ideas.

However, given the same contextual moderators, women follow a “communal pathway” (creativity via empathy), so they are more likely to generate useful ideas.

How you can use this to maximize creativity

Innovation and creativity go hand in hand. Both focus on creating something new (novel) and valuable (useful).  So, to maximize innovation within your team or organization, maximize creativity by:

  • Explicitly incorporate novelty and usefulness in assessment criteria.  If you focus only on usefulness, you’ll end up with extremely safe and incremental improvements.  If you focus only on novelty, you’ll end up with impractical and useless ideas.
  • Recruit for risk-taking and empathy.  While the manifestation of these two skills tends to fall along gender lines, don’t be sexist and assume that’s always the case.  When seeking people to join your team or your brainstorming session, find people who have demonstrated strong risk-taking or empathy-focused behaviors and invite them in.
  • Always consider the context.  Just as “contextual moderators” impact people’s creative pathways, so too does the environment you create.  If you want people to take risks, be vulnerable, and exhibit empathy, you must establish a psychologically safe environment first.  And that starts with making sure there aren’t any “tokens” (one of a “type”) in the group.

Which brings us back to the beginning.

You ARE creative.

How will you be creative today?

Image credit: 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 Need to Solve the Productivity Crisis

Leave a reply

We Need to Solve the Productivity Crisis

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

When politicians and pundits talk about the economy, they usually do so in terms of numbers. Unemployment is too high or GDP is too low. Inflation should be at this level or at that. You get the feeling that somebody somewhere is turning knobs and flicking levers in order to get the machine humming at just the right speed.

Yet the economy is really about our well being. It is, at its core, our capacity to produce goods and services that we want and need, such as the food that sustains us, the homes that shelter us and the medicines that cure us, not to mention all of the little niceties and guilty pleasures that we love to enjoy.

Our capacity to generate these things is determined by our productive capacity. Despite all the hype about digital technology creating a “new economy,” productivity growth for the past 50 years has been tremendously sluggish. If we are going to revive it and improve our lives we need to renew our commitment to scientific capital, human capital and free markets.

Restoring Scientific Capital

In 1945, Vannevar Bush, delivered a report, Science, The Endless Frontier, that argued that the US government needed to invest in “scientific capital” and through basic research and scientific education. It would set in motion a number of programs that would set the stage for America’s technological dominance during the second half of the century.

Bush’s report led to the development of America’s scientific infrastructure, including agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institutes of Health (NIH) and DARPA. Others, such as the National Labs and science programs at the Department of Agriculture, also contribute significantly to our scientific capital.

The results speak for themselves and returns on public research investment have been shown to surpass those in private industry. To take just one example, it has been estimated that the $3.8 billion invested in the Human Genome Project resulted in nearly $800 billion in economic impact and created over 300,000 jobs in just the first decade.

Unfortunately, we forgot those lessons. Government investment in research as a percentage of GDP has been declining for decades, limiting our ability to produce the kinds of breakthrough discoveries that lead to exciting new industries. What passes for innovation these days displaces workers, but does not lead to significant productivity gains.

So the first step to solving the productivity puzzle would be to renew our commitment to investing in the type of scientific knowledge that, as Bush put it, can “turn the wheels of private and public enterprise.” There was a bill before congress to do exactly that, but unfortunately it got bogged down in the Senate due to infighting.

Investing In Human Capital

Innovation, at its core, is something that people do, which is why education was every bit as important to Bush’s vision as investment was. “If ability, and not the circumstance of family fortune, is made to determine who shall receive higher education in science, then we shall be assured of constantly improving quality at every level of scientific activity,” he wrote.

Programs like the GI Bill delivered on that promise. We made what is perhaps the biggest investment ever in human capital, sending millions to college and creating a new middle class. American universities, considered far behind their European counterparts earlier in the century, especially in the sciences, came to be seen as the best in the world by far.

Today, however, things have gone horribly wrong. A recent study found that about half of all college students struggle with food insecurity, which is probably why only 60% of students at 4-year institutions and even less at community colleges ever earn a degree. The ones that do graduate are saddled with decades of debt

So the bright young people who we don’t starve we are condemning to decades of what is essentially indentured servitude. That’s no way to run an entrepreneurial economy. In fact, a study done by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia found that student debt has a measurable negative impact on new business creation.

Recommitting Ourselves To Free and Competitive Markets

There is no principle more basic to capitalism than that of free markets, which provide the “invisible hand” to efficiently allocate resources. When market signals get corrupted, we get less of what we need and more of what we don’t. Without vigorous competition, firms feel less of a need to invest and innovate, and become less productive.

There is abundant evidence that is exactly what has happened. Since the late 1970s antitrust enforcement has become lax, ushering in a new gilded age. While digital technology was hyped as a democratizing force, over 75% of industries have seen a rise in concentration levels since the late 1990s, which has led to a decline in business dynamism.

The problem isn’t just monopoly power dominating consumers, either, but also monopsony, or domination of suppliers by buyers, especially in labor markets. There is increasing evidence of collusion among employers designed to keep wages low, while an astonishing abuse of non-compete agreements that have affected more than a third of the workforce.

In a sense, this is nothing new. Adam Smith himself observed in The Wealth of Nations that “Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.”

Getting Back On Track

In the final analysis, solving the productivity puzzle shouldn’t be that complicated. It seems that everything we need to do we’ve done before. We built a scientific architecture that remains unparalleled even today. We led the world in educating our people. American markets were the most competitive on the planet.

Yet somewhere we lost our way. Beginning in the early 1970s, we started reducing our investment in scientific research and public education. In the early 1980s, the Chicago school of competition law started to gain traction and antitrust enforcement began to wane. Since 2000, competitive markets in the United States have been in serious decline.

None of this was inevitable. We made choices and those choices had consequences. We can make other ones. We can choose to invest in discovering new knowledge, educate our children without impoverishing them, to demand our industries compete and hold our institutions to account. We’ve done these things before and can do so again.

All that’s left is the will and the understanding that the economy doesn’t exist in the financial press, on the floor of the stock markets or in the boardrooms of large corporations, but in our own welfare as well as in our ability to actualize our potential and realize our dreams. Our economy should be there to serve our needs, not the other way around.

— 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.






Are You Continuing to Stop and Start the Hard Way?

1 Reply

Are You Continuing to Stop and Start the Hard Way?

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

The stop, start, continue method (SSC) is a simple, yet powerful, way to plan your day, week and year. And though it’s simple, it’s not simplistic. And though it looks straightforward, it’s onion-like in its layers.

Stop, start, continue (SSC) is interesting in that it’s forward-looking, present-looking, and rearward-looking at the same time. And its power comes from the requirement that the three time perspectives must be reconciled with each other. Stopping is easy, but what will start? Starting is easy, unless nothing is stopped. Continuing is easy, but it’s not the right thing if the rules have changed. And starting can’t start if everything continues.

Stop. With SSC, stopping is the most important part. That’s why it’s first in the sequence. When everyone’s plates are full and every meeting is an all-you-can-eat buffet, without stopping, all the new action items slathered on top simply slip off the plate and fall to the floor. And this is double trouble because while it’s clear new action items are assigned, there’s no admission that the carpet is soiled with all those recently added action items.

Here’s a rule: If you don’t stop, you can’t start.
And here’s another: Pros stop, and rookies start.

With continuous improvement, you should stop what didn’t work. But with innovation, you should stop what was successful. Let others fan the flames of success while you invent the new thing that will start a bigger blaze.

Start. With SSC, starting is the easy part, but it shouldn’t be. Resources are finite, but we conveniently ignore this reality so we can start starting. The trouble with starting is that no one wants to let go of continuing. Do everything you did last year and start three new initiatives. Continue with your current role, but start doing the new job so you can get the promotion in three years.

Here’s a rule: Starting must come at the expense of continuing.
And here’s another: Pros do stop, start, continue, and rookies do start, start, start.

Continue. With SSC, continue is underrated. If you’re always starting, it’s because you have nothing good to continue. And if you’ve got a lot of continuing to do, it’s because you’ve got a lot of good things going on. And continuing is efficient because you’re not doing something for the first time. And everyone knows how to do the work and it goes smoothly.

But there’s a dark side to continue – it’s called the status quo. The status quo is a powerful, one-trick pony that only knows how to continue. It hates stopping and blocks all starting. Continuing is the mortal enemy of innovation.

Here’s a rule: Continuing must stop, or starting can’t start.
And here’s another: Pros continue and stop before they start, and rookies start.

SSC is like juggling three balls at once. Just as it’s not juggling unless it’s three balls at the same time, it’s not SSC unless it’s stop, start, continue all done at the same time. And just as juggling two balls at once isn’t juggling, it’s not SSC if it’s just two out of the three. And just as dropping two of the three balls on the floor isn’t juggling, it’s not SSC if it’s starting, starting, starting.

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.






Igniting Innovation with Deep Dialogue

Leave a reply

Igniting Innovation with Deep Dialogue

GUEST POST from Janet Sernack

I have just returned from a short sabbatical in Bali, Indonesia, a place of unparalleled beauty, lushness, and deep spirituality. Bali invites and fosters opportunities for retreat, reflection, and replenishment and is a vital space for restoration and renewal. As you may know, a sabbatical is an extended period away from work for study, travel, or personal growth. In my case, it was in response to an invitation to attend a deep dialogue session that included high-level leaders from many countries and sectors of society across the Asia Pacific region.  This entailed days spent in deep listening and inquiring processes involving quietening the mind, accessing the heart and respecting the body within a unique environment. It supported people through their change fatigue, unleashed their emotional energy, and sparked collective intelligence to emerge hopefulness, unity, faith, and possibility in the future of humanity.

It allowed people to emerge, diverge, and converge their positive and creative change choices to transform their worlds.

What is deep dialogue?

Dialogue can be defined as “a sustained collective inquiry into the processes, assumptions, and certainties that structure everyday experience”. The word “dialogue” originates from two Greek roots, ‘dia’ and ‘logos’ suggesting “meaning flowing through.”

It’s important to understand that dialogue is not the same as the often unproductive and mechanistic debates we are familiar with. Deep dialogue is a sustained collective inquiry that sparks collective intelligence through a facilitated process that delves into the values, needs, beliefs, thoughts, feelings, assumptions and certainties that shape our everyday experiences, feelings and thoughts about the future.

Deep dialogue is not just a creative conversation; it involves strategic, collective and insightful inquiry, detached observation, attention and intention, and multi-faceted listening processes.

It requires a willingness to suspend and let go of reactive and defensive exchanges and delve into their systemic causes. It helps to spark people’s collective intelligence to create moments of clarity in resolving complex and critical problems creatively and differently.

In contrast with more familiar modes of inquiry, deep dialogue involves an emergence process. It begins without an agenda and a ‘leader’ but with an accomplished facilitator and without a specific task or decision to make.

One key element in fostering productive dialogue is the role of the facilitator. The facilitator’s task is to co-create a collective holding space that encourages participants to disrupt and safely challenge their habitual thinking processes. This approach is based on the understanding that our problems cannot be solved using the same thinking that created them.

Knowing that we can’t keep on producing the results we want.

Deep dialogue evokes collective intelligence, opening new possibilities for shared thinking and fostering a sense of authenticity, unity and shared purpose in any endeavour.

What are the barriers that often hinder deep and meaningful dialogue?

The constant, relentless impact of accelerating change, disruption, and uncertainty, as well as the ongoing impact of our post-COVID isolation and people’s lack of belonging, never allows or permits us the key moments that enable us to engage in and reap the benefits that deep dialogue offers.

This lack of belonging and isolation are significant barriers to meaningful dialogue that evoke the positive changes we seek in our personal and professional lives.

As a seasoned corporate trainer, facilitator, coach, and consultant, I have observed that many people unconsciously still suffer from emotional overwhelm, causing them to lose their ‘spark’ or emotional energy. They also unconsciously suffer from cognitive overload, with little mental or thinking space to explore the impact of their thoughts and feelings on who they are, which diminishes any positivity, hope, and optimism for themselves, their teams, and organisations today and in the future.

Alternately, it is much easier and more comfortable for some people to be unconsciously reactive, defensive, and singularly focused, never developing their pause power.

By avoiding taking any personal responsibility or being accountable for interrupting their busyness and shifting their inner being, and developing the deliberate calm required to be, think, and act differently in the face of any instability, insecurity, sorrow, or unwellness, they may be experiencing in their hearts and minds.

Upon arrival, I discovered I was also unconsciously doing this despite my regular wellness routine and habits.

During the three-day process, I was encouraged to pay attention and notice how energetically, emotionally, and physically exhausted I felt and how my mind had been kidnapped and overloaded by my unconscious fears and anxiety over the state of the world.

Like many others, I had also unconsciously been wilfully pushing myself as a human doing rather than as a human being.   

This left no space or safe moments for sparking moments of clarity, never mind socialising or connecting with others to spark collective intelligence and consciously effect positive change.

Why is deep dialogue critical in today’s uncertain and disrupted world?

Fortunately, I was supported to enter and engage in deep dialogue, which allowed our group of global leaders to safely interrupt our ‘busyness’, stop, and emerge a range of vital and subtle moments.  

To cultivate and nurture our inner awareness by retreating and reflecting through mindfulness, contemplation, meditation, and silence.  

It awakened us to become conscious of the subtle world that connects our unique cognitive and emotional inner structures of thoughts and feelings to the outer world we mostly unconsciously created and experienced. 

It was a powerful, transformative experience for every one of us.

Because when we change, the world changes.

Choosing to cross the bridge consciously

We can engage in deep dialogue when we are empowered, enabled and equipped to stop, pause, retreat, and reflect.

By being curious, compassionate, and courageous in opening our hearts, minds, and will, we can spark regeneration, replenishment, and renewal of the range of options, choices, and intentions.

We can cross the bridge, individually and collectively, to re-create or co-create a compelling, sustainable, inclusive, and equitable future for everyone.

Anyone can be proactive and evoke creative sparks collectively and collaboratively to unleash our options, choices, and intentions by being in the present and bridging the past with a desirable future.

It is foundational to creating, inventing, and innovating our futures and reclaiming our inner dignity and power over our lives.

To spark our collective intelligence, all leaders must commit to consciously using this moment to create what is possible rather than reacting and passively accepting what might appear inevitable to some of us.

Please find out more about our work at ImagineNation™.

Please find out about our collective learning products and tools, including The Coach for Innovators, Leaders, and Teams Certified Program, presented by Janet Sernack, it is a collaborative, intimate, and profoundly personalised innovation coaching and learning program supported by a global group of peers over 9-weeks, and can be customised as a bespoke corporate learning program.

It is a blended and transformational change and learning program that will give you a deep understanding of the language, principles, and applications of an ecosystem focus, human-centric approach, and emergent structure (Theory U) to innovation, and upskill people and teams and develop their future fitness, within your unique innovation context. Please find out more about our products and tools.

Image Credit: 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.

I Sent AI a Survey

Leave a reply

… and the Results Were Brilliant … and Dangerous

I sent AI a survey and the results were brilliant and dangerous

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

AI is everywhere: in our workplaces, homes, schools, art galleries, concert halls, and even neighborhood coffee shops.  We can’t seem to escape it.  Some hope it will unlock our full potential and usher in an era of creativity, prosperity, and peace. Others worry it will eventually replace us. While both outcomes are extreme, if you’ve ever used AI to conduct research with synthetic users, the idea of being “replaced” isn’t so wild.

For the past month, I’ve beta-tested an AI research tool that allows you to create surveys, specify segments of respondents, send the survey to synthetic respondents (AI-generated personas), and get results within minutes. 

Sound too good to be true?

Here are the results from my initial test:

  • 150 respondents in 3 niche segments (50 respondents each)
  • 51 questions, including ten open-ended questions requiring short prose responses
  • 1 hour to complete and generate an AI executive summary and full data set of individual responses, enabling further analysis

The Tool is Brilliant

It took just one hour to gather data that traditional survey methods require a month or more to collect, clean, and synthesize. Think of how much time you’ve spent waiting for survey results, checking interim data, and cleaning up messy responses. I certainly did and it made me cry.

The qualitative responses were on-topic, useful, and featured enough quirks to seem somewhat human.  I’m pretty sure that has never happened in the history of surveys.  Typically, respondents skip open-ended questions or use them to air unrelated opinions.

Every respondent completed the entire survey!  There is no need to look for respondents who went too quickly, chose the same option repeatedly, or abandoned the effort altogether.  You no longer need to spend hours cleaning data, weeding out partial responses, and hoping you’re left with enough that you can generate statistically significant findings.

The Results are Dangerous

When I presented the results to my client, complete with caveats about AI’s limitations and the tool’s early-stage development, they did what any reasonable person would do – they started making decisions based on the survey results.

STOP!

As humans, we want to solve problems.  In business, we are rewarded for solving problems.  So, when we see something that looks like a solution, we jump at it.

However, strategic or financially significant decisions should never rely ona single data source. They are too complex, risky, and costly.  And they definitely shouldn’t be made based on fake people’s answers to survey questions!

They’re Also Useful.

Although the synthetic respondents’ data may not be true, it is probably directionally correct because it is based on millions and maybe billions of data points.  So, while you shouldn’t make pricing decisions based on data showing that 40% of your target consumers are willing to pay a 30%+ premium for your product, it’s reasonable to believe they may be willing to pay more for your product.

The ability to field an absurdly long survey was also valuable.  My client is not unusual in their desire to ask everything they may ever need to know for fear that they won’t have another chance to gather quantitative data (and budgets being what they are, they’re usually right).  They often ignore warnings that long surveys lead to abandonment and declining response quality. With AI, we could ask all the questions and then identify the most critical ones for follow-up surveys sent to actual humans.

We Aren’t Being Replaced, We’re Being Spared

AI consumer research won’t replace humans. But it will spare us the drudgery of long surveys filled with useless questions, months of waiting for results, and weeks of data cleaning and analysis. It may just free us up to be creative and spend time with other humans.  And that is brilliant.

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.